Slc controller described a near separation loss event when failing to note a departure was not on th...

Narrative:

I departed air carrier X who I thought was on an RNAV departure and should have turned to the first way point but was not an RNAV departure and the aircraft flew runway heading. I had departed air carrier Y with visual separation with air carrier X and air carrier Y was on the RNAV departure and turned to the first way point. I caught the error and coordinated with the departure controller who was already correcting the error. I issued a heading to keep air carrier Y behind air carrier X. The supervisor was help me correct the problem and had me stop the climb of air carrier Y to keep air carrier Y under air carrier X altitude and had me verify that air carrier Y was maintaining visual separation with air carrier X. I had already established visual on the runway. Why did this happen! The facility is in a test/training period for a new system; a strip bar code reader. This system requires the controller to enter whether visual separation is being applied and when the aircraft is departing for each aircraft. The system is very distracting and requires you to look at your podium. The podium is already holding the controls for the STAR's system and asde-X system and you have to find room for your strips; traffic pad and memory strips. The bar code system does not replace another piece of equipment or satisfy requirement in the orders. It's just distracting. The other problem is that 99.9% of the time air carrier X and air carrier Y are on an RNAV departure and I missed the fact that air carrier X was not on the RNAV. Recommendation; I recommend that all aircraft departing slc be on a departure that has an assigned heading written in to the procedure. Most the departures from slc already have this. By standardizing the departure procedure this would solve this problem or as an alternate solution have the local assign a departure heading to all aircraft. As these procedures are developed the departing aircraft who have to be turned could be highlighted. Or we could just eliminate distractions.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SLC controller described a near separation loss event when failing to note a departure was not on the assumed RNAV procedure resulting in an overtake situation involving a second departure. The reporter indicated distractions of new equipment/procedures contributed to the event.

Narrative: I departed Air Carrier X who I thought was on an RNAV departure and should have turned to the first way point but was not an RNAV departure and the aircraft flew runway heading. I had departed Air Carrier Y with visual separation with Air Carrier X and Air Carrier Y was on the RNAV departure and turned to the first way point. I caught the error and coordinated with the departure controller who was already correcting the error. I issued a heading to keep Air Carrier Y behind Air Carrier X. The supervisor was help me correct the problem and had me stop the climb of Air Carrier Y to keep Air Carrier Y under Air Carrier X altitude and had me verify that Air Carrier Y was maintaining visual separation with Air Carrier X. I had already established visual on the runway. Why did this happen! The facility is in a test/training period for a new system; a strip bar code reader. This system requires the controller to enter whether visual separation is being applied and when the aircraft is departing for each aircraft. The system is very distracting and requires you to look at your podium. The podium is already holding the controls for the STAR's system and ASDE-X system and you have to find room for your strips; traffic pad and memory strips. The BAR code system does not replace another piece of equipment or satisfy requirement in the Orders. It's just distracting. The other problem is that 99.9% of the time Air Carrier X and Air Carrier Y are on an RNAV departure and I missed the fact that Air Carrier X was not on the RNAV. Recommendation; I recommend that all aircraft departing SLC be on a departure that has an assigned heading written in to the procedure. Most the departures from SLC already have this. By standardizing the departure procedure this would solve this problem or as an alternate solution have the local assign a departure heading to all aircraft. As these procedures are developed the departing aircraft who have to be turned could be highlighted. Or we could just eliminate distractions.

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.

Attributes
ACN	891299
Time
Date	201006
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	SLC.Tower
State Reference	UT
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Route In Use	None
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Climb
Person 1
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Slc controller described a near separation loss event when failing to note a departure was not on the assumed RNAV procedure resulting in an overtake situation involving a second departure. The reporter indicated distractions of new equipment/procedures contributed to the event.