An arriving DC9 is issued a departing commuter aircraft as traffic and has aircraft in sight. Controller clears commuter aircraft to higher altitude and to maintain visual separation from the DC9. The DC9 pilot gets a TCASII RA on the commuter aircraft and maneuvers to remain clear of the commuter.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	352370
Time
Date	199611
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : msy
State Reference	LA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 7000 msl bound upper : 7000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : msy
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller non radar : 5 controller radar : 2
ASRS Report	352370
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took evasive action other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

The DC9 was 10 mi east of airport, wbound descending to 7000 ft. The BE02 departed airport and was turned eastbound and given interim altitude of 6000 ft for separation with the inbound DC9. WX was VMC. Traffic between the DC9 and BE02, opposite direction, was exchanged. The BE02 reported the DC9 'in sight.' the DC9 was told that the BE02 had him in sight and would maintain visual separation and climb. The DC9 responded 'roger, now we've got him in sight too.' the BE02 was then instructed to maintain visual separation with the DC9 and climb to 15000 ft. As the BE02 started to climb, the DC9 said 'we've got a TCASII RA, we're turning left and descending.' even though the DC9 had the traffic in sight, he still took evasive action by turning and descending. This action took the DC9 directly into the climb corridor of the primary departure runway. I told the tower what was happening and fortunately there was no traffic rolling for departure. It seems to me to be ridiculous, not to mention dangerous, for a pilot to be mandated to respond to an RA even when he has visual contact with the traffic. In this instance, it put the aircraft in a potentially deadly predicament where separation was provided strictly by fate.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ARRIVING DC9 IS ISSUED A DEPARTING COMMUTER ACFT AS TFC AND HAS ACFT IN SIGHT. CTLR CLRS COMMUTER ACFT TO HIGHER ALT AND TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM THE DC9. THE DC9 PLT GETS A TCASII RA ON THE COMMUTER ACFT AND MANEUVERS TO REMAIN CLR OF THE COMMUTER.

Narrative: THE DC9 WAS 10 MI E OF ARPT, WBOUND DSNDING TO 7000 FT. THE BE02 DEPARTED ARPT AND WAS TURNED EBOUND AND GIVEN INTERIM ALT OF 6000 FT FOR SEPARATION WITH THE INBOUND DC9. WX WAS VMC. TFC BTWN THE DC9 AND BE02, OPPOSITE DIRECTION, WAS EXCHANGED. THE BE02 RPTED THE DC9 'IN SIGHT.' THE DC9 WAS TOLD THAT THE BE02 HAD HIM IN SIGHT AND WOULD MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION AND CLB. THE DC9 RESPONDED 'ROGER, NOW WE'VE GOT HIM IN SIGHT TOO.' THE BE02 WAS THEN INSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH THE DC9 AND CLB TO 15000 FT. AS THE BE02 STARTED TO CLB, THE DC9 SAID 'WE'VE GOT A TCASII RA, WE'RE TURNING L AND DSNDING.' EVEN THOUGH THE DC9 HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT, HE STILL TOOK EVASIVE ACTION BY TURNING AND DSNDING. THIS ACTION TOOK THE DC9 DIRECTLY INTO THE CLB CORRIDOR OF THE PRIMARY DEP RWY. I TOLD THE TWR WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND FORTUNATELY THERE WAS NO TFC ROLLING FOR DEP. IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE RIDICULOUS, NOT TO MENTION DANGEROUS, FOR A PLT TO BE MANDATED TO RESPOND TO AN RA EVEN WHEN HE HAS VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE TFC. IN THIS INSTANCE, IT PUT THE ACFT IN A POTENTIALLY DEADLY PREDICAMENT WHERE SEPARATION WAS PROVIDED STRICTLY BY FATE.

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.