Narrative:

Departing out of ewr we were instructed to fly a heading of 220 degrees to intercept the colts neck VOR 350 degree radial. We tuned and idented the NAVAID and showed ourselves on the radial, we turned to a heading of 190 degrees to track the radial outbound. After this we were instructed to contact another controller on frequency 120.85. We read back the wrong frequency (as it later turned out) but did not get a reply. After trying the new frequency we returned to the original controller. At this time we were instructed to fly a heading of 240 degrees. The controller asked us if we had seen traffic passing from our 1 O'clock to our 11 O'clock. We only saw the traffic as it passed our 12 O'clock descending. The controller repeated the instruction to intercept the 350 degree radial. We replied that we were established on the radial when the conflict arose. After this we were instructed to change frequencys. We cleared the traffic on altitude by +/-1 1/2 mi. Contributing factors to this conflict: 1) frequency change with potentially conflicting traffic nearby. 2) copying and reading back the wrong frequency. 3) intercepting the 350 degree radial is not part of the ewr 6 departure and also was not mentioned in our clearance. It seems a procedure that is used a lot but is not mentioned on any chart. We were new to this airport/area, and thus were not familiar. Our clearance was to fly the ewr 6 departure, 'white intersection.' maybe including the 350 degree radial in the clearance would make for less 'heads down' time in the cockpit and more time could be spent looking outside for potential traffic conflicts.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING DEP CLB THE FLC OF AN LTT CARGO JET OBSERVED ANOTHER ACFT CROSS THEIR FLT PATH WHILE THEY WERE BEING TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER CTLR FREQ.

Narrative: DEPARTING OUT OF EWR WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO FLY A HDG OF 220 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE COLTS NECK VOR 350 DEG RADIAL. WE TUNED AND IDENTED THE NAVAID AND SHOWED OURSELVES ON THE RADIAL, WE TURNED TO A HDG OF 190 DEGS TO TRACK THE RADIAL OUTBOUND. AFTER THIS WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT ANOTHER CTLR ON FREQ 120.85. WE READ BACK THE WRONG FREQ (AS IT LATER TURNED OUT) BUT DID NOT GET A REPLY. AFTER TRYING THE NEW FREQ WE RETURNED TO THE ORIGINAL CTLR. AT THIS TIME WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO FLY A HDG OF 240 DEGS. THE CTLR ASKED US IF WE HAD SEEN TFC PASSING FROM OUR 1 O'CLOCK TO OUR 11 O'CLOCK. WE ONLY SAW THE TFC AS IT PASSED OUR 12 O'CLOCK DSNDING. THE CTLR REPEATED THE INSTRUCTION TO INTERCEPT THE 350 DEG RADIAL. WE REPLIED THAT WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON THE RADIAL WHEN THE CONFLICT AROSE. AFTER THIS WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CHANGE FREQS. WE CLRED THE TFC ON ALT BY +/-1 1/2 MI. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS CONFLICT: 1) FREQ CHANGE WITH POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING TFC NEARBY. 2) COPYING AND READING BACK THE WRONG FREQ. 3) INTERCEPTING THE 350 DEG RADIAL IS NOT PART OF THE EWR 6 DEP AND ALSO WAS NOT MENTIONED IN OUR CLRNC. IT SEEMS A PROC THAT IS USED A LOT BUT IS NOT MENTIONED ON ANY CHART. WE WERE NEW TO THIS ARPT/AREA, AND THUS WERE NOT FAMILIAR. OUR CLRNC WAS TO FLY THE EWR 6 DEP, 'WHITE INTXN.' MAYBE INCLUDING THE 350 DEG RADIAL IN THE CLRNC WOULD MAKE FOR LESS 'HEADS DOWN' TIME IN THE COCKPIT AND MORE TIME COULD BE SPENT LOOKING OUTSIDE FOR POTENTIAL TFC CONFLICTS.

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.