 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
ATC trainee reported an aircraft did not comply with the departure procedure and flew below the minimum vectoring altitude.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1592669 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201811 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | D01.TRACON |
| State Reference | CO |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Small Transport |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Climb |
| Route In Use | None |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Approach Departure Trainee |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Developmental |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude Deviation - Procedural Clearance Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT |
Narrative:
Aircraft X called for an IFR release off of lmo airport. The facility has advised us that we must issue the odp (obstacle departure procedure) and an altitude to maintain. The odp contains a crossing restriction and we still issue an altitude to maintain even though 7110.65 4-3-2 says that ATC cannot. Chapter 5 in the 7110.65 also states that once ATC amends an altitude on an odp that has a crossing restriction then the odp is cancelled. This is just one incident on a long list of many others where an aircraft didn't fly the odp even though the pilot read the odp verbatim to me on data before he departed. The pilot flew into a higher MVA immediately after departure and this happens on a pretty routine basis. I recommend that the odps be changed off of eik and lmo to not include crossing restriction altitudes. I feel like this would take away some ambiguity from the pilots so that they only have to worry about a lateral odp and stick with the altitude that is issued by the controller. Just because local SOP (standard operating procedure) states that a controller can do one thing does not mean that pilots know or understand our local procedures.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ATC Trainee reported an aircraft did not comply with the departure procedure and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Narrative: Aircraft X called for an IFR release off of LMO airport. The facility has advised us that we must issue the ODP (Obstacle Departure Procedure) and an altitude to maintain. The ODP contains a crossing restriction and we still issue an altitude to maintain even though 7110.65 4-3-2 says that ATC cannot. Chapter 5 in the 7110.65 also states that once ATC amends an altitude on an ODP that has a crossing restriction then the ODP is cancelled. This is just one incident on a long list of many others where an aircraft didn't fly the ODP even though the pilot read the ODP verbatim to me on data before he departed. The pilot flew into a higher MVA immediately after departure and this happens on a pretty routine basis. I recommend that the ODPs be changed off of EIK and LMO to not include crossing restriction altitudes. I feel like this would take away some ambiguity from the pilots so that they only have to worry about a lateral ODP and stick with the altitude that is issued by the controller. Just because local SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) states that a controller can do one thing does not mean that pilots know or understand our local procedures.
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.