 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
K90 controller described a potential conflict event between IFR and VFR traffic; the IFR traffic given avoidance vectors.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 877873 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201003 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | K90.TRACON |
| State Reference | MA |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Caravan 208B |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Route In Use | Vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Approach |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Conflict Airborne Conflict |
Narrative:
Aircraft X checked in. I observed a VFR target 8 miles north of aircraft X; proceeding southwest bound toward ack; indicating 2000. I asked for flight conditions from aircraft X. He responded IMC. I issued an immediate climb to 3000 and a right turn heading 360. I issued traffic; 12 o'clock; 5 miles same altitude; opposite direction; indicating VFR. The collision alert sounded. The aircraft involved were separated by approximately 3 miles; the VFR target indicating 2000; aircraft X indicating 2100. Target beacon; primary returns merged. Vertical separation at this time approximately 300'. Aircraft X reported traffic in sight. Once separation was increasing; I descended aircraft X to 2000 and issued a left turn heading 340 for the VOR runway 06 approach. Aircraft X called the facility and requested to speak to me. He was upset that; given the vicinity of the situation and the prevailing weather conditions; the conflicting aircraft was attempting to operate under VFR. I explained that both his departure airport; as well as the ultimate destination airport were reporting VFR condition. Thus; the VFR aircraft was authorized to conduct his operation and no rules were broken. Aircraft X was appreciative of my service; yet remained upset that the conflict VFR aircraft conducted VFR flight in what he described as IFR conditions.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: K90 controller described a potential conflict event between IFR and VFR traffic; the IFR traffic given avoidance vectors.
Narrative: Aircraft X checked in. I observed a VFR target 8 miles north of Aircraft X; proceeding southwest bound toward ACK; indicating 2000. I asked for flight conditions from Aircraft X. He responded IMC. I issued an immediate climb to 3000 and a right turn heading 360. I issued traffic; 12 o'clock; 5 miles same altitude; opposite direction; indicating VFR. The collision alert sounded. The aircraft involved were separated by approximately 3 miles; the VFR target indicating 2000; Aircraft X indicating 2100. Target beacon; primary returns merged. Vertical separation at this time approximately 300'. Aircraft X reported traffic in sight. Once separation was increasing; I descended Aircraft X to 2000 and issued a left turn heading 340 for the VOR Runway 06 approach. Aircraft X called the facility and requested to speak to me. He was upset that; given the vicinity of the situation and the prevailing weather conditions; the conflicting aircraft was attempting to operate under VFR. I explained that both his departure airport; as well as the ultimate destination airport were reporting VFR condition. Thus; The VFR aircraft was authorized to conduct his operation and no rules were broken. Aircraft X was appreciative of my service; yet remained upset that the conflict VFR aircraft conducted VFR flight in what he described as IFR conditions.
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.