37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 91317 |
Time | |
Date | 198807 |
Day | Mon |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : fsm |
State Reference | AR |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 3000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : fsm tower : las |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 1000 |
ASRS Report | 91317 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
After asking for clearance to a visual approach, fort smith approach control's only answer was, 'roger.' we were #2 for landing at this time, and with the apparent clearance for a visual, began a left turn to bring our aircraft onto base leg. At this point approach controller barked out to us, 'turn right, heading 060 degrees, maintain 3000' MSL !!' again we asked, this time for clarification purposes, 'are we not cleared for the visual,' and also stated the #1 landing traffic was in sight. This controller's response was, 'just because I said 'roger,' did not mean 'affirmative'.' again, clearance for the visual approach was issued, and was set to tower. Landing made with no further incident. I feel that 'roger' and 'affirmative' have been allowed to pass for the same purpose for many, many yrs, and cannot think back on another incident where I mistook the intent of a 'rogered' or 'affirmed' clearance. Fort smith obviously uses controllers with very little experience at the scope, and when rushed or pressured by multiple traffic they say things that they don't mean, are not legal, or at the very least very difficult and frustrating to comply with. Have no answers to this, other than when flying through areas that we know have trnees at the scope, just throw the schedule out the window, slow down and listen, listen, listen. A lot of it will give a you a good laugh! But, where do we complain when safety is compromised by a controller who doesn't know what to say? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter counseled on phraseology and that controller could not give a clearance with just a roger or affirmative. He stated this was just 1 example and that they have had other non standard communication at fsm. Their chief pilot has talked with the supervisor at fsm and they are working with the trnees and the situation has improved.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ACR LTT TRACK DEVIATION AND ALT EXCURSION DUE TO FLT CREW MISINTERP OF APCH CTLR COM.
Narrative: AFTER ASKING FOR CLRNC TO A VISUAL APCH, FORT SMITH APCH CTL'S ONLY ANSWER WAS, 'ROGER.' WE WERE #2 FOR LNDG AT THIS TIME, AND WITH THE APPARENT CLRNC FOR A VISUAL, BEGAN A LEFT TURN TO BRING OUR ACFT ONTO BASE LEG. AT THIS POINT APCH CTLR BARKED OUT TO US, 'TURN RIGHT, HDG 060 DEGS, MAINTAIN 3000' MSL !!' AGAIN WE ASKED, THIS TIME FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, 'ARE WE NOT CLRED FOR THE VISUAL,' AND ALSO STATED THE #1 LNDG TFC WAS IN SIGHT. THIS CTLR'S RESPONSE WAS, 'JUST BECAUSE I SAID 'ROGER,' DID NOT MEAN 'AFFIRMATIVE'.' AGAIN, CLRNC FOR THE VISUAL APCH WAS ISSUED, AND WAS SET TO TWR. LNDG MADE WITH NO FURTHER INCIDENT. I FEEL THAT 'ROGER' AND 'AFFIRMATIVE' HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PASS FOR THE SAME PURPOSE FOR MANY, MANY YRS, AND CANNOT THINK BACK ON ANOTHER INCIDENT WHERE I MISTOOK THE INTENT OF A 'ROGERED' OR 'AFFIRMED' CLRNC. FORT SMITH OBVIOUSLY USES CTLRS WITH VERY LITTLE EXPERIENCE AT THE SCOPE, AND WHEN RUSHED OR PRESSURED BY MULTIPLE TFC THEY SAY THINGS THAT THEY DON'T MEAN, ARE NOT LEGAL, OR AT THE VERY LEAST VERY DIFFICULT AND FRUSTRATING TO COMPLY WITH. HAVE NO ANSWERS TO THIS, OTHER THAN WHEN FLYING THROUGH AREAS THAT WE KNOW HAVE TRNEES AT THE SCOPE, JUST THROW THE SCHEDULE OUT THE WINDOW, SLOW DOWN AND LISTEN, LISTEN, LISTEN. A LOT OF IT WILL GIVE A YOU A GOOD LAUGH! BUT, WHERE DO WE COMPLAIN WHEN SAFETY IS COMPROMISED BY A CTLR WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR COUNSELED ON PHRASEOLOGY AND THAT CTLR COULD NOT GIVE A CLRNC WITH JUST A ROGER OR AFFIRMATIVE. HE STATED THIS WAS JUST 1 EXAMPLE AND THAT THEY HAVE HAD OTHER NON STANDARD COM AT FSM. THEIR CHIEF PLT HAS TALKED WITH THE SUPVR AT FSM AND THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE TRNEES AND THE SITUATION HAS IMPROVED.
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.