Narrative:

I am writing to complain about the atlanta tower's decision to use one radio frequency for departure and a different radio frequency for arrival on each runway complex (ie, runway 8L/right and runway 9L/right). I feel that this poses a significant safety hazard as it significantly degrades the 'situational awareness' of myself and other pilots operating at this airport. When departing I now have no information about arriving traffic, crossing traffic, or traffic that is holding short of my runway. When arriving and waiting to cross the departure runway, I have no information about whether that aircraft that is in position, is holding or is departing. For yrs we have stressed 'situational awareness.' a great deal of situational awareness is achieved by simply listening to the radio and understanding what other aircraft in your vicinity are doing. Although this extra frequency may help the tower people, it significantly reduces an important source of information that adds to the pilot's ability to operate his aircraft as safely as possible. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the captain said that the airport used to use one frequency for both arrs and departures, but changed to use one frequency for arrs on the outbound runways (runway 8L/26R and runway 9R/27L) and another for departures on the inboard runways (runway 8R/26L and runway 9L/27R). This causes the pilots to lose the partyline feature that assists in maintaining their situational awareness. He has not had any serious incidents yet, but he feels that not knowing another aircraft's instructions does not allow him to anticipate events and prepare for them. The reporter does not feel that blocked frequency incidents occurred very often in the past and if that was a problem the tower could relieve that by using separate frequency for the south side of the airport (runways 9/27R and runway 9R/27L) and the north side (runway 8R/26L and runway 8L/26R). This would accomplish the same frequency congestion reduction and still allow those flcs operating as arrs and departures to know what the potential crossing traffic is supposed to do.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B757-200 CAPT RPTS THAT ATL TWR USES ONE FREQ FOR ARRIVING ACFT AND ANOTHER FOR DEPARTING ACFT AND THAT THIS PREVENTS THE ARRIVING AND DEPARTING FLCS FROM MONITORING THE INTENTIONS OF THOSE XING RWYS OR HOLDING IN POS.

Narrative: I AM WRITING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ATLANTA TWR'S DECISION TO USE ONE RADIO FREQ FOR DEP AND A DIFFERENT RADIO FREQ FOR ARR ON EACH RWY COMPLEX (IE, RWY 8L/R AND RWY 9L/R). I FEEL THAT THIS POSES A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY HAZARD AS IT SIGNIFICANTLY DEGRADES THE 'SITUATIONAL AWARENESS' OF MYSELF AND OTHER PLTS OPERATING AT THIS ARPT. WHEN DEPARTING I NOW HAVE NO INFO ABOUT ARRIVING TFC, XING TFC, OR TFC THAT IS HOLDING SHORT OF MY RWY. WHEN ARRIVING AND WAITING TO CROSS THE DEP RWY, I HAVE NO INFO ABOUT WHETHER THAT ACFT THAT IS IN POS, IS HOLDING OR IS DEPARTING. FOR YRS WE HAVE STRESSED 'SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.' A GREAT DEAL OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IS ACHIEVED BY SIMPLY LISTENING TO THE RADIO AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT OTHER ACFT IN YOUR VICINITY ARE DOING. ALTHOUGH THIS EXTRA FREQ MAY HELP THE TWR PEOPLE, IT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF INFO THAT ADDS TO THE PLT'S ABILITY TO OPERATE HIS ACFT AS SAFELY AS POSSIBLE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CAPT SAID THAT THE ARPT USED TO USE ONE FREQ FOR BOTH ARRS AND DEPS, BUT CHANGED TO USE ONE FREQ FOR ARRS ON THE OUTBOUND RWYS (RWY 8L/26R AND RWY 9R/27L) AND ANOTHER FOR DEPS ON THE INBOARD RWYS (RWY 8R/26L AND RWY 9L/27R). THIS CAUSES THE PLTS TO LOSE THE PARTYLINE FEATURE THAT ASSISTS IN MAINTAINING THEIR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. HE HAS NOT HAD ANY SERIOUS INCIDENTS YET, BUT HE FEELS THAT NOT KNOWING ANOTHER ACFT'S INSTRUCTIONS DOES NOT ALLOW HIM TO ANTICIPATE EVENTS AND PREPARE FOR THEM. THE RPTR DOES NOT FEEL THAT BLOCKED FREQ INCIDENTS OCCURRED VERY OFTEN IN THE PAST AND IF THAT WAS A PROB THE TWR COULD RELIEVE THAT BY USING SEPARATE FREQ FOR THE S SIDE OF THE ARPT (RWYS 9/27R AND RWY 9R/27L) AND THE N SIDE (RWY 8R/26L AND RWY 8L/26R). THIS WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME FREQ CONGESTION REDUCTION AND STILL ALLOW THOSE FLCS OPERATING AS ARRS AND DEPS TO KNOW WHAT THE POTENTIAL XING TFC IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

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.