37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 983103 |
Time | |
Date | 201112 |
Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Super King Air 200 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | Descent |
Route In Use | Visual Approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Make Model Name | Hornet (F-18) |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | Descent |
Route In Use | Visual Approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Departure Approach |
Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
Events | |
Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
A king air was set up for a right traffic downwind into the airport. I cleared the pilot for the visual approach to runway 28R. The pilot continued eastbound to adjust the altitude/position in relationship to the airport. Instead of making a right base he did a left 270 to base. This maneuver took the aircraft back towards the neighboring airports final approach course (the other airport is only 4 miles north of the king air's destination airport). As soon as I noticed this maneuver; I instructed the pilot to immediately turn south for traffic. A F18 was on visual approach to the other airport and was already talking to that airport's tower. The pilot's unexpected left turn to final resulted in a loss of standard IFR separation; after reviewing the event the reported closest proximity of 2.79 miles. I initially reported the event to management because I thought it was surely a pilot deviation. I was advised that the pilot is authorized to turn away from the airport on a visual approach. I don't know if they are correct. Every controller I presented this situation to have had the same response; we all believe that the pilot was in error. At minimum it shows a lack of common sense on the pilot's part. I recommend a change to aim and or 7110.65 to show 'pilots on right traffic visual approaches shall make right turns and pilots on left traffic visual approaches shall make left turns.'
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: TRACON Controller described a loss of separation between an IFR aircraft cleared for a Visual Approach and IFR traffic inbound to an adjacent airport when the Visual Approach aircraft made an unexpected turn to loose altitude.
Narrative: A King Air was set up for a right traffic downwind into the airport. I cleared the pilot for the Visual Approach to Runway 28R. The pilot continued eastbound to adjust the altitude/position in relationship to the airport. Instead of making a right base he did a left 270 to base. This maneuver took the aircraft back towards the neighboring airports final approach course (the other airport is only 4 miles north of the King Air's destination airport). As soon as I noticed this maneuver; I instructed the pilot to immediately turn south for traffic. A F18 was on Visual Approach to the other airport and was already talking to that airport's Tower. The pilot's unexpected left turn to final resulted in a loss of standard IFR separation; after reviewing the event the reported closest proximity of 2.79 miles. I initially reported the event to management because I thought it was surely a pilot deviation. I was advised that the pilot is authorized to turn AWAY from the airport on a Visual Approach. I don't know if they are correct. Every Controller I presented this situation to have had the same response; we all believe that the pilot was in error. At minimum it shows a lack of common sense on the pilot's part. I recommend a change to AIM and or 7110.65 to show 'Pilots on right traffic Visual Approaches shall make right turns and pilots on left traffic Visual Approaches shall make left turns.'
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.