Reported situation of an ATC clearance of visual separation being applied by flight crew of reporter's aircraft during climb with crossing traffic. First officer claims clearance questionable.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	383438
Time
Date	199710
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lax
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 16000 msl bound upper : 16000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : lax
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	departure other departure sid : sid
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	other : unknown
Flight Phase	cruise other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 3000 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	383438
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe other anomaly other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 10000 vertical : 0
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

While departing the lax area ATC issued a clearance to maintain visual separation from a crossing aircraft. While alteration of climbing flight path was not required our converging aircraft passed through same flight level with less than 2 mi separation. While there was never a question of a midair our clearance seems questionable. Is it proper for ATC to issue such a clearance? And is it appropriate for us as pilots to accept when given? Nowhere can I find any far that spells out what the minimum lateral separation is for pilots maintaining visual separation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter indicated they had departed lax and were in communication with lax departure controller. Reporter was aware of the information in the aim but thought there might be other pubs which specified the lateral distance needed when using visual separation. Reporter stated concern for possible injury to passenger/crew if the aircraft on which visual separation is being applied should react to a TCASII RA.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTED SIT OF AN ATC CLRNC OF VISUAL SEPARATION BEING APPLIED BY FLC OF RPTR'S ACFT DURING CLB WITH XING TFC. FO CLAIMS CLRNC QUESTIONABLE.

Narrative: WHILE DEPARTING THE LAX AREA ATC ISSUED A CLRNC TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM A XING ACFT. WHILE ALTERATION OF CLBING FLT PATH WAS NOT REQUIRED OUR CONVERGING ACFT PASSED THROUGH SAME FLT LEVEL WITH LESS THAN 2 MI SEPARATION. WHILE THERE WAS NEVER A QUESTION OF A MIDAIR OUR CLRNC SEEMS QUESTIONABLE. IS IT PROPER FOR ATC TO ISSUE SUCH A CLRNC? AND IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR US AS PLTS TO ACCEPT WHEN GIVEN? NOWHERE CAN I FIND ANY FAR THAT SPELLS OUT WHAT THE MINIMUM LATERAL SEPARATION IS FOR PLTS MAINTAINING VISUAL SEPARATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR INDICATED THEY HAD DEPARTED LAX AND WERE IN COM WITH LAX DEP CTLR. RPTR WAS AWARE OF THE INFO IN THE AIM BUT THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE OTHER PUBS WHICH SPECIFIED THE LATERAL DISTANCE NEEDED WHEN USING VISUAL SEPARATION. RPTR STATED CONCERN FOR POSSIBLE INJURY TO PAX/CREW IF THE ACFT ON WHICH VISUAL SEPARATION IS BEING APPLIED SHOULD REACT TO A TCASII RA.

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.