Narrative:

Air carrier X departed roc climbing west toward buf destined for dtw. 20 mi northeast of buf air carrier X asked, 'with your approval, we'd like to stay just a bit north of course to give the folks a good shot at niagara falls.' my radar trainee replied, 'approved as requested.' 3 mins time elapsed and air carrier X was observed in level flight at FL280, 3 mi north of assigned airway V-2, heading about 265 degrees. Radar trainee switched air carrier X to next controller. Aircraft position at this time was 10 mi due south of niagara falls. Another 2 mins elapsed before the radar conflict alert was activated. At this time, air carrier X was observed heading approximately 350 degrees, 5 mi due west of niagara falls. Separation was lost between air carrier X and air carrier Y. Air carrier Y, FL280, 10 mi north niagara falls heading 285 degrees direct to eck destined for ord. The pilot of air carrier X asked for, and was cleared to, stay just a bit north of course. The flight then was 3 mi north of course and continued on that heading for 3 mins before we initiated the communication change. Supplemental information from acn 246684: air carrier X departed roc en route to dtw. Over buf, we asked center and received clearance to deviate north of course to show passenger niagara falls (cleared routing buf 267 degree radial outbound). South of, and abeam of the falls on a west heading, we initiated a right turn to the north, intending to roll out on a north heading due west of the falls, and then make a left turn to the southwest to reintercept the buf 267 degree radial. While in the turn to the north we received a frequency change. We received no response on the first call. On the second call, we had rolled out on the north heading and had commenced the left turn to the southwest. The first response from the controller was to make an immediate right turn to a 100 degree heading. We complied. Apparently, we had conflicting traffic at FL280 which we passed within 3 NM. We did not have a visual on the traffic, but our TCASII confirmed his position and altitude with no subsequent TA or RA. We don't know if our intentions failed to reach the second controller or if there was a misunderstanding as to our exact intentions. In the future, if and when we deviate from our planned routing, we will be more explicit in stating our intentions.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X APPROVED TRACK DEV HAD LTSS FROM ACR Y. SYS ERROR.

Narrative: ACR X DEPARTED ROC CLBING W TOWARD BUF DESTINED FOR DTW. 20 MI NE OF BUF ACR X ASKED, 'WITH YOUR APPROVAL, WE'D LIKE TO STAY JUST A BIT NORTH OF COURSE TO GIVE THE FOLKS A GOOD SHOT AT NIAGARA FALLS.' MY RADAR TRAINEE REPLIED, 'APPROVED AS REQUESTED.' 3 MINS TIME ELAPSED AND ACR X WAS OBSERVED IN LEVEL FLT AT FL280, 3 MI N OF ASSIGNED AIRWAY V-2, HDG ABOUT 265 DEGS. RADAR TRAINEE SWITCHED ACR X TO NEXT CTLR. ACFT POS AT THIS TIME WAS 10 MI DUE S OF NIAGARA FALLS. ANOTHER 2 MINS ELAPSED BEFORE THE RADAR CONFLICT ALERT WAS ACTIVATED. AT THIS TIME, ACR X WAS OBSERVED HDG APPROX 350 DEGS, 5 MI DUE W OF NIAGARA FALLS. SEPARATION WAS LOST BTWN ACR X AND ACR Y. ACR Y, FL280, 10 MI N NIAGARA FALLS HDG 285 DEGS DIRECT TO ECK DESTINED FOR ORD. THE PLT OF ACR X ASKED FOR, AND WAS CLRED TO, STAY JUST A BIT N OF COURSE. THE FLT THEN WAS 3 MI N OF COURSE AND CONTINUED ON THAT HDG FOR 3 MINS BEFORE WE INITIATED THE COM CHANGE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 246684: ACR X DEPARTED ROC ENRTE TO DTW. OVER BUF, WE ASKED CTR AND RECEIVED CLRNC TO DEVIATE N OF COURSE TO SHOW PAX NIAGARA FALLS (CLRED ROUTING BUF 267 DEG RADIAL OUTBOUND). S OF, AND ABEAM OF THE FALLS ON A W HDG, WE INITIATED A R TURN TO THE N, INTENDING TO ROLL OUT ON A N HDG DUE W OF THE FALLS, AND THEN MAKE A L TURN TO THE SW TO REINTERCEPT THE BUF 267 DEG RADIAL. WHILE IN THE TURN TO THE N WE RECEIVED A FREQ CHANGE. WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE ON THE FIRST CALL. ON THE SECOND CALL, WE HAD ROLLED OUT ON THE N HDG AND HAD COMMENCED THE L TURN TO THE SW. THE FIRST RESPONSE FROM THE CTLR WAS TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE R TURN TO A 100 DEG HDG. WE COMPLIED. APPARENTLY, WE HAD CONFLICTING TFC AT FL280 WHICH WE PASSED WITHIN 3 NM. WE DID NOT HAVE A VISUAL ON THE TFC, BUT OUR TCASII CONFIRMED HIS POS AND ALT WITH NO SUBSEQUENT TA OR RA. WE DON'T KNOW IF OUR INTENTIONS FAILED TO REACH THE SECOND CTLR OR IF THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO OUR EXACT INTENTIONS. IN THE FUTURE, IF AND WHEN WE DEVIATE FROM OUR PLANNED ROUTING, WE WILL BE MORE EXPLICIT IN STATING OUR INTENTIONS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.