 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Local controller reporter did not follow facility policy regarding flight progress strip marking which resulted in loss of separation between 2 IFR aircraft.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 329468 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199603 |
| Day | Sun |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : bna |
| State Reference | TN |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 4000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : bna |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | Bonanza 36 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | climbout : initial |
| Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | B727 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | climbout : initial |
| Route In Use | departure sid : sid |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : local |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Experience | controller radar : 12 flight time total : 280 |
| ASRS Report | 329468 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : required legal separation non adherence : published procedure |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance |
| Consequence | Other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 9000 vertical : 400 |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Operational Error |
| Situations | |
| ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
Aircraft X was reclred (cleared for takeoff) on a 090 degree heading and shipped to departure. According to current sops, I should have put a circle around the assigned heading written on the strip to prevent departure from turning the aircraft back towards the runway confign. Air carrier Y was subsequently released to fly the bna 8 SID which has him join the bna 068 degree radial, and switched to departure. Old sops didn't allow you, as departure, to turn back towards the runway confign nor did it require the local controller to circle the heading to prevent departure from doing so. Before I switched air carrier Y to departure, the departure controller had approved aircraft X's request for a left turn on course, placing him in air carrier Y's projected flight path. Compounding the problem, air carrier Y fails to check on in a timely manner. I saw the situation developing and called departure to make sure he was talking to both aircraft. He advised he was not talking to air carrier Y and we both, simultaneously, attempted to contact air carrier Y, at which time he answers the departure controller. Separation had already been lost, but immediate, evasive vectors were issued and the aircraft continued on their way. The pilot of air carrier Y said TCASII never indicated the presence of aircraft X nor did he ever see him. A review of current sops is underway, questioning the need/authority/authorized of departure to turn aircraft back towards a runway confign.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: LCL CTLR RPTR DID NOT FOLLOW FACILITY POLICY REGARDING FLT PROGRESS STRIP MARKING WHICH RESULTED IN LOSS OF SEPARATION BTWN 2 IFR ACFT.
Narrative: ACFT X WAS RECLRED (CLRED FOR TKOF) ON A 090 DEG HDG AND SHIPPED TO DEP. ACCORDING TO CURRENT SOPS, I SHOULD HAVE PUT A CIRCLE AROUND THE ASSIGNED HDG WRITTEN ON THE STRIP TO PREVENT DEP FROM TURNING THE ACFT BACK TOWARDS THE RWY CONFIGN. ACR Y WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASED TO FLY THE BNA 8 SID WHICH HAS HIM JOIN THE BNA 068 DEG RADIAL, AND SWITCHED TO DEP. OLD SOPS DIDN'T ALLOW YOU, AS DEP, TO TURN BACK TOWARDS THE RWY CONFIGN NOR DID IT REQUIRE THE LCL CTLR TO CIRCLE THE HDG TO PREVENT DEP FROM DOING SO. BEFORE I SWITCHED ACR Y TO DEP, THE DEP CTLR HAD APPROVED ACFT X'S REQUEST FOR A L TURN ON COURSE, PLACING HIM IN ACR Y'S PROJECTED FLT PATH. COMPOUNDING THE PROB, ACR Y FAILS TO CHK ON IN A TIMELY MANNER. I SAW THE SIT DEVELOPING AND CALLED DEP TO MAKE SURE HE WAS TALKING TO BOTH ACFT. HE ADVISED HE WAS NOT TALKING TO ACR Y AND WE BOTH, SIMULTANEOUSLY, ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT ACR Y, AT WHICH TIME HE ANSWERS THE DEP CTLR. SEPARATION HAD ALREADY BEEN LOST, BUT IMMEDIATE, EVASIVE VECTORS WERE ISSUED AND THE ACFT CONTINUED ON THEIR WAY. THE PLT OF ACR Y SAID TCASII NEVER INDICATED THE PRESENCE OF ACFT X NOR DID HE EVER SEE HIM. A REVIEW OF CURRENT SOPS IS UNDERWAY, QUESTIONING THE NEED/AUTH OF DEP TO TURN ACFT BACK TOWARDS A RWY CONFIGN.
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.