37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 303792 |
Time | |
Date | 199505 |
Day | Sat |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : mlb |
State Reference | FL |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 1600 msl bound upper : 2000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | IMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : cof |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | cruise other descent : approach |
Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Make Model Name | Cessna 150 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | cruise other |
Route In Use | enroute : direct |
Flight Plan | VFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 210 flight time total : 14400 flight time type : 7500 |
ASRS Report | 303792 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other controllera |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance flight crew : took evasive action |
Consequence | Other |
Miss Distance | horizontal : 12000 vertical : 400 |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Weather |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
On our descent into melbourne florida airport, we were handed off to a controller at patrick AFB. Our aircraft was at 2000 ft heading sbound when the controller informed us of cessna 150 traffic at 12 O'clock and a little but lower than we were. We stated that we were 'IMC,' did not have the cessna visually, but had him on our TCASII display. (He showed up initially at 400 ft below us and dead ahead). The controller then asked us if we had the field in sight. Again, we stated that we were 'IMC' and did not have the field in sight. The controller seemed confused that we couldn't see the field! We were closing in on the cessna rapidly, (TCASII display TA) and something positive had to be done in a hurry. I turned the aircraft 90 degrees to the right and had the first officer tell the controller that our new heading was 270 degrees. We then received vectors back to the localizer course and completed our landing. Factors that contributed to the situation: controllers quick to get the crews to call the field in sight for a visual approach. Weekend flyers in small planes around civilian airports. Large speed differences between jets and propellers. Approach controllers working more than 1 radio frequency. As a final note, our TCASII system was invaluable in this instance and kept this from turning into a bad situation.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC OF AN LGT TOOK AN EVASIVE ACTION TURN FOR TCASII TFC. TA GIVEN. TFC NOT SIGHTED.
Narrative: ON OUR DSCNT INTO MELBOURNE FLORIDA ARPT, WE WERE HANDED OFF TO A CTLR AT PATRICK AFB. OUR ACFT WAS AT 2000 FT HDG SBOUND WHEN THE CTLR INFORMED US OF CESSNA 150 TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK AND A LITTLE BUT LOWER THAN WE WERE. WE STATED THAT WE WERE 'IMC,' DID NOT HAVE THE CESSNA VISUALLY, BUT HAD HIM ON OUR TCASII DISPLAY. (HE SHOWED UP INITIALLY AT 400 FT BELOW US AND DEAD AHEAD). THE CTLR THEN ASKED US IF WE HAD THE FIELD IN SIGHT. AGAIN, WE STATED THAT WE WERE 'IMC' AND DID NOT HAVE THE FIELD IN SIGHT. THE CTLR SEEMED CONFUSED THAT WE COULDN'T SEE THE FIELD! WE WERE CLOSING IN ON THE CESSNA RAPIDLY, (TCASII DISPLAY TA) AND SOMETHING POSITIVE HAD TO BE DONE IN A HURRY. I TURNED THE ACFT 90 DEGS TO THE R AND HAD THE FO TELL THE CTLR THAT OUR NEW HDG WAS 270 DEGS. WE THEN RECEIVED VECTORS BACK TO THE LOC COURSE AND COMPLETED OUR LNDG. FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SIT: CTLRS QUICK TO GET THE CREWS TO CALL THE FIELD IN SIGHT FOR A VISUAL APCH. WEEKEND FLYERS IN SMALL PLANES AROUND CIVILIAN ARPTS. LARGE SPD DIFFERENCES BTWN JETS AND PROPS. APCH CTLRS WORKING MORE THAN 1 RADIO FREQ. AS A FINAL NOTE, OUR TCASII SYS WAS INVALUABLE IN THIS INSTANCE AND KEPT THIS FROM TURNING INTO A BAD SIT.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.