 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Day controller reported an airborne conflict that was not resolved by approach control. Local day control resolved the situation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1348046 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201604 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | DAY.Airport |
| State Reference | OH |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Descent |
| Route In Use | Visual Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Helicopter |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Flight Plan | VFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Other / Unknown |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Experience | Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 14 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Aircraft Y was transitioning south to the northwest. Aircraft Y was pointed out to cmh approach. Aircraft Y was approximately 5 miles west of day when aircraft X switched over to local controls frequency. Aircraft X had been cleared for the visual approach to runway 6L without any exchange of traffic on aircraft Y. Aircraft X was flying directly at and descending toward aircraft Y as the day controller exchanged traffic information between the two aircraft. Thanks to the actions of the day controller no separation was lost.this was an extremely dangerous operation by cmh approach. Before you clear and ship an aircraft on an approach; it is the controller's responsibility to ensure all conflicts have been resolved. They failed to accomplish this very important requirement. Had aircraft X delayed his check in; or had difficulty with the frequency; there could have been a loss of separation or a catastrophic event.I'm reminded of the aircraft accident that occurred in california when a B727 was cleared for a visual approach and the conflict with a C172 was not resolved which resulted in a mid-air collision.I would recommend cmh resolve all traffic conflicts prior to clearing an aircraft for an approach or shipping them to tower.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: DAY Controller reported an airborne conflict that was not resolved by Approach Control. Local DAY Control resolved the situation.
Narrative: Aircraft Y was transitioning south to the northwest. Aircraft Y was pointed out to CMH approach. Aircraft Y was approximately 5 miles west of DAY when Aircraft X switched over to local controls frequency. Aircraft X had been cleared for the visual approach to runway 6L without any exchange of traffic on Aircraft Y. Aircraft X was flying directly at and descending toward Aircraft Y as the DAY controller exchanged traffic information between the two aircraft. Thanks to the actions of the DAY controller no separation was lost.This was an extremely dangerous operation by CMH approach. Before you clear and ship an aircraft on an approach; it is the controller's responsibility to ensure all conflicts have been resolved. They failed to accomplish this very important requirement. Had Aircraft X delayed his check in; or had difficulty with the frequency; there could have been a loss of separation or a catastrophic event.I'm reminded of the aircraft accident that occurred in California when a B727 was cleared for a visual approach and the conflict with a C172 was not resolved which resulted in a mid-air collision.I would recommend CMH resolve all traffic conflicts prior to clearing an aircraft for an approach or shipping them to tower.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.