Approach controller believed that there was loss of communications with a PA28 instrument training flight since they did not hear from them until instructor called on the previous frequency to advise that they had gone through the localizer on the heading last assigned.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	513387
Time
Date	200106
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	navaid : dhp.vortac
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl single value : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mia.tracon
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	PA-28 Cherokee/Archer II/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	ils localizer only : 9l other vortac
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : cfi pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 1600 flight time type : 250
ASRS Report	513387
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : departure
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Intra Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

Lack of proper ATC handoff between one approach controller on one frequency to another on another frequency caused ATC to think a lost radio communication had occurred. Leaving tmb after doing 2 practice NDB approachs, the miami controller on 125.5 never advised to change to 128.6. If he did advise, I did not acknowledge the frequency change, and no subsequent call from ATC was made. When the vector last assigned took us through the localizer course of opf, runway 9L, our destination, I called ATC to notify. He advised to change to 128.6. The controller on 128.6 was very irate, saying 'everyone in this room has ben looking for you. I advised I just got the handoff.' training was a factor, as I could have missed the initial handoff. However, I made no acknowledgement, so a subsequent call should have been made. The 128.6 controller could have asked the 125.5 controller to call me. VMC prevailed so traffic avoidance was not an issue.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS LOSS OF COMS WITH A PA28 INST TRAINING FLT SINCE THEY DID NOT HEAR FROM THEM UNTIL INSTRUCTOR CALLED ON THE PREVIOUS FREQ TO ADVISE THAT THEY HAD GONE THROUGH THE LOC ON THE HDG LAST ASSIGNED.

Narrative: LACK OF PROPER ATC HDOF BTWN ONE APCH CTLR ON ONE FREQ TO ANOTHER ON ANOTHER FREQ CAUSED ATC TO THINK A LOST RADIO COM HAD OCCURRED. LEAVING TMB AFTER DOING 2 PRACTICE NDB APCHS, THE MIAMI CTLR ON 125.5 NEVER ADVISED TO CHANGE TO 128.6. IF HE DID ADVISE, I DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE FREQ CHANGE, AND NO SUBSEQUENT CALL FROM ATC WAS MADE. WHEN THE VECTOR LAST ASSIGNED TOOK US THROUGH THE LOC COURSE OF OPF, RWY 9L, OUR DEST, I CALLED ATC TO NOTIFY. HE ADVISED TO CHANGE TO 128.6. THE CTLR ON 128.6 WAS VERY IRATE, SAYING 'EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM HAS BEN LOOKING FOR YOU. I ADVISED I JUST GOT THE HDOF.' TRAINING WAS A FACTOR, AS I COULD HAVE MISSED THE INITIAL HDOF. HOWEVER, I MADE NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, SO A SUBSEQUENT CALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. THE 128.6 CTLR COULD HAVE ASKED THE 125.5 CTLR TO CALL ME. VMC PREVAILED SO TFC AVOIDANCE WAS NOT AN ISSUE.

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.