This situation involved 2 ZOB sectors. Each radar controller thought the other one was taking care of the separation between head-on aircraft, 1X and 2Y.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	440887
Time
Date	199906
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	navaid : yng.vor
State Reference	OH
Altitude	msl bound lower : 28000 msl bound upper : 29000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zob.artcc
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B727 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : intermediate altitude
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zob.artcc
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	cruise : level
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller radar : 6 flight time total : 50
ASRS Report	440887
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller limited radar : 9 controller radar : 8 controller time certified in position1 : 8
ASRS Report	440748
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne critical non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	atc equipment : conflict alert
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Miss Distance	horizontal : 30000 vertical : 1000
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Intra Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

Aircraft 2Y, (MD80) was at FL290 en route from cvg to lga. Aircraft 1X, (B727) was descending to FL280 from phl to dtw. The major factor was that the confliction point of the aircraft was co-located with a sector boundary. All proper automated handoffs were accomplished, and I xferred communication of my aircraft to the next sector, thinking he was providing separation between the 2 aircraft. The other controller apparently did the same, thinking I was providing separation. The result was a near operational error with both controllers just watching it happen. Aircraft were same altitude with about 7 mi between them (nose to nose). Aircraft 1X reported the traffic in sight and reported level at FL280, although the mode C readout didn't show FL280 for several seconds. No mention of TCASII RA was made.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THIS SIT INVOLVED 2 ZOB SECTORS. EACH RADAR CTLR THOUGHT THE OTHER ONE WAS TAKING CARE OF THE SEPARATION BTWN HEAD-ON ACFT, 1X AND 2Y.

Narrative: ACFT 2Y, (MD80) WAS AT FL290 ENRTE FROM CVG TO LGA. ACFT 1X, (B727) WAS DSNDING TO FL280 FROM PHL TO DTW. THE MAJOR FACTOR WAS THAT THE CONFLICTION POINT OF THE ACFT WAS CO-LOCATED WITH A SECTOR BOUNDARY. ALL PROPER AUTOMATED HDOFS WERE ACCOMPLISHED, AND I XFERRED COM OF MY ACFT TO THE NEXT SECTOR, THINKING HE WAS PROVIDING SEPARATION BTWN THE 2 ACFT. THE OTHER CTLR APPARENTLY DID THE SAME, THINKING I WAS PROVIDING SEPARATION. THE RESULT WAS A NEAR OPERROR WITH BOTH CTLRS JUST WATCHING IT HAPPEN. ACFT WERE SAME ALT WITH ABOUT 7 MI BTWN THEM (NOSE TO NOSE). ACFT 1X RPTED THE TFC IN SIGHT AND RPTED LEVEL AT FL280, ALTHOUGH THE MODE C READOUT DIDN'T SHOW FL280 FOR SEVERAL SECONDS. NO MENTION OF TCASII RA WAS MADE.

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.