Narrative:

A PA32 departed southwest bound VFR. The aircraft was advised of an antenna ahead at 1;400 MSL. The aircraft reported he had it in sight. The aircraft was at 1;300 MSL when its target crossed the map symbol representing the aircraft at 1;300 MSL. The local controller did not issue a MSAW alert. When questioned why; the controller felt that the pilot reporting the antenna insight absolved him of any responsibility to issue the safety alert. The controller was directed to read jo 7110.65; paragraph 2-1-6 and state whether or not he still felt he wasn't required to issue the alert. The controller referred to the statement 'if in your judgment'. His judgment was that if the pilot reported the antenna in sight; he wasn't required to issue the alert. Recommendation; using this controller's philosophy; if the pilot states the antenna is in sight; the aircraft could pass 1 ft from the antenna and as long as it didn't impact the antenna; the aircraft would not be in unsafe proximity. I would recommend the agency amend the requirement to provide a minimum distance and altitude in which a safety alert would be required. The far requires pilots to maintain 1;000 ft above any obstruction within 2;000 ft of its location. Jo 7110.65 requires 3 miles or 1;000 ft for an IFR aircraft. I would recommend the same change for traffic alerts. The phrase 'if in your judgment' is subjective and difficult; at best; to hold a controller accountable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower Controller voiced concern regarding the ATC vs. pilot responsibilities and antenna clearance requirements.

Narrative: A PA32 departed southwest bound VFR. The aircraft was advised of an antenna ahead at 1;400 MSL. The aircraft reported he had it in sight. The aircraft was at 1;300 MSL when its target crossed the map symbol representing the aircraft at 1;300 MSL. The Local Controller did not issue a MSAW alert. When questioned why; the Controller felt that the pilot reporting the antenna insight absolved him of any responsibility to issue the safety alert. The Controller was directed to read JO 7110.65; paragraph 2-1-6 and state whether or not he still felt he wasn't required to issue the alert. The Controller referred to the statement 'If in your judgment'. His judgment was that if the pilot reported the antenna in sight; he wasn't required to issue the alert. Recommendation; using this Controller's philosophy; if the pilot states the antenna is in sight; the aircraft could pass 1 FT from the antenna and as long as it didn't impact the antenna; the aircraft would not be in unsafe proximity. I would recommend the agency amend the requirement to provide a minimum distance and altitude in which a safety alert would be required. The FAR requires pilots to maintain 1;000 FT above any obstruction within 2;000 FT of its location. JO 7110.65 requires 3 miles or 1;000 FT for an IFR aircraft. I would recommend the same change for traffic alerts. The phrase 'If in your judgment' is subjective and difficult; at best; to hold a controller accountable.

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.