Narrative:

While acting as safety pilot and assisting with communications and navigation, myself and the other pilot may have missed instructions for the direction of turn to a vectored heading of 250 degree. As informed by local FSDO: we made a right turn from our heading of 124 degree which took us away from the other aircraft I had in sight going approximately from our 12 O'clock to 9 O'clock position. It's possible I had the wrong aircraft in sight and I could have informed ATC that IMC conditions existed 300 ft below our altitude at that time. From what I can recall, there was no response from ATC that a conflict existed between us and another aircraft other than confirm turning 250 degree. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter has been cleared of responsibility in situation and told that the controller was not entirely blameless. Controller did not relay the urgency of the clearance. Less than standard separation occurred, the targets were less than 1 mi horizontal and at the same altitude. After a left turn to intercept the radial, the pilot received a vector to 250 degree and responded within 10-15 seconds correctly, with a right turn. Reporter was later told that controller was at a 'new position' and experiencing an extremely heavy workload. The other aircraft was an IFR seneca that had just been handed off but was not in radio contact. Controller was attempting to establish communication with seneca and unable. Supplemental information from acn 315755: I was flying a cessna 172 on an IFR flight plan from pao to apc, operating the controls from the left seat. Safety pilot was looking for traffic and handling the traffic calls. Conditions above the layer of stratus were excellent, with visibilities of about 15 mi. Our initial clearance had been to the sgd VORTAC, then to apc direct. Oak instructed us to fly heading 330 degree until able to receive sgd, then direct sgd. We responded that we were already direct sgd, but did not state our heading. ATC initially offered us the VOR runway 6 approach at apc, but we indicated that we wanted the localizer runway 36L approach. Approaching the VOR on a 305 degree course, we were slightly left of course and elected to round the VOR via a right turn. The IAF is on the sgd 124 radial at 3.8 DME, giving adequate room to join the 124 radial. During this phase of the flight, the controller was communicating extensively with another aircraft. We believe we had executed a left turn back to join the radial when we received a 250 degree vector from ATC for traffic. At this point, we were at our assigned altitude of 3000 ft, 300 ft above a very solid stratus layer, but with good visibility. We do not recall any specific direction being given for the turn to 250 degree. The copilot spotted the traffic off to our left at an estimated range of 1 mi, and about 100 ft lower, copilot reported sighting traffic to ATC, who asked us to maintain visual separation. On completion of the turn, the traffic was receding and not a factor. Traffic was difficult to see at this point as it was between the left wing and the tail. ATC vectored us back to the localizer outbound. We executed the published procedure and approach uneventfully. I received a phone call from the local FSDO, informing me that we had turned in the wrong direction to 250 degree on this flight. We now realize that we may have missed or misinterpreted an instruction to turn left to 250 degree from ATC. It is possible that the aircraft we saw was not the one referred to by ATC. We have learned that both pilot and copilot should xchk radio communication and that we should inform ATC of the position of traffic and our ability to maintain visual separation in such a situation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: STANDARD SEPARATION WAS LOST BETWEEN A C172 ON APCH AND ANOTHER ACFT, A SENECA.

Narrative: WHILE ACTING AS SAFETY PLT AND ASSISTING WITH COMS AND NAV, MYSELF AND THE OTHER PLT MAY HAVE MISSED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DIRECTION OF TURN TO A VECTORED HDG OF 250 DEG. AS INFORMED BY LCL FSDO: WE MADE A R TURN FROM OUR HDG OF 124 DEG WHICH TOOK US AWAY FROM THE OTHER ACFT I HAD IN SIGHT GOING APPROX FROM OUR 12 O'CLOCK TO 9 O'CLOCK POS. IT'S POSSIBLE I HAD THE WRONG ACFT IN SIGHT AND I COULD HAVE INFORMED ATC THAT IMC CONDITIONS EXISTED 300 FT BELOW OUR ALT AT THAT TIME. FROM WHAT I CAN RECALL, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ATC THAT A CONFLICT EXISTED BETWEEN US AND ANOTHER ACFT OTHER THAN CONFIRM TURNING 250 DEG. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR HAS BEEN CLRED OF RESPONSIBILITY IN SIT AND TOLD THAT THE CTLR WAS NOT ENTIRELY BLAMELESS. CTLR DID NOT RELAY THE URGENCY OF THE CLRNC. LTSS OCCURRED, THE TARGETS WERE LESS THAN 1 MI HORIZ AND AT THE SAME ALT. AFTER A L TURN TO INTERCEPT THE RADIAL, THE PLT RECEIVED A VECTOR TO 250 DEG AND RESPONDED WITHIN 10-15 SECONDS CORRECTLY, WITH A R TURN. RPTR WAS LATER TOLD THAT CTLR WAS AT A 'NEW POS' AND EXPERIENCING AN EXTREMELY HEAVY WORKLOAD. THE OTHER ACFT WAS AN IFR SENECA THAT HAD JUST BEEN HANDED OFF BUT WAS NOT IN RADIO CONTACT. CTLR WAS ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH COM WITH SENECA AND UNABLE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 315755: I WAS FLYING A CESSNA 172 ON AN IFR FLT PLAN FROM PAO TO APC, OPERATING THE CTLS FROM THE L SEAT. SAFETY PLT WAS LOOKING FOR TFC AND HANDLING THE TFC CALLS. CONDITIONS ABOVE THE LAYER OF STRATUS WERE EXCELLENT, WITH VISIBILITIES OF ABOUT 15 MI. OUR INITIAL CLRNC HAD BEEN TO THE SGD VORTAC, THEN TO APC DIRECT. OAK INSTRUCTED US TO FLY HDG 330 DEG UNTIL ABLE TO RECEIVE SGD, THEN DIRECT SGD. WE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE ALREADY DIRECT SGD, BUT DID NOT STATE OUR HDG. ATC INITIALLY OFFERED US THE VOR RWY 6 APCH AT APC, BUT WE INDICATED THAT WE WANTED THE LOC RWY 36L APCH. APCHING THE VOR ON A 305 DEG COURSE, WE WERE SLIGHTLY L OF COURSE AND ELECTED TO ROUND THE VOR VIA A R TURN. THE IAF IS ON THE SGD 124 RADIAL AT 3.8 DME, GIVING ADEQUATE ROOM TO JOIN THE 124 RADIAL. DURING THIS PHASE OF THE FLT, THE CTLR WAS COMMUNICATING EXTENSIVELY WITH ANOTHER ACFT. WE BELIEVE WE HAD EXECUTED A L TURN BACK TO JOIN THE RADIAL WHEN WE RECEIVED A 250 DEG VECTOR FROM ATC FOR TFC. AT THIS POINT, WE WERE AT OUR ASSIGNED ALT OF 3000 FT, 300 FT ABOVE A VERY SOLID STRATUS LAYER, BUT WITH GOOD VISIBILITY. WE DO NOT RECALL ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION BEING GIVEN FOR THE TURN TO 250 DEG. THE COPLT SPOTTED THE TFC OFF TO OUR L AT AN ESTIMATED RANGE OF 1 MI, AND ABOUT 100 FT LOWER, COPLT RPTED SIGHTING TFC TO ATC, WHO ASKED US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. ON COMPLETION OF THE TURN, THE TFC WAS RECEDING AND NOT A FACTOR. TFC WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE AT THIS POINT AS IT WAS BTWN THE L WING AND THE TAIL. ATC VECTORED US BACK TO THE LOC OUTBOUND. WE EXECUTED THE PUBLISHED PROC AND APCH UNEVENTFULLY. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE LCL FSDO, INFORMING ME THAT WE HAD TURNED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION TO 250 DEG ON THIS FLT. WE NOW REALIZE THAT WE MAY HAVE MISSED OR MISINTERPRETED AN INSTRUCTION TO TURN L TO 250 DEG FROM ATC. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE ACFT WE SAW WAS NOT THE ONE REFERRED TO BY ATC. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT BOTH PLT AND COPLT SHOULD XCHK RADIO COM AND THAT WE SHOULD INFORM ATC OF THE POS OF TFC AND OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION IN SUCH A 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.