37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 830828 |
Time | |
Date | 200904 |
Local Time Of Day | 0001-0600 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | FAI.Airport |
State Reference | AK |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
Route In Use | Visual Approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
Route In Use | Visual Approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Local |
Events | |
Anomaly | Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Clearance |
Narrative:
Due to staffing; fai's TRACON is closed from late evening to early morning until further notice. Fai is staffed as a VFR tower and zan has the approach control duties. Zan coordinated that aircraft X would be the next arrival and aircraft Y would likely get aircraft X in sight to follow; both on visual approaches. Later when the aircraft were within radar coverage and on the d-brite I could see that aircraft X and aircraft Y were a tie to runway 1L. Aircraft X was on a base from the east and aircraft Y was on a straight-in from the south. Aircraft Y should have been first to arrive; but with a vector and/or airspeed adjustment either aircraft could have been first. Zan gave them to my frequency when aircraft Y was about 20 miles south and aircraft X about 15 miles east. Aircraft Y came over to my frequency worried about how the sequence was going to play out. I gave aircraft Y ground speed information on aircraft X and a suggestion to widen out. When they got closer; aircraft Y opted to pass above and behind aircraft X then enter the downwind to land opposite direction on runway 19R. Zan should not have transferred the aircraft to my frequency prior to establishing a solid sequence. The aircraft Y pilots should not have taken the follow aircraft X and cleared visual approach clearance. In the dark and 20-25 miles from aircraft X; the aircraft Y pilots had little depth perception.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FAI Local Controller described flawed ZAN sequencing/spacing event with two arrival aircraft; alleging ZAN Controller failed to adequately complete the visual approach process.
Narrative: Due to staffing; FAI's TRACON is closed from late evening to early morning until further notice. FAI is staffed as a VFR Tower and ZAN has the Approach Control duties. ZAN coordinated that Aircraft X would be the next arrival and Aircraft Y would likely get Aircraft X in sight to follow; both on visual approaches. Later when the aircraft were within radar coverage and on the D-BRITE I could see that Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were a tie to Runway 1L. Aircraft X was on a base from the east and Aircraft Y was on a straight-in from the south. Aircraft Y should have been first to arrive; but with a vector and/or airspeed adjustment either aircraft could have been first. ZAN gave them to my frequency when Aircraft Y was about 20 miles south and Aircraft X about 15 miles east. Aircraft Y came over to my frequency worried about how the sequence was going to play out. I gave Aircraft Y ground speed information on Aircraft X and a suggestion to widen out. When they got closer; Aircraft Y opted to pass above and behind Aircraft X then enter the downwind to land opposite direction on Runway 19R. ZAN should not have transferred the aircraft to my frequency prior to establishing a solid sequence. The Aircraft Y pilots should not have taken the follow Aircraft X and cleared visual approach clearance. In the dark and 20-25 miles from Aircraft X; the Aircraft Y pilots had little depth perception.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.