 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A C172 pilot gets upset with the ATC procedure used during the approach of a C750 jet that descended through his altitude during visual approachs to rog, ar.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 537631 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200202 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : rog.airport |
| State Reference | AR |
| Altitude | msl single value : 3000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : fsm.tracon |
| Operator | general aviation : corporate |
| Make Model Name | Citation X |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Navigation In Use | other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : fsm.tracon |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : straight in |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : corporate |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : multi engine |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 61 flight time total : 9360 flight time type : 600 |
| ASRS Report | 537631 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : corporate |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 70 flight time total : 21500 flight time type : 600 |
| ASRS Report | 537839 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe inflight encounter : wake turbulence non adherence other |
| Independent Detector | atc equipment other atc equipment : radar aircraft equipment : tcas other controllera other flight crewa other flight crewb |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued advisory controller : issued new clearance flight crew : took precautionary avoidance action other |
| Consequence | other Other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 3000 vertical : 550 |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Environmental Factor Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Environmental Factor |
Narrative:
Approaching rogers, ak, from the north, we saw the airport visually at approximately 15 mi. We called the airport in sight and were cleared for a visual approach. We remained in contact with razorback on approach frequency and with our discrete code. The controller informed us of traffic also approaching rogers ahead and to the left of us at a lower altitude. His instructions were to increase our speed on final to position ourselves ahead of the other traffic. Closer in, the other traffic (who was also on the same razorback approach frequency) said he had us in sight above him. We also had him displayed on our TCASII equipment. Before we passed him, my copilot said he saw him. I altered my descent profile to maintain 500-600 ft separation vertically above him until our TCASII display showed him behind us. I then initiated a normal descent to the runway. The controller continued to transmit advisories to both of us. When on the short final (approximately 2 mi), the controller advised us to change transponder codes and contact advisory frequency. I believe I was both complying with the controller's advisories for sequencing and separation and using TCASII and visual sightings to maintain a safe distance from the other traffic. The pilot of the other aircraft complained to me on the ground that I had come too close to him after we passed him. I tried to point out the facts to him. I thought I had used all the information at my disposal to apply safe sequencing actions. Primarily, I believe this situation occurred because of a lack of situational awareness on the part of the other pilot. Secondarily, perhaps it would have been helpful if the approach controller had also given a speed advisory to the other aircraft. Supplemental information from acn 537839: we maintained a safe distance from the C172 until we passed him. On the ground the other pilot of the C172 came up to us and stated he didn't like the stunt we pulled. We told him what we were advised to do. He then stated the controller is going to take a hit on this one then. I was shocked that he was upset about this. I felt the C172 had understood we would be passing him overhead. With approach control working both of us, we felt this would cause no alarm.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A C172 PLT GETS UPSET WITH THE ATC PROC USED DURING THE APCH OF A C750 JET THAT DSNDED THROUGH HIS ALT DURING VISUAL APCHS TO ROG, AR.
Narrative: APCHING ROGERS, AK, FROM THE N, WE SAW THE ARPT VISUALLY AT APPROX 15 MI. WE CALLED THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH. WE REMAINED IN CONTACT WITH RAZORBACK ON APCH FREQ AND WITH OUR DISCRETE CODE. THE CTLR INFORMED US OF TFC ALSO APCHING ROGERS AHEAD AND TO THE L OF US AT A LOWER ALT. HIS INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO INCREASE OUR SPD ON FINAL TO POS OURSELVES AHEAD OF THE OTHER TFC. CLOSER IN, THE OTHER TFC (WHO WAS ALSO ON THE SAME RAZORBACK APCH FREQ) SAID HE HAD US IN SIGHT ABOVE HIM. WE ALSO HAD HIM DISPLAYED ON OUR TCASII EQUIP. BEFORE WE PASSED HIM, MY COPLT SAID HE SAW HIM. I ALTERED MY DSCNT PROFILE TO MAINTAIN 500-600 FT SEPARATION VERTLY ABOVE HIM UNTIL OUR TCASII DISPLAY SHOWED HIM BEHIND US. I THEN INITIATED A NORMAL DSCNT TO THE RWY. THE CTLR CONTINUED TO XMIT ADVISORIES TO BOTH OF US. WHEN ON THE SHORT FINAL (APPROX 2 MI), THE CTLR ADVISED US TO CHANGE XPONDER CODES AND CONTACT ADVISORY FREQ. I BELIEVE I WAS BOTH COMPLYING WITH THE CTLR'S ADVISORIES FOR SEQUENCING AND SEPARATION AND USING TCASII AND VISUAL SIGHTINGS TO MAINTAIN A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE OTHER TFC. THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT COMPLAINED TO ME ON THE GND THAT I HAD COME TOO CLOSE TO HIM AFTER WE PASSED HIM. I TRIED TO POINT OUT THE FACTS TO HIM. I THOUGHT I HAD USED ALL THE INFO AT MY DISPOSAL TO APPLY SAFE SEQUENCING ACTIONS. PRIMARILY, I BELIEVE THIS SIT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ON THE PART OF THE OTHER PLT. SECONDARILY, PERHAPS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IF THE APCH CTLR HAD ALSO GIVEN A SPD ADVISORY TO THE OTHER ACFT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 537839: WE MAINTAINED A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE C172 UNTIL WE PASSED HIM. ON THE GND THE OTHER PLT OF THE C172 CAME UP TO US AND STATED HE DIDN'T LIKE THE STUNT WE PULLED. WE TOLD HIM WHAT WE WERE ADVISED TO DO. HE THEN STATED THE CTLR IS GOING TO TAKE A HIT ON THIS ONE THEN. I WAS SHOCKED THAT HE WAS UPSET ABOUT THIS. I FELT THE C172 HAD UNDERSTOOD WE WOULD BE PASSING HIM OVERHEAD. WITH APCH CTL WORKING BOTH OF US, WE FELT THIS WOULD CAUSE NO ALARM.
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.