 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Less than standard separation when atx-light transport descended on visual approach clearance from mmnl and conflicted with an aircraft in ZHU airspace enroute over lrd.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 98732 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198811 |
| Day | Wed |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : lrd |
| State Reference | TX |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 5000 msl bound upper : 5000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zhu tracon : mmnl tower : lrd tower : dca |
| Operator | common carrier : air taxi |
| Make Model Name | Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach descent other |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Flight Phase | cruise other |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : cfi pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 2850 |
| ASRS Report | 98732 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : cfi |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 5600 flight time type : 95 |
| ASRS Report | 98464 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : required legal separation |
| Independent Detector | atc equipment other atc equipment : unspecified |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : unable |
| Consequence | faa : assigned or threatened penalties faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Miss Distance | unspecified : 24000 vertical : 0 |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Inter Facility Coordination Failure Operational Error |
Narrative:
On 11/wed/88 light transport X, which I was copilot, was returning from mexico city, mexico, to laredo, tx. We were at FL310, and requested by monterey center to descend to FL240. Monterey center then asked us to stop our descent to FL260 for a southbound light transport Y. After clearing the light transport Y we were then cleared to FL240, then on down to 7000'. At around 11000' monterey center handed us off to nuevo laredo approach which cleared us to 5000' and told us to report the mexico/us border or call level at 5000'. We reported the mexico/us border at about 7000' and about 7 NM from lrd and said we had the airport in sight. Nuevo laredo approach then cleared us for the visual approach and to contact lrd tower. We contacted lrd tower and reported the airport in sight, and they cleared us for a straight in landing to runway 35R. The next thing that happened was lrd tower asking us whether we were VFR which we replied 'yes.' then lrd tower asked if we had cancelled our IFR, which we replied, 'no,' because we were cleared for a visual approach. After landing and securing the plane at the customs ramp, we were required to call the tower. Lrd tower said that ZHU reported that we had broken our last assigned altitude. We believe that nuevo laredo approach cleared us for a visual approach and that lrd tower cleared us for landing. I believe that no altitude was broken and that better communication is needed between the mexico/us controllers. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: when this flight crew made telephone contact with ZHU, they were told that when they crossed the us/mexico border they conflicted with an aircraft being controled by them. Since standard sep was lost, ZHU was required to start enforcement action against them because they had descended west/O clearance. The reporter explained to the ZHU supervisor that nuevo laredo had cleared them for a visual approach, but the ZHU supervisor seemed not to believe this. Since this incident, the flight crew has heard nothing further from the FAA. Reporter has concluded that the ZHU supervisor later contacted nuevo laredo approach control and found that the problem was not caused by the flight crew but rather by a lack of coordination from nuevo laredo.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION WHEN ATX-LTT DESCENDED ON VISUAL APCH CLRNC FROM MMNL AND CONFLICTED WITH AN ACFT IN ZHU AIRSPACE ENROUTE OVER LRD.
Narrative: ON 11/WED/88 LTT X, WHICH I WAS COPLT, WAS RETURNING FROM MEXICO CITY, MEXICO, TO LAREDO, TX. WE WERE AT FL310, AND REQUESTED BY MONTEREY CENTER TO DSND TO FL240. MONTEREY CENTER THEN ASKED US TO STOP OUR DSCNT TO FL260 FOR A SBND LTT Y. AFTER CLRING THE LTT Y WE WERE THEN CLRED TO FL240, THEN ON DOWN TO 7000'. AT AROUND 11000' MONTEREY CENTER HANDED US OFF TO NUEVO LAREDO APCH WHICH CLRED US TO 5000' AND TOLD US TO RPT THE MEXICO/U.S. BORDER OR CALL LEVEL AT 5000'. WE RPTED THE MEXICO/U.S. BORDER AT ABOUT 7000' AND ABOUT 7 NM FROM LRD AND SAID WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. NUEVO LAREDO APCH THEN CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH AND TO CONTACT LRD TWR. WE CONTACTED LRD TWR AND RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT, AND THEY CLRED US FOR A STRAIGHT IN LNDG TO RWY 35R. THE NEXT THING THAT HAPPENED WAS LRD TWR ASKING US WHETHER WE WERE VFR WHICH WE REPLIED 'YES.' THEN LRD TWR ASKED IF WE HAD CANCELLED OUR IFR, WHICH WE REPLIED, 'NO,' BECAUSE WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH. AFTER LNDG AND SECURING THE PLANE AT THE CUSTOMS RAMP, WE WERE REQUIRED TO CALL THE TWR. LRD TWR SAID THAT ZHU RPTED THAT WE HAD BROKEN OUR LAST ASSIGNED ALT. WE BELIEVE THAT NUEVO LAREDO APCH CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH AND THAT LRD TWR CLRED US FOR LNDG. I BELIEVE THAT NO ALT WAS BROKEN AND THAT BETTER COM IS NEEDED BTWN THE MEXICO/U.S. CTLRS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: WHEN THIS FLT CREW MADE TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH ZHU, THEY WERE TOLD THAT WHEN THEY CROSSED THE U.S./MEXICO BORDER THEY CONFLICTED WITH AN ACFT BEING CTLED BY THEM. SINCE STANDARD SEP WAS LOST, ZHU WAS REQUIRED TO START ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THEM BECAUSE THEY HAD DSNDED W/O CLRNC. THE RPTR EXPLAINED TO THE ZHU SUPVR THAT NUEVO LAREDO HAD CLRED THEM FOR A VISUAL APCH, BUT THE ZHU SUPVR SEEMED NOT TO BELIEVE THIS. SINCE THIS INCIDENT, THE FLT CREW HAS HEARD NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE FAA. RPTR HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ZHU SUPVR LATER CONTACTED NUEVO LAREDO APCH CTL AND FOUND THAT THE PROB WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE FLT CREW BUT RATHER BY A LACK OF COORD FROM NUEVO LAREDO.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.