Loss of frequency change handoff is a factor in a potential conflict between a citation 650 and an u...

Attributes
ACN	563523
Time
Date	200210
Day	Fri
Place
Locale Reference	navaid : jot.vortac
State Reference	IL
Altitude	msl single value : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zau.artcc tracon : c90.tracon
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Citation III, VI, VII
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : intermediate altitude
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : c90.tracon
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Person 1
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 5400 flight time type : 65
ASRS Report	563523
Person 2
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : required legal separation non adherence other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment : tcas other controllera other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : took evasive action
Miss Distance	vertical : 500
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Airspace Structure Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Inter Facility Coordination Failure Operational Deviation

Narrative:

Descending for arrival at dpa, IFR on an IFR flight plan. Our flight plan took us over boiler (but) VOR, then joliet (jot) VOR, then dupage. We received clearance to descend to 4000 ft from the center controller before we had reached jot. Just prior to reaching jot VOR, we received a relay communication from an X airlines aircraft that center wanted us to contact chicago approach. (Center apparently did not 'hand us off' when they were supposed to.) we contacted chicago approach and at the same time noted a 'traffic, traffic' advisory on our TCASII. Seconds later, chicago approach advised us to make an immediate right turn, which we started. At the same time, we received a 'climb, climb' RA (TCASII) which we also complied with (climbing right turn). Moments alter, we received a 'clear of conflict' notification from our TCASII and descended back to 4000 ft MSL and asked chicago approach what heading they would like us on. They gave us vectors onto dpa ILS runway 2L and the flight ended. I believe that what caused the problem was improper coordination by the center controller to 'hand us off' before we got too low to communicate with him. Also, the approach controller 'seeing us coming' and not talking to us yet should have vectored the other aircraft away from the conflict sooner. To prevent a recurrence, controller must ensure proper handoff (center to approach) and approach controller needs to ensure separation of traffic he/she is not talking to by vectoring the aircraft he/she is talking to clear of the conflict before it occurs.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LOSS OF FREQ CHANGE HDOF IS A FACTOR IN A POTENTIAL CONFLICT BTWN A CITATION 650 AND AN UNKNOWN ACFT WHILE C650 WAS DSNDING TO 4000 FT OVER JOT, IL.

Narrative: DSNDING FOR ARR AT DPA, IFR ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. OUR FLT PLAN TOOK US OVER BOILER (BUT) VOR, THEN JOLIET (JOT) VOR, THEN DUPAGE. WE RECEIVED CLRNC TO DSND TO 4000 FT FROM THE CTR CTLR BEFORE WE HAD REACHED JOT. JUST PRIOR TO REACHING JOT VOR, WE RECEIVED A RELAY COM FROM AN X AIRLINES ACFT THAT CTR WANTED US TO CONTACT CHICAGO APCH. (CTR APPARENTLY DID NOT 'HAND US OFF' WHEN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.) WE CONTACTED CHICAGO APCH AND AT THE SAME TIME NOTED A 'TFC, TFC' ADVISORY ON OUR TCASII. SECONDS LATER, CHICAGO APCH ADVISED US TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE R TURN, WHICH WE STARTED. AT THE SAME TIME, WE RECEIVED A 'CLB, CLB' RA (TCASII) WHICH WE ALSO COMPLIED WITH (CLBING R TURN). MOMENTS ALTER, WE RECEIVED A 'CLR OF CONFLICT' NOTIFICATION FROM OUR TCASII AND DSNDED BACK TO 4000 FT MSL AND ASKED CHICAGO APCH WHAT HDG THEY WOULD LIKE US ON. THEY GAVE US VECTORS ONTO DPA ILS RWY 2L AND THE FLT ENDED. I BELIEVE THAT WHAT CAUSED THE PROB WAS IMPROPER COORD BY THE CTR CTLR TO 'HAND US OFF' BEFORE WE GOT TOO LOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM. ALSO, THE APCH CTLR 'SEEING US COMING' AND NOT TALKING TO US YET SHOULD HAVE VECTORED THE OTHER ACFT AWAY FROM THE CONFLICT SOONER. TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE, CTLR MUST ENSURE PROPER HDOF (CTR TO APCH) AND APCH CTLR NEEDS TO ENSURE SEPARATION OF TFC HE/SHE IS NOT TALKING TO BY VECTORING THE ACFT HE/SHE IS TALKING TO CLR OF THE CONFLICT BEFORE IT OCCURS.

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.

Loss of frequency change handoff is a factor in a potential conflict between a citation 650 and an unknown aircraft while C650 was descending to 4000 ft over jot, il.