 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Aircraft under separate ATC jurisdiction had less than standard separation, poor interfacility coordination on opposite direction traffic, aircraft at same altitude.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 88250 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198805 |
| Day | Sat |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : tys |
| State Reference | TN |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 34800 msl bound upper : 35000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : ztl artcc : zid |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | cruise other descent other |
| Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | cruise other |
| Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : radar |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Experience | controller radar : 18 |
| ASRS Report | 88250 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : radar |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : required legal separation other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | atc equipment other atc equipment : unspecified other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance other |
| Consequence | faa : investigated |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 12000 vertical : 200 |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Inter Facility Coordination Failure Operational Error |
Narrative:
Large transport X at FL350 handoff to atl initiated 40 NM north of common boundary. Large transport X also slightly east of centerline (1-2 NM). Large transport Y at FL350 flashing handoff south of tys and west of centerline (1-2 NM). I (indy) accepted handoff large transport Y approximately 15 south of tys and made mental note of potential conflict. Atl accepted large transport X 5 north of boundary. I then resolved potential conflicts with J89 and J6 traffic now flashing conflict. I turned large transport X 30 degrees left, punched on handoff line, advised atl super high (buu) what I had done. Atl radar controller yelled, 'no turn large transport X west.' I immediately issued large transport X a turn back towards the west heading 220 degrees from a 145 degree heading. At the same time, large transport X commented, 'was it something I said?' I began seeing large transport Y track come back west. Atl had turned large transport Y east and then west. I advised indy supervisor that, 'I don't know what atl is trying to do, he keeps mirroring what I do. I'm going to drop large transport X FL340 or they'll hit.' at 3-4 NM no mode C change was observed on large transport Y. I gave large transport X an immediate descent to FL340 and told atl at which time another 'no, no.' I gave large transport Y FL340. Large transport X was told to climb immediately, and that an explanation would follow on the ground in atl. My opinion is that the atl controller should never have turned east with large transport Y reducing sep that already existed. Misread or was confused by all of radar data. Also being proposed is that cvg inbound traffic be at or below FL310, eliminating the head on situation and other problems the eecp creates for ind.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ACFT UNDER SEPARATE ATC JURISDICTION HAD LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION, POOR INTERFAC COORD ON OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC, ACFT AT SAME ALT.
Narrative: LGT X AT FL350 HDOF TO ATL INITIATED 40 NM N OF COMMON BOUNDARY. LGT X ALSO SLIGHTLY E OF CENTERLINE (1-2 NM). LGT Y AT FL350 FLASHING HDOF S OF TYS AND W OF CENTERLINE (1-2 NM). I (INDY) ACCEPTED HDOF LGT Y APPROX 15 S OF TYS AND MADE MENTAL NOTE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT. ATL ACCEPTED LGT X 5 N OF BOUNDARY. I THEN RESOLVED POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH J89 AND J6 TFC NOW FLASHING CONFLICT. I TURNED LGT X 30 DEGS L, PUNCHED ON HDOF LINE, ADVISED ATL SUPER HIGH (BUU) WHAT I HAD DONE. ATL RADAR CTLR YELLED, 'NO TURN LGT X W.' I IMMEDIATELY ISSUED LGT X A TURN BACK TOWARDS THE W HDG 220 DEGS FROM A 145 DEG HDG. AT THE SAME TIME, LGT X COMMENTED, 'WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?' I BEGAN SEEING LGT Y TRACK COME BACK W. ATL HAD TURNED LGT Y E AND THEN W. I ADVISED INDY SUPVR THAT, 'I DON'T KNOW WHAT ATL IS TRYING TO DO, HE KEEPS MIRRORING WHAT I DO. I'M GOING TO DROP LGT X FL340 OR THEY'LL HIT.' AT 3-4 NM NO MODE C CHANGE WAS OBSERVED ON LGT Y. I GAVE LGT X AN IMMEDIATE DSCNT TO FL340 AND TOLD ATL AT WHICH TIME ANOTHER 'NO, NO.' I GAVE LGT Y FL340. LGT X WAS TOLD TO CLB IMMEDIATELY, AND THAT AN EXPLANATION WOULD FOLLOW ON THE GND IN ATL. MY OPINION IS THAT THE ATL CTLR SHOULD NEVER HAVE TURNED E WITH LGT Y REDUCING SEP THAT ALREADY EXISTED. MISREAD OR WAS CONFUSED BY ALL OF RADAR DATA. ALSO BEING PROPOSED IS THAT CVG INBND TFC BE AT OR BELOW FL310, ELIMINATING THE HEAD ON SITUATION AND OTHER PROBS THE EECP CREATES FOR IND.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.