37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 810025 |
Time | |
Date | 200810 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : laf.airport |
State Reference | IN |
Altitude | msl single value : 4000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | artcc : zau.artcc |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | PA-31 Navajo Chieftan/Mojave/Navajo T1020 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | other |
Function | flight crew : single pilot |
Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 15 flight time total : 1200 flight time type : 300 |
ASRS Report | 810025 |
Events | |
Anomaly | conflict : airborne critical |
Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : tis other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | flight crew : took evasive action |
Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Miss Distance | horizontal : 1000 vertical : 0 |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Ambiguous |
Narrative:
On vectors to final for the ILS at laf; the controller assigned 4000 ft and an intercept heading. The GNS 530 displayed a traffic at 12 O'clock position 500 ft below 2 NM out; I thought the controller knew; I kept the traffic page active I did not see the traffic; I had the lights on. During the in range checklist and preparation to the approach the display alarmed; aurally and visually. I disconnected the autoplt and made a 60 degree turn hard back to the right and climbed; in the turn I saw the traffic underneath us in the gap between the left engine nacelle and the airframe for a fraction of a second; very close; I could see what appeared to be a twin with the gear down. After leveling at 5000 ft we returned to our assigned heading and initiated a descent back to 4000 ft. We made a call to ZAU to explain our altitude and heading change; she did not respond; we called a 2ND time and a 3RD time. It seemed she was on another frequency because when she made call to other aircraft we could not hear the replies. She was not attentive to us at all because we called her to make our turn to final after getting the localizer needle moving when we were in an intercept heading 110 degrees off the final approach course. We did not want to complain but she stated that she did not have radar coverage below 4000 ft. My comment is that how can anybody feel safe if we trust a radar system to keep us from other traffic and it does not happen; we had no separation service; no traffic information from ATC and we had poor to none guidance for the approach. The tis system is the best investment I had made on my aircraft and I will upgrade to a TCAS system soon; I do not trust the ability of the traffic control system to keep me and my family safe. I believe strongly that this was a discrimination case; the controller did not pay attention to us because we were a GA flight; period. I can guarantee that this would not have never happen on a part 121 operation into laf.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A PA31 PILOT ON AN IFR FLIGHT PLAN APPROACHING LAF EXPERIENCED AN AIRBORNE CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER AIRCRAFT. HE REPORTEDLY GOT AN ALERT FROM HIS TIS BUT NOT FROM THE CONTROLLER.
Narrative: ON VECTORS TO FINAL FOR THE ILS AT LAF; THE CTLR ASSIGNED 4000 FT AND AN INTERCEPT HDG. THE GNS 530 DISPLAYED A TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK POS 500 FT BELOW 2 NM OUT; I THOUGHT THE CTLR KNEW; I KEPT THE TFC PAGE ACTIVE I DID NOT SEE THE TFC; I HAD THE LIGHTS ON. DURING THE IN RANGE CHKLIST AND PREPARATION TO THE APCH THE DISPLAY ALARMED; AURALLY AND VISUALLY. I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND MADE A 60 DEG TURN HARD BACK TO THE R AND CLBED; IN THE TURN I SAW THE TFC UNDERNEATH US IN THE GAP BTWN THE L ENG NACELLE AND THE AIRFRAME FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND; VERY CLOSE; I COULD SEE WHAT APPEARED TO BE A TWIN WITH THE GEAR DOWN. AFTER LEVELING AT 5000 FT WE RETURNED TO OUR ASSIGNED HDG AND INITIATED A DSCNT BACK TO 4000 FT. WE MADE A CALL TO ZAU TO EXPLAIN OUR ALT AND HDG CHANGE; SHE DID NOT RESPOND; WE CALLED A 2ND TIME AND A 3RD TIME. IT SEEMED SHE WAS ON ANOTHER FREQ BECAUSE WHEN SHE MADE CALL TO OTHER ACFT WE COULD NOT HEAR THE REPLIES. SHE WAS NOT ATTENTIVE TO US AT ALL BECAUSE WE CALLED HER TO MAKE OUR TURN TO FINAL AFTER GETTING THE LOC NEEDLE MOVING WHEN WE WERE IN AN INTERCEPT HDG 110 DEGS OFF THE FINAL APCH COURSE. WE DID NOT WANT TO COMPLAIN BUT SHE STATED THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE RADAR COVERAGE BELOW 4000 FT. MY COMMENT IS THAT HOW CAN ANYBODY FEEL SAFE IF WE TRUST A RADAR SYS TO KEEP US FROM OTHER TFC AND IT DOES NOT HAPPEN; WE HAD NO SEPARATION SVC; NO TFC INFO FROM ATC AND WE HAD POOR TO NONE GUIDANCE FOR THE APCH. THE TIS SYS IS THE BEST INVESTMENT I HAD MADE ON MY ACFT AND I WILL UPGRADE TO A TCAS SYS SOON; I DO NOT TRUST THE ABILITY OF THE TFC CTL SYS TO KEEP ME AND MY FAMILY SAFE. I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT THIS WAS A DISCRIMINATION CASE; THE CTLR DID NOT PAY ATTN TO US BECAUSE WE WERE A GA FLT; PERIOD. I CAN GUARANTEE THAT THIS WOULD NOT HAVE NEVER HAPPEN ON A PART 121 OP INTO LAF.
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.