37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 798016 |
Time | |
Date | 200807 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : dtw.airport |
State Reference | MI |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : dtw.tower |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | climbout : initial climbout : takeoff |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : dtw.tower |
Operator | common carrier : air taxi |
Make Model Name | Baron 58/58TC |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
Flight Phase | climbout : takeoff |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | government : faa |
Function | controller : local |
Qualification | controller : radar controller : military controller : non radar |
Experience | controller limited radar : 2 controller military : 14 controller non radar : 5 controller radar : 15 controller supervisory : 3 controller time certified in position1 : 18 flight time total : 200 |
ASRS Report | 798016 |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure non adherence : required legal separation |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance FAA |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Operational Error |
Narrative:
While working local control; a controller observed the opposing local controller depart a B757 and then place a BE58 into position and hold at an intersection on a runway that is less than 2500 ft apart. The controller attempted to get the supervisor's attention to stop the operation before it got any further. The supervisor didn't understand why the controller was concerned and failed to stop the local controller from departing the BE58 a mere 89 seconds later. The controller initiated the attempt at intervention with at least 45 seconds to stop this from happening! The required separation standard is 3 mins. Neither the opposing local controller (newly checked out); nor the supervisor were clear on the 3 min requirement. Subsequently; the controller pointed out the requirement to the supervisor; who responded with 'great; now I have to do something.' the opposing controller was charged with an operational error as appropriate. The real beef came from an area manager; who quite clearly described (other) airports we routinely let the small aircraft depart; and; that (the area manager) 'didn't want to ever hear of a controller bringing an error to a supervisor's attention! If; however; the supervisor is tying his shoe or picking up a pen; then (the area manager) would have no problem.' since this time; the controller has been placed on notice about being a better team player. The controller chose to go through the supervisor and not yell across the tower and embarrass the controller. The controller considered the avenue the controller used as acceptable and is currently seeing that the management team would prefer something else.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: DTW CTLR DESCRIBED OPERROR WHEN LCL CTLR ISSUED INTERSECTION DEP CLRNC ON PARALLEL RWY WITHOUT APPROPRIATE B757 HVY SEPARATION.
Narrative: WHILE WORKING LCL CTL; A CTLR OBSERVED THE OPPOSING LCL CTLR DEPART A B757 AND THEN PLACE A BE58 INTO POS AND HOLD AT AN INTXN ON A RWY THAT IS LESS THAN 2500 FT APART. THE CTLR ATTEMPTED TO GET THE SUPVR'S ATTN TO STOP THE OP BEFORE IT GOT ANY FURTHER. THE SUPVR DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE CTLR WAS CONCERNED AND FAILED TO STOP THE LCL CTLR FROM DEPARTING THE BE58 A MERE 89 SECONDS LATER. THE CTLR INITIATED THE ATTEMPT AT INTERVENTION WITH AT LEAST 45 SECONDS TO STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING! THE REQUIRED SEPARATION STANDARD IS 3 MINS. NEITHER THE OPPOSING LCL CTLR (NEWLY CHKED OUT); NOR THE SUPVR WERE CLR ON THE 3 MIN REQUIREMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY; THE CTLR POINTED OUT THE REQUIREMENT TO THE SUPVR; WHO RESPONDED WITH 'GREAT; NOW I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.' THE OPPOSING CTLR WAS CHARGED WITH AN OPERROR AS APPROPRIATE. THE REAL BEEF CAME FROM AN AREA MGR; WHO QUITE CLEARLY DESCRIBED (OTHER) ARPTS WE ROUTINELY LET THE SMALL ACFT DEPART; AND; THAT (THE AREA MGR) 'DIDN'T WANT TO EVER HEAR OF A CTLR BRINGING AN ERROR TO A SUPVR'S ATTN! IF; HOWEVER; THE SUPVR IS TYING HIS SHOE OR PICKING UP A PEN; THEN (THE AREA MGR) WOULD HAVE NO PROB.' SINCE THIS TIME; THE CTLR HAS BEEN PLACED ON NOTICE ABOUT BEING A BETTER TEAM PLAYER. THE CTLR CHOSE TO GO THROUGH THE SUPVR AND NOT YELL ACROSS THE TWR AND EMBARRASS THE CTLR. THE CTLR CONSIDERED THE AVENUE THE CTLR USED AS ACCEPTABLE AND IS CURRENTLY SEEING THAT THE MGMNT TEAM WOULD PREFER SOMETHING ELSE.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.