 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier flight crew had been cleared for a visual approach after questioning the controller about traffic at their 12 O'clock position. The traffic had been observed on the TCASII and not visually. While on the approach, the first officer inquired about and received the position of the traffic. The tower supervisor came on the frequency and argued with the first officer well inside the OM about why they didn't have the traffic in sight.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 366193 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199704 |
| Day | Mon |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : gso |
| State Reference | NC |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 1899 agl bound upper : 1190 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : gso |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 400 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 8000 |
| ASRS Report | 366193 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | other |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
We were cleared for the visual on runway 5 after we advised we had the runway in sight. Before this, she had advised us to a heading to intercept the ILS runway 5. We noticed 1 aircraft in front of us aligned with the runway. The TCASII gave us (after we were established on the localizer) an aircraft approaching left to right on a 90 degree angle with our flight path at our altitude. My first officer (PNF) requested if approach was working the traffic 12 O'clock. Approach answered 'affirmative, you are cleared for the visual.' at about 6 mi we inquired about the traffic. Approach advised us of his position and stated, 'I thought you had the traffic in sight?' we advised we did not. At this time, the supervisor came on and questioned us why we did not have the traffic. My first officer advised him that we noticed the traffic on TCASII, not visually. The supervisor started to argue about whether or not we had the traffic and that he 'assumed' we had the traffic in sight. This continued until well inside the OM, up to an altitude of 1129 ft AGL (I noticed the radar altimeter), when my first officer requested to switch to the tower. At one time, I advised the supervisor that we never made the statement of traffic in sight. We continued the approach without any conflict with a successful landing. On the ground I called the supervisor and stated my concern not so much about the misunderstanding but that the supervisor continued to question us well inside the OM in the most critical phase of the flight.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ACR FLC HAD BEEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH AFTER QUESTIONING THE CTLR ABOUT TFC AT THEIR 12 O'CLOCK POS. THE TFC HAD BEEN OBSERVED ON THE TCASII AND NOT VISUALLY. WHILE ON THE APCH, THE FO INQUIRED ABOUT AND RECEIVED THE POS OF THE TFC. THE TWR SUPVR CAME ON THE FREQ AND ARGUED WITH THE FO WELL INSIDE THE OM ABOUT WHY THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TFC IN SIGHT.
Narrative: WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL ON RWY 5 AFTER WE ADVISED WE HAD THE RWY IN SIGHT. BEFORE THIS, SHE HAD ADVISED US TO A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE ILS RWY 5. WE NOTICED 1 ACFT IN FRONT OF US ALIGNED WITH THE RWY. THE TCASII GAVE US (AFTER WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON THE LOC) AN ACFT APCHING L TO R ON A 90 DEG ANGLE WITH OUR FLT PATH AT OUR ALT. MY FO (PNF) REQUESTED IF APCH WAS WORKING THE TFC 12 O'CLOCK. APCH ANSWERED 'AFFIRMATIVE, YOU ARE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL.' AT ABOUT 6 MI WE INQUIRED ABOUT THE TFC. APCH ADVISED US OF HIS POS AND STATED, 'I THOUGHT YOU HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT?' WE ADVISED WE DID NOT. AT THIS TIME, THE SUPVR CAME ON AND QUESTIONED US WHY WE DID NOT HAVE THE TFC. MY FO ADVISED HIM THAT WE NOTICED THE TFC ON TCASII, NOT VISUALLY. THE SUPVR STARTED TO ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD THE TFC AND THAT HE 'ASSUMED' WE HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT. THIS CONTINUED UNTIL WELL INSIDE THE OM, UP TO AN ALT OF 1129 FT AGL (I NOTICED THE RADAR ALTIMETER), WHEN MY FO REQUESTED TO SWITCH TO THE TWR. AT ONE TIME, I ADVISED THE SUPVR THAT WE NEVER MADE THE STATEMENT OF TFC IN SIGHT. WE CONTINUED THE APCH WITHOUT ANY CONFLICT WITH A SUCCESSFUL LNDG. ON THE GND I CALLED THE SUPVR AND STATED MY CONCERN NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE MISUNDERSTANDING BUT THAT THE SUPVR CONTINUED TO QUESTION US WELL INSIDE THE OM IN THE MOST CRITICAL PHASE OF THE FLT.
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.