37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 759798 |
Time | |
Date | 200711 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : slc.airport |
State Reference | UT |
Altitude | msl single value : 8500 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : s56.tracon |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Regional Jet 200 ER&LR |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | descent : intermediate altitude |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | government : faa |
Function | controller : approach |
Qualification | controller : radar |
Experience | controller military : 6 controller radar : 4 controller time certified in position1 : 2 |
ASRS Report | 759798 |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : required legal separation |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Operational Error |
Narrative:
I was the final controller at S56 (salt lake TRACON) landing north working all arrs to runways 34R or 35 which for separation standards must be considered the same runway in accordance with the faao 7110.65. Runway 34L was closed. The traffic was moderate to heavy and I was utilizing RNAV arrival procedures/approachs which I am relatively unfamiliar with. Due to the increased workload of using the new procedures I inadvertently descended a CRJ2 to 080 in a 090 MVA. I had been working the position 60+ mins prior to the incident and had worked approximately 30 aircraft. Prior to utilizing the new RNAV procedures I had received training to include 2 simulator problems on different sectors in different runway configns. I also received a verbal briefing on the procedures. Training on the RNAV procedures was short and inadequate. I believe having each controller work a simulated problem on each sector in each runway confign would have at least ensured more familiarity with the new procedures.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: S56 CTLR EXPERIENCED OPERROR WHEN DSNDING ACFT BELOW MVA; ALLEGING FAULTY TRAINING AS CONTRIBUTORY.
Narrative: I WAS THE FINAL CTLR AT S56 (SALT LAKE TRACON) LNDG N WORKING ALL ARRS TO RWYS 34R OR 35 WHICH FOR SEPARATION STANDARDS MUST BE CONSIDERED THE SAME RWY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAAO 7110.65. RWY 34L WAS CLOSED. THE TFC WAS MODERATE TO HVY AND I WAS UTILIZING RNAV ARR PROCS/APCHS WHICH I AM RELATIVELY UNFAMILIAR WITH. DUE TO THE INCREASED WORKLOAD OF USING THE NEW PROCS I INADVERTENTLY DSNDED A CRJ2 TO 080 IN A 090 MVA. I HAD BEEN WORKING THE POS 60+ MINS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT AND HAD WORKED APPROX 30 ACFT. PRIOR TO UTILIZING THE NEW RNAV PROCS I HAD RECEIVED TRAINING TO INCLUDE 2 SIMULATOR PROBS ON DIFFERENT SECTORS IN DIFFERENT RWY CONFIGNS. I ALSO RECEIVED A VERBAL BRIEFING ON THE PROCS. TRAINING ON THE RNAV PROCS WAS SHORT AND INADEQUATE. I BELIEVE HAVING EACH CTLR WORK A SIMULATED PROB ON EACH SECTOR IN EACH RWY CONFIGN WOULD HAVE AT LEAST ENSURED MORE FAMILIARITY WITH THE NEW PROCS.
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.