37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 864721 |
Time | |
Date | 200912 |
Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | FTW.FSS |
State Reference | TX |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | No Aircraft |
Person 1 | |
Function | Flight Service |
Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
Events | |
Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
I was working a rotation of flight data/NOTAMS combined for the ftw; cxo; and dri areas. The last 2hrs of my rotation were under a heavier work load than usual for that time period. I revived a request for a NOTAM to be issued by our e-notam system. The request was from mocc for 'law runway 35 OTS'. Since a runway can not be shown as OTS I assumed that the request was for a runway closure. I approved the NOTAM and sent a comment to mocc that the correct format is law runway 35 clsd and issued a NOTAM as such. Law tower and airport management caught the error and called asking who authorized the closure and asked that the NOTAM be removed. They informed me that they did not authorize the closure. I removed the NOTAM and gave the airport manager the contact information of the person at mocc that requested the NOTAM be issued. I informed my coworkers of the problem in case they received a call about the NOTAM. Approximately 1hr later I was relived from my position and told the relieving specialist about the issue on a recorded line. Later one of the specialists was able to get ahold of the person at mocc that requested the NOTAM. The person stated they were confused by several other notams that needed to be issued in a short time span. The NOTAM was supposed to be for duc runway 35 VASI OTS. Since the NOTAM's effective times were for the next day no known aircraft deviated; and there were no immediate threats to safety of flight. Due to my higher than normal workload and combined positions I did not take the time to verbally contact mocc about the error in the NOTAM request. I assumed they were asking for a closure to the runway and if that was not correct they would see the note I had made about the change in format. Also due to high workload I was unable to further research the problem after law airport management reported the error. We have been instructed by management to accept all notams from mocc even if they are not listed on our list of persons approved to issue notams at a given airport. If the NOTAM effective times were immediate or soon after issuance time there may have been a disruption to service and safety.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FTW FSS Specialist described a runway closure NOTAM error; noting increased workload and combined positions prevented any follow-up verification regarding same.
Narrative: I was working a rotation of Flight Data/NOTAMS combined for the FTW; CXO; and DRI areas. The last 2hrs of my rotation were under a heavier work load than usual for that time period. I revived a request for a NOTAM to be issued by our E-NOTAM system. The request was from MOCC for 'LAW RWY 35 OTS'. Since a runway can not be shown as OTS I assumed that the request was for a runway closure. I approved the NOTAM and sent a comment to MOCC that the correct format is LAW RWY 35 CLSD and issued a NOTAM as such. LAW Tower and Airport Management caught the error and called asking who authorized the closure and asked that the NOTAM be removed. They informed me that they did not authorize the closure. I removed the NOTAM and gave the Airport Manager the contact information of the person at MOCC that requested the NOTAM be issued. I informed my coworkers of the problem in case they received a call about the NOTAM. Approximately 1hr later I was relived from my position and told the relieving specialist about the issue on a recorded line. Later one of the specialists was able to get ahold of the person at MOCC that requested the NOTAM. The person stated they were confused by several other NOTAMs that needed to be issued in a short time span. The NOTAM was supposed to be for DUC RWY 35 VASI OTS. Since the NOTAM's effective times were for the next day no known aircraft deviated; and there were no immediate threats to safety of flight. Due to my higher than normal workload and combined positions I did not take the time to verbally contact MOCC about the error in the NOTAM request. I assumed they were asking for a closure to the runway and if that was not correct they would see the note I had made about the change in format. Also due to high workload I was unable to further research the problem after LAW Airport Management reported the error. We have been instructed by Management to accept all NOTAMs from MOCC even if they are not listed on our list of persons approved to issue NOTAMs at a given airport. If the NOTAM effective times were immediate or soon after issuance time there may have been a disruption to service and safety.
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.