 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flm reported a concern regarding the repeated performance deficiencies of a controller.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 955501 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201106 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.TRACON |
| State Reference | US |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Climb |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Supervisor / CIC |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types |
Narrative:
I was in the flm in the area. The sector was experiencing light to moderate traffic; but nothing out of the ordinary. Three sectors down was busy and experiencing traffic that was complex. The traffic situation was very common. Normally the departure aircraft are climbed to 100 and one aircraft was turned slightly north to change the crossing point or slightly east in order to change the crossing point. I have never seen an aircraft turned to a 280 heading in order to allow departures to climb. It appeared that one aircraft was cleared to 140 without regard for the aircraft. A mistake; but one that every controller makes; including myself. The 280 heading was a suitable although a bit over the top corrective action. After the controller had the situation handled; he gave the aircraft another clearance that I have never seen. Next a climb clearance; a third questionable decision within minutes; as one aircraft climbed directly underneath the other aircraft. The same controller had an operational error approximately 6 months earlier when he did not point out an aircraft; claiming he did not know that he needed to point out that aircraft; the point out was ATC 101. The fact that is bothering me is the lack of professional judgment in both operational errors.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLM reported a concern regarding the repeated performance deficiencies of a controller.
Narrative: I was in the FLM in the area. The sector was experiencing light to moderate traffic; but nothing out of the ordinary. Three sectors down was busy and experiencing traffic that was complex. The traffic situation was very common. Normally the departure aircraft are climbed to 100 and one aircraft was turned slightly north to change the crossing point or slightly east in order to change the crossing point. I have never seen an aircraft turned to a 280 heading in order to allow departures to climb. It appeared that one aircraft was cleared to 140 without regard for the aircraft. A mistake; but one that every controller makes; including myself. The 280 heading was a suitable although a bit over the top corrective action. After the Controller had the situation handled; he gave the aircraft another clearance that I have never seen. Next a climb clearance; a third questionable decision within minutes; as one aircraft climbed directly underneath the other aircraft. The same Controller had an Operational Error approximately 6 months earlier when he did not point out an aircraft; claiming he did not know that he needed to point out that aircraft; the point out was ATC 101. The fact that is bothering me is the lack of professional judgment in both Operational Errors.
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.