Tjzs controller voiced concern regarding confused position responsibilities between the tower and th...

Attributes
ACN	861136
Time
Date	200911
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	TJSJ.Airport
State Reference	PR
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Radar 9
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict NMAC Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Miss Distance	Horizontal 100 Vertical 200

Narrative:

For years; the FAA has been confusing the controllers who work at the tower and at the cerap. They provide class C and limited radar approach to the tower. They removed the limited radar but left the class C responsibility to the tower. They tell the controllers at the cerap that the tower is a non approach control tower. They do not train the controllers at the tower like they are supposed to do. In this event; maybe with more training this conflict could have been prevented. The field was IFR; both aircraft conflicted at the same point at the same altitude. The FAA does not follow order 3120.4; par 2-11 (g) where it states that VFR towers need to complete certain stages of radar qualification training if they are going to use radar rules. At this moment we have been told that they are a non approach control tower; but they keep applying certain rules from an approach control tower. It is very confusing.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TJZS controller voiced concern regarding confused position responsibilities between the Tower and the CERAP indicting a conflict event resulted because of this ATC separation confusion.

Narrative: For years; the FAA has been confusing the controllers who work at the tower and at the CERAP. They provide Class C and Limited RADAR Approach to the tower. They removed the Limited RADAR but left the CLASS C responsibility to the Tower. They tell the Controllers at the CERAP that the Tower is a non Approach Control Tower. They do not train the Controllers at the Tower like they are supposed to do. In this event; maybe with more training this conflict could have been prevented. The field was IFR; both aircraft conflicted at the same point at the same altitude. The FAA does not follow Order 3120.4; par 2-11 (g) where it states that VFR Towers need to complete certain stages of RADAR qualification training if they are going to use RADAR rules. At this moment we have been told that they are a non Approach Control Tower; but they keep applying certain rules from an Approach Control Tower. It is very confusing.

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.

Tjzs controller voiced concern regarding confused position responsibilities between the tower and the cerap indicting a conflict event resulted because of this ATC separation confusion.