Narrative:

A falcon was cleared for the roaring fork visual approach (rfv) and frequency changed to tower. Tower departed a challenger as a normal departure. The falcon did not respond on tower frequency despite numerous calls. The falcon followed the ground track depicted on the rfv and descended into the departure corridor in direct conflict with the challenger. Tower issued traffic repeatedly to the challenger but the pilot never saw the other aircraft. Tower issued a green light to the falcon who landed without incident and contacted ground control for taxi into the ramp. The problem here is that the departure flew exactly as he should. The arrival flew exactly according to the procedure. Tower did all they could to control the situation; but the departure was below the MVA and the arrival was lost in frequency land. 'Visual separation' was provided by tower in that both aircraft were in sight; but no control instructions could be issued to either aircraft. Once again ATC had their hands tied by the roaring fork visual approach; with 2 or 3 of the entry points violating the departure corridor. Management insists on the use of the approach so controllers develop habits to clear aircraft for the approach. At best; this is a gray area solution to the problem and leaves controllers vulnerable to deviations and criticism. Also; this practice does not work when you lose communication with the aircraft. Recommendation; either adjust the roaring fork visual approach to not violate the departure corridor or discontinue its use. At a minimum; allow controllers to choose the appropriate approach for the traffic situation; either rfv or visual. Management's insistence on using this approach is a safety hazard.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ASE Controller described a potential conflict between an arrival on the Roaring Fork Visual Approach (RVP) that loss communications and a departure; the reporter claiming the RVP procedures needs to be discontinued.

Narrative: A Falcon was cleared for the Roaring Fork Visual Approach (RFV) and frequency changed to Tower. Tower departed a Challenger as a normal departure. The Falcon did not respond on tower frequency despite numerous calls. The Falcon followed the ground track depicted on the RFV and descended into the departure corridor in direct conflict with the Challenger. Tower issued traffic repeatedly to the Challenger but the pilot never saw the other aircraft. Tower issued a green light to the Falcon who landed without incident and contacted Ground Control for taxi into the ramp. The problem here is that the departure flew exactly as he should. The arrival flew exactly according to the procedure. Tower did all they could to control the situation; but the departure was below the MVA and the arrival was lost in frequency land. 'Visual Separation' was provided by Tower in that both aircraft were in sight; but no control instructions could be issued to either aircraft. Once again ATC had their hands tied by the Roaring Fork Visual Approach; with 2 or 3 of the entry points violating the departure corridor. Management insists on the use of the approach so controllers develop habits to clear aircraft for the approach. At best; this is a gray area solution to the problem and leaves controllers vulnerable to deviations and criticism. Also; this practice does not work when you lose communication with the aircraft. Recommendation; either adjust the Roaring Fork Visual Approach to not violate the departure corridor or discontinue its use. At a minimum; allow controllers to choose the appropriate approach for the traffic situation; either RFV or visual. Management's insistence on using this approach is a safety hazard.

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.