Narrative:

I was training a developmental on the north radar position. Our radar system was out of service and we were using a back up system; indianapolis center (ZID); london radar. The columbus sector from ZID attempted to hand off a C208 at 6000 feet; going from canton/akron (cak) to cincinnati lunken (luk) on a direct routing. There was no target or ARTS (stars) track associated with the hand off. We advised ZID to keep them coming toward our airspace and hopefully we would pick up the target later. They again attempted to hand off the C208 and again; there was not a target. The developmental was not familiar with non-radar procedures; so I as the instructor; advised ZID to terminate radar; clear the C208 to appleton VOR (ape) and switch the aircraft to our frequency. I explained the situation to the developmental and we decided to continue training. Radio contact was established with the C208 and he was given a new clearance to cincinnati lunken (luk) via direct ape; victor 5; joger intersection; and then direct luk and told to report over ape. The C208 reported over ape and still; no target or ARTS/stars track was observed. I told him to report 15 southwest of ape for his next reporting point. I also coordinated with south radar and advised to protect V5 at 6000 feet as this aircraft approached the airspace not in 'radar contact'. Sometime during all of this; south radar was handing off a C550 southeast of ohio state airport (osu); at 8000 feet northwest bound; landing at osu. The developmental took the automated hand off. His flight track was going to take him directly across victor 5 and put him on a left downwind for runway 9R at osu. Everything looked fine. I thought I had all of the bases covered. I did not hear the developmental descend the C550 to 4000 feet. I observed the C550 descending out of 7000 feet and asked the developmental if he was talking to that airplane. He said he was and he had descended him. I immediately overrode the trainee and instructed the C550 to expedite his decent through 5000. The pilot reported through 5000; however; separation between these two aircraft was not maintained. Several factors are involved here in the occurrence of this event. I must take my part of the responsibility here because I failed to monitor the trainee close enough that I missed his giving the C550 a clearance to descend. The trainee clearly was not prepared to deal with a 'non radar' separation issue and was not familiar with the clearances or the separation standards. We were on a back up radar site which did not pick up the aircraft at all. Along with these factors; the other traffic in the area presented challenges of their own; adding to the complexity of the whole event. Without minimizing the loss of separation; I think the system we use as our back up radar (ZID london radar) has a serious issue in the fact that it will not track certain targets. We have had several events where targets have 'dropped off' the radar scope; one which occurred with a B737 approximately one hour after my event occurred. Investigate the ZID london radar. Certify that it is capable of serving as our 'back up ' system. Is there a limitation here where it cannot track certain targets? Have the trainees better prepared for 'non radar' events. Make sure this is part of the curriculum in their classroom training and part of their simulated training as well so that when it happens in the real world; they are not at a total loss as in how to handle these situations.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CMH Controller providing OJT described a loss of separation event while using alternate RADAR equipment when the developmental issued a conflict descent clearance that was not heard by the instructor/reporter.

Narrative: I was training a developmental on the North RADAR position. Our RADAR system was out of service and we were using a back up system; Indianapolis Center (ZID); London RADAR. The Columbus Sector from ZID attempted to hand off a C208 at 6000 feet; going from Canton/Akron (CAK) to Cincinnati Lunken (LUK) on a Direct routing. There was no target or ARTS (STARS) track associated with the hand off. We advised ZID to keep them coming toward our airspace and hopefully we would pick up the target later. They again attempted to hand off the C208 and again; there was not a target. The Developmental was not familiar with Non-RADAR procedures; so I as the instructor; advised ZID to terminate RADAR; clear the C208 to Appleton VOR (APE) and switch the aircraft to our frequency. I explained the situation to the developmental and we decided to continue training. Radio contact was established with the C208 and he was given a new clearance to Cincinnati Lunken (LUK) via direct APE; Victor 5; JOGER Intersection; and then direct LUK and told to report over APE. The C208 reported over APE and still; no target or ARTS/STARS track was observed. I told him to report 15 Southwest of APE for his next reporting point. I also coordinated with South RADAR and advised to protect V5 at 6000 feet as this aircraft approached the airspace not in 'RADAR Contact'. Sometime during all of this; South RADAR was handing off a C550 Southeast of Ohio State Airport (OSU); at 8000 feet Northwest bound; landing at OSU. The developmental took the automated hand off. His flight track was going to take him directly across Victor 5 and put him on a left downwind for Runway 9R at OSU. Everything looked fine. I thought I had all of the bases covered. I did not hear the developmental descend the C550 to 4000 feet. I observed the C550 descending out of 7000 feet and asked the developmental if he was talking to that airplane. He said he was and he had descended him. I immediately overrode the trainee and instructed the C550 to expedite his decent through 5000. The pilot reported through 5000; however; separation between these two aircraft was not maintained. Several factors are involved here in the occurrence of this event. I must take my part of the responsibility here because I failed to monitor the trainee close enough that I missed his giving the C550 a clearance to descend. The Trainee clearly was not prepared to deal with a 'Non RADAR' separation issue and was not familiar with the clearances or the separation standards. We were on a back up RADAR site which did not pick up the aircraft at all. Along with these factors; the other traffic in the area presented challenges of their own; adding to the complexity of the whole event. Without minimizing the loss of separation; I think the system we use as our back up RADAR (ZID London RADAR) has a serious issue in the fact that it will not track certain targets. We have had several events where targets have 'dropped off' the RADAR scope; one which occurred with a B737 approximately one hour after my event occurred. Investigate the ZID London RADAR. Certify that it is capable of serving as our 'back up ' system. Is there a limitation here where it cannot track certain targets? Have the trainees better prepared for 'Non RADAR' events. Make sure this is part of the curriculum in their classroom training and part of their simulated training as well so that when it happens in the real world; they are not at a total loss as in how to handle these situations.

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.