R90 controller reported an event during parallel runway operations when one aircraft accepted visual...

Narrative:

A B36 on 320 heading at 3;000 ft. Traffic issued to the B36 on a CRJ1; 9 o'clock; 2 miles at 4;000 ft. The B36 reported the CRJ1 in sight and was instructed to maintain visual separation from the CRJ1. The B36 acknowledged the visual separation. The CRJ1 reported his runway 32L; in sight and was cleared for a visual approach and switched to tower frequency. The B36 then reported his runway in sight; 32R. The B36 was cleared visual approach and told caution wake turbulence from the CRJ1. The B36 said; I've lost that traffic now. At this point the aircraft were about 2 miles apart on parallel courses at 3;000 ft. I canceled the B36 approach clearance and turned him to a 050 heading and issued 030 ft. Separation was achieved before the visual separation. And; after turning to the 050 heading; 3 miles lateral separation was achieved. When the B36 reporting losing visual separation from the CRJ1; less than standard IFR separation existed. So; what exactly; if anything; would this event be classified as; I don't know. Recommendation; the pilot might not have known that it was his responsibility to advise ATC if he could not accept a maintain visual separation clearance. The whole situation could have been avoided if the B36 advised me that due to deteriorating weather conditions; he did not want to accept visual separation responsibility in the first place.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: R90 Controller reported an event during parallel runway operations when one aircraft accepted visual separation responsibility but then lost sight of parallel traffic after radar separation was lost. Reporter questioned how this event may be classified.

Narrative: A B36 on 320 heading at 3;000 FT. Traffic issued to the B36 on a CRJ1; 9 o'clock; 2 miles at 4;000 FT. The B36 reported the CRJ1 in sight and was instructed to maintain visual separation from the CRJ1. The B36 acknowledged the visual separation. The CRJ1 reported his Runway 32L; in sight and was cleared for a visual approach and switched to Tower frequency. The B36 then reported his runway in sight; 32R. The B36 was cleared visual approach and told caution wake turbulence from the CRJ1. The B36 said; I've lost that traffic now. At this point the aircraft were about 2 miles apart on parallel courses at 3;000 FT. I canceled the B36 approach clearance and turned him to a 050 heading and issued 030 FT. Separation was achieved before the visual separation. And; after turning to the 050 heading; 3 miles lateral separation was achieved. When the B36 reporting losing visual separation from the CRJ1; less than standard IFR separation existed. So; what exactly; if anything; would this event be classified as; I don't know. Recommendation; the pilot might not have known that it was his responsibility to advise ATC if he could not accept a maintain visual separation clearance. The whole situation could have been avoided if the B36 advised me that due to deteriorating weather conditions; he did not want to accept visual separation responsibility in the first place.

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	934453
Time
Date	201102
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	OMA.Airport
State Reference	NE
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Bonanza 36
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Regional Jet CL65 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach Departure
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

R90 controller reported an event during parallel runway operations when one aircraft accepted visual separation responsibility but then lost sight of parallel traffic after radar separation was lost. Reporter questioned how this event may be classified.