37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 426468 |
Time | |
Date | 199901 |
Day | Fri |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : atl |
State Reference | GA |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 5000 msl bound upper : 5000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Navigation In Use | Other |
Route In Use | arrival other enroute : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B727 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Route In Use | arrival other enroute : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : flight engineer |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 3000 |
ASRS Report | 426468 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | conflict : nmac non adherence : required legal separation non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other controllera other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | other |
Consequence | Other |
Miss Distance | horizontal : 6000 vertical : 300 |
Supplementary | |
Air Traffic Incident | Operational Error |
Narrative:
I was the captain and PNF of air carrier flight X arriving in atl. We were being vectored for a visual approach to runway 26R in atl at the same time as air carrier flight Y. Several times throughout the vectoring on downwind, it was apparent that the controller was confusing the flight numbers of the 2 company aircraft. Due to the heavy arrival traffic, instructions are often given with little or no chance of response. As we were being vectored on a right downwind to runway 26R at 5000 ft, we noticed another aircraft ahead of us being vectored on a right base at or near our altitude. It was an air carrier Z DC9 and his flight path would definitely be a conflict with ours. The controller had our position/call sign confused with the position and call sign of our company aircraft air carrier X (us) and air carrier Y and therefore had given vectors causing the conflict. We had the conflicting aircraft, the air carrier Z DC9, in view visually on our TCASII display as this developed and initiated a slight turn approximately 15 degrees left to put our aircraft behind the flight path of the air carrier Z aircraft. At about the same time the air carrier Z aircraft initiated a climb and stated he was climbing in response to an RA. The controller who was obviously confused issued avoidance instructions to the air carrier Z aircraft as well. The whole problem could have been avoided if company would have made sure that such similar call signs were not assigned to aircraft arriving at the same airport at the same time. In IMC conditions this may have been a very a close call instead of just a simple avoidance maneuver.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: APCH CTLR AT ATL CONFUSES SIMILAR CALL SIGNS OF 2 SAME COMPANY ACFT IN TRAIL ON DOWNWIND LEG. THE LEAD COMPANY APPARENTLY CONFLICTED WITH A DC9 ON BASE LEG RESULTING IN A LOSS OF SEPARATION AND AN NMAC.
Narrative: I WAS THE CAPT AND PNF OF ACR FLT X ARRIVING IN ATL. WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 26R IN ATL AT THE SAME TIME AS ACR FLT Y. SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE VECTORING ON DOWNWIND, IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE CTLR WAS CONFUSING THE FLT NUMBERS OF THE 2 COMPANY ACFT. DUE TO THE HVY ARR TFC, INSTRUCTIONS ARE OFTEN GIVEN WITH LITTLE OR NO CHANCE OF RESPONSE. AS WE WERE BEING VECTORED ON A R DOWNWIND TO RWY 26R AT 5000 FT, WE NOTICED ANOTHER ACFT AHEAD OF US BEING VECTORED ON A R BASE AT OR NEAR OUR ALT. IT WAS AN ACR Z DC9 AND HIS FLT PATH WOULD DEFINITELY BE A CONFLICT WITH OURS. THE CTLR HAD OUR POS/CALL SIGN CONFUSED WITH THE POS AND CALL SIGN OF OUR COMPANY ACFT ACR X (US) AND ACR Y AND THEREFORE HAD GIVEN VECTORS CAUSING THE CONFLICT. WE HAD THE CONFLICTING ACFT, THE ACR Z DC9, IN VIEW VISUALLY ON OUR TCASII DISPLAY AS THIS DEVELOPED AND INITIATED A SLIGHT TURN APPROX 15 DEGS L TO PUT OUR ACFT BEHIND THE FLT PATH OF THE ACR Z ACFT. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE ACR Z ACFT INITIATED A CLB AND STATED HE WAS CLBING IN RESPONSE TO AN RA. THE CTLR WHO WAS OBVIOUSLY CONFUSED ISSUED AVOIDANCE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE ACR Z ACFT AS WELL. THE WHOLE PROB COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF COMPANY WOULD HAVE MADE SURE THAT SUCH SIMILAR CALL SIGNS WERE NOT ASSIGNED TO ACFT ARRIVING AT THE SAME ARPT AT THE SAME TIME. IN IMC CONDITIONS THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A VERY A CLOSE CALL INSTEAD OF JUST A SIMPLE AVOIDANCE MANEUVER.
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.