37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 752259 |
Time | |
Date | 200709 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : atl.airport |
State Reference | GA |
Altitude | msl single value : 3000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Weather Elements | other |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : a80.tracon |
Operator | common carrier : charter |
Make Model Name | Beechjet 400 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
Flight Phase | descent : intermediate altitude |
Route In Use | arrival : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : charter |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : multi engine |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 134 flight time total : 2850 flight time type : 1594 |
ASRS Report | 752259 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | government : faa |
Function | controller : approach |
Events | |
Anomaly | altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance |
Independent Detector | aircraft equipment : tcas other controllera |
Resolutory Action | flight crew : took precautionary avoidance action |
Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Airspace Structure |
Primary Problem | Ambiguous |
Narrative:
I was PIC of a beechjet. We were traveling under the atl class B airspace crossing the atl 051 degree radial at about 18 NM (over stone mountain) toward pdk. ATC alerted us about an opposite direction VFR target 500 ft below our flight path. We monitored the target on the TCAS as we approached; but never obtained a visual identify. At about 5 NM from the VFR target we advised ATC that we were going to make a slight right turn to provide additional space between us and the opposite direction traffic we had not yet spotted visually. Soon after; our TCAS issued us a TA for the opposite direction traffic. At that time; the copilot (PF) initiated a slight climb of not more than 500 ft to provide additional separation. As we began our climb; I idented the VFR target as they approached off our left wing. We immediately began our descent back down to 3000 ft. As we began our descent; our TCAS issued us another TA for an IFR target behind and above us at 4000 ft that we had not noticed. Our climb to avoid the opposite direction traffic put us within 500 ft of another IFR aircraft. During the start of the climb through the end of the descent back down to 3000 ft; ATC was in constant communication with other aircraft and we were not able to advise her of our decision to climb. It was not until after we were nearly back down to 3000 ft that ATC contacted us and advised us that we had not told her of our intent to climb; only of our decision to turn and that we had come within 500 ft of another IFR aircraft that had us in visual contact. I advised her of our attempt to contact her; but the frequency was congested and we felt the need to provide additional separation from the aircraft we did not have in visual contact. She then cleared us for the visual approach into pdk and advised us to contact pdk tower. I feel that the concern of the oncoming VFR aircraft that we did not have in visual contact compelled us to take additional measures and thus encroach on the other IFR aircraft that we neglected to see. Also; the radio frequency and the airspace is congested; especially under the atl class B; and we were not able to advise ATC of our intentions. I feel that those items were the cause of the problem. In the future; I feel like a more immediate response to oncoming VFR traffic would be more appropriate; so as not to feel the need to take a more drastic approach to provide separation when the traffic is much closer. Furthermore; I feel that the TCAS system we have in our aircraft should be trusted. However; I have been in close proximity of other VFR aircraft that suddenly turned or climbed/descended into our flight path or did not show up on TCAS until the last second.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: BE40 FLT CREW AT 3000 FEET REPORTS TCAS TA WITH VFR TRAFFIC 500 FEET BELOW AND ELECTS TO CLIMB CAUSING TCAS TA WITH IFR TRAFFIC AT 4000 FEET.
Narrative: I WAS PIC OF A BEECHJET. WE WERE TRAVELING UNDER THE ATL CLASS B AIRSPACE XING THE ATL 051 DEG RADIAL AT ABOUT 18 NM (OVER STONE MOUNTAIN) TOWARD PDK. ATC ALERTED US ABOUT AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION VFR TARGET 500 FT BELOW OUR FLT PATH. WE MONITORED THE TARGET ON THE TCAS AS WE APCHED; BUT NEVER OBTAINED A VISUAL IDENT. AT ABOUT 5 NM FROM THE VFR TARGET WE ADVISED ATC THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE A SLIGHT R TURN TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SPACE BTWN US AND THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC WE HAD NOT YET SPOTTED VISUALLY. SOON AFTER; OUR TCAS ISSUED US A TA FOR THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC. AT THAT TIME; THE COPLT (PF) INITIATED A SLIGHT CLB OF NOT MORE THAN 500 FT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SEPARATION. AS WE BEGAN OUR CLB; I IDENTED THE VFR TARGET AS THEY APCHED OFF OUR L WING. WE IMMEDIATELY BEGAN OUR DSCNT BACK DOWN TO 3000 FT. AS WE BEGAN OUR DSCNT; OUR TCAS ISSUED US ANOTHER TA FOR AN IFR TARGET BEHIND AND ABOVE US AT 4000 FT THAT WE HAD NOT NOTICED. OUR CLB TO AVOID THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC PUT US WITHIN 500 FT OF ANOTHER IFR ACFT. DURING THE START OF THE CLB THROUGH THE END OF THE DSCNT BACK DOWN TO 3000 FT; ATC WAS IN CONSTANT COM WITH OTHER ACFT AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ADVISE HER OF OUR DECISION TO CLB. IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER WE WERE NEARLY BACK DOWN TO 3000 FT THAT ATC CONTACTED US AND ADVISED US THAT WE HAD NOT TOLD HER OF OUR INTENT TO CLB; ONLY OF OUR DECISION TO TURN AND THAT WE HAD COME WITHIN 500 FT OF ANOTHER IFR ACFT THAT HAD US IN VISUAL CONTACT. I ADVISED HER OF OUR ATTEMPT TO CONTACT HER; BUT THE FREQ WAS CONGESTED AND WE FELT THE NEED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SEPARATION FROM THE ACFT WE DID NOT HAVE IN VISUAL CONTACT. SHE THEN CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH INTO PDK AND ADVISED US TO CONTACT PDK TWR. I FEEL THAT THE CONCERN OF THE ONCOMING VFR ACFT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE IN VISUAL CONTACT COMPELLED US TO TAKE ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND THUS ENCROACH ON THE OTHER IFR ACFT THAT WE NEGLECTED TO SEE. ALSO; THE RADIO FREQ AND THE AIRSPACE IS CONGESTED; ESPECIALLY UNDER THE ATL CLASS B; AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ADVISE ATC OF OUR INTENTIONS. I FEEL THAT THOSE ITEMS WERE THE CAUSE OF THE PROB. IN THE FUTURE; I FEEL LIKE A MORE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO ONCOMING VFR TFC WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE; SO AS NOT TO FEEL THE NEED TO TAKE A MORE DRASTIC APCH TO PROVIDE SEPARATION WHEN THE TFC IS MUCH CLOSER. FURTHERMORE; I FEEL THAT THE TCAS SYS WE HAVE IN OUR ACFT SHOULD BE TRUSTED. HOWEVER; I HAVE BEEN IN CLOSE PROX OF OTHER VFR ACFT THAT SUDDENLY TURNED OR CLBED/DSNDED INTO OUR FLT PATH OR DID NOT SHOW UP ON TCAS UNTIL THE LAST SECOND.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.