Narrative:

ATC (ZJX) was using 8 (that's right! And he announced the list to us all) different frequencys at one time. He had to tell everyone to shut up and that only he would talk. When I and others attempted to check in or call him, that was the reply, 'don't talk, I'll call you -- everyone be quiet.' aircraft on the different frequencys were unable to sequence themselves into the communication flow and as a result, communication was 1-WAY not 2-WAY. The controller complained he could not hear other aircraft and that we were stepping on each other, yet we appeared to be the only aircraft on our frequency. Each new aircraft checking onto the frequencys seemed, from his comments on all frequencys, to go through the same routine. This situation of more than 1 frequency being used by ATC controllers has become very common and these problems are consistently experienced. Does no one in ATC appreciate the safety problem with this situation? A controller should work all aircraft on 1 frequency for the same reason that pilots should work only 1 frequency at a time. Not only is 'party line' benefit removed from operations on multiple frequencys, but efficiency goes down due to multiple repeats and possibility for error due to blocked xmissions or readbacks goes up. When a sector combines with another sector, xfer all aircraft to the other sector's frequency! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter alleges an increase in this type of multi-frequency use. The pilot states that it is to everyone's advantage, to the greatest extent practicable, for all to hear what else is happening, especially during WX diversion sits. The reporter alleges that the 'loss of the party line' can contribute to a loss of situational awareness.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD88 FLC ENCOUNTERS SINGLE CTLR, MULTIPLE FREQ OP THAT HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PLTS FLYING THROUGH THE AREA.

Narrative: ATC (ZJX) WAS USING 8 (THAT'S RIGHT! AND HE ANNOUNCED THE LIST TO US ALL) DIFFERENT FREQS AT ONE TIME. HE HAD TO TELL EVERYONE TO SHUT UP AND THAT ONLY HE WOULD TALK. WHEN I AND OTHERS ATTEMPTED TO CHK IN OR CALL HIM, THAT WAS THE REPLY, 'DON'T TALK, I'LL CALL YOU -- EVERYONE BE QUIET.' ACFT ON THE DIFFERENT FREQS WERE UNABLE TO SEQUENCE THEMSELVES INTO THE COM FLOW AND AS A RESULT, COM WAS 1-WAY NOT 2-WAY. THE CTLR COMPLAINED HE COULD NOT HEAR OTHER ACFT AND THAT WE WERE STEPPING ON EACH OTHER, YET WE APPEARED TO BE THE ONLY ACFT ON OUR FREQ. EACH NEW ACFT CHKING ONTO THE FREQS SEEMED, FROM HIS COMMENTS ON ALL FREQS, TO GO THROUGH THE SAME ROUTINE. THIS SIT OF MORE THAN 1 FREQ BEING USED BY ATC CTLRS HAS BECOME VERY COMMON AND THESE PROBS ARE CONSISTENTLY EXPERIENCED. DOES NO ONE IN ATC APPRECIATE THE SAFETY PROB WITH THIS SIT? A CTLR SHOULD WORK ALL ACFT ON 1 FREQ FOR THE SAME REASON THAT PLTS SHOULD WORK ONLY 1 FREQ AT A TIME. NOT ONLY IS 'PARTY LINE' BENEFIT REMOVED FROM OPS ON MULTIPLE FREQS, BUT EFFICIENCY GOES DOWN DUE TO MULTIPLE REPEATS AND POSSIBILITY FOR ERROR DUE TO BLOCKED XMISSIONS OR READBACKS GOES UP. WHEN A SECTOR COMBINES WITH ANOTHER SECTOR, XFER ALL ACFT TO THE OTHER SECTOR'S FREQ! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ALLEGES AN INCREASE IN THIS TYPE OF MULTI-FREQ USE. THE PLT STATES THAT IT IS TO EVERYONE'S ADVANTAGE, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICABLE, FOR ALL TO HEAR WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING, ESPECIALLY DURING WX DIVERSION SITS. THE RPTR ALLEGES THAT THE 'LOSS OF THE PARTY LINE' CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A LOSS OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.

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.