Narrative:

I departed santa barbara and was vectored to fim with the instruction to proceed direct to filmore and resume own navigation. At filmore, I tracked V186 outbound and proceeded to paradise with several handoffs between the different sectors of socal approach. I had 13000 ft as the requested altitude but was given 7000 ft to accommodate traffic descending into lax. As I neared paradise VOR, socal instructed me to climb to 11000 ft and handed me off to the next sector controller. On contacting the controller, he instructed me to climb to 13000 ft. I reached paradise VOR and turned outbound on V388 as I climbed through 8500 ft. About a minute later the controller requested me to expedite my climb which I acknowledged and increased the rate of climb. 1 or 2 mins later the controller instructed: confirm tracking paradise 183 degree radial outbound, if not, immediate turn heading 180 degrees. At no time did any of the controllers amend the clearance I had received at santa barbara. Suffice to say, the question regarding tracking of pdz 183 degrees was completely out of the blue for me. I advised the controller that I was not on the 183 degree radial and commenced my turn. I was in the turn when my TCASII gave a traffic alert with a target on the edge of the 2 mi alert ring at 400 ft lower. The controller called out the traffic as a brasillia at 10 O'clock position which I visually acquired while the aircraft was an estimated 1 1/2 mi distance and now probably close to 1000 ft below. The controller left me on the 180 degree heading and so I questioned him with: we were given V388 psp direct as our clearance, are you amending our clearance? He responded that he most certainly was and gave me: fly heading 120 degrees, radar vector to intercept V64 direct thermal. It is unclr to me whether the controller was expecting me to be on a different clearance or that a potential traffic conflict developed and the corrective action was to instruct the turn to heading 180 degrees. If the later were true, then the reason for the question regarding tracking the pdz 183 degree radial is even more unclr. V186 does continue past pdz and intercepts V64 at nikkl so perhaps the controller saw V186 and didn't read past pdz to see V388 as the next route segment. V186 departs pdz on the 130 degree radial that further makes it difficult to understand the question regarding pdz 183 degree radial. The correct actions were instructed and taken to avoid a traffic conflict yet having the TCASII generate a traffic alert while under positive control was a shaking event. Short of interrogating every new controller regarding their expectations for the next route segment (not very practical), I don't see how this event could have been overcome. Preferred routes exist between airports to make it easier for pilots (and ATC) to plan appropriate routes. In high traffic areas such as the la basin, it would be helpful if those routes were adhered to unless lighter traffic conditions permit shortcuts. It is interesting to note that while the thermal to santa barbara route is published under the preferred routes for palm springs, there is no route published under santa barbara departures for any of the airports in the palm springs area. Having a preferred route in the other direction would certainly reduce the opportunity for confusion.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT STEMS FROM A SYS ERROR WHEN A LAST MIN RTE CHANGE IS GIVEN TO A PILATUS PLT FOR TFC AVOIDANCE OVER PDZ, CA.

Narrative: I DEPARTED SANTA BARBARA AND WAS VECTORED TO FIM WITH THE INSTRUCTION TO PROCEED DIRECT TO FILMORE AND RESUME OWN NAV. AT FILMORE, I TRACKED V186 OUTBOUND AND PROCEEDED TO PARADISE WITH SEVERAL HDOFS BTWN THE DIFFERENT SECTORS OF SOCAL APCH. I HAD 13000 FT AS THE REQUESTED ALT BUT WAS GIVEN 7000 FT TO ACCOMMODATE TFC DSNDING INTO LAX. AS I NEARED PARADISE VOR, SOCAL INSTRUCTED ME TO CLB TO 11000 FT AND HANDED ME OFF TO THE NEXT SECTOR CTLR. ON CONTACTING THE CTLR, HE INSTRUCTED ME TO CLB TO 13000 FT. I REACHED PARADISE VOR AND TURNED OUTBOUND ON V388 AS I CLBED THROUGH 8500 FT. ABOUT A MINUTE LATER THE CTLR REQUESTED ME TO EXPEDITE MY CLB WHICH I ACKNOWLEDGED AND INCREASED THE RATE OF CLB. 1 OR 2 MINS LATER THE CTLR INSTRUCTED: CONFIRM TRACKING PARADISE 183 DEG RADIAL OUTBOUND, IF NOT, IMMEDIATE TURN HEADING 180 DEGS. AT NO TIME DID ANY OF THE CTLRS AMEND THE CLRNC I HAD RECEIVED AT SANTA BARBARA. SUFFICE TO SAY, THE QUESTION REGARDING TRACKING OF PDZ 183 DEGS WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE BLUE FOR ME. I ADVISED THE CTLR THAT I WAS NOT ON THE 183 DEG RADIAL AND COMMENCED MY TURN. I WAS IN THE TURN WHEN MY TCASII GAVE A TFC ALERT WITH A TARGET ON THE EDGE OF THE 2 MI ALERT RING AT 400 FT LOWER. THE CTLR CALLED OUT THE TFC AS A BRASILLIA AT 10 O'CLOCK POS WHICH I VISUALLY ACQUIRED WHILE THE ACFT WAS AN ESTIMATED 1 1/2 MI DISTANCE AND NOW PROBABLY CLOSE TO 1000 FT BELOW. THE CTLR LEFT ME ON THE 180 DEG HDG AND SO I QUESTIONED HIM WITH: WE WERE GIVEN V388 PSP DIRECT AS OUR CLRNC, ARE YOU AMENDING OUR CLRNC? HE RESPONDED THAT HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS AND GAVE ME: FLY HEADING 120 DEGS, RADAR VECTOR TO INTERCEPT V64 DIRECT THERMAL. IT IS UNCLR TO ME WHETHER THE CTLR WAS EXPECTING ME TO BE ON A DIFFERENT CLRNC OR THAT A POTENTIAL TFC CONFLICT DEVELOPED AND THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TO INSTRUCT THE TURN TO HEADING 180 DEGS. IF THE LATER WERE TRUE, THEN THE REASON FOR THE QUESTION REGARDING TRACKING THE PDZ 183 DEG RADIAL IS EVEN MORE UNCLR. V186 DOES CONTINUE PAST PDZ AND INTERCEPTS V64 AT NIKKL SO PERHAPS THE CTLR SAW V186 AND DIDN'T READ PAST PDZ TO SEE V388 AS THE NEXT RTE SEGMENT. V186 DEPARTS PDZ ON THE 130 DEG RADIAL THAT FURTHER MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION REGARDING PDZ 183 DEG RADIAL. THE CORRECT ACTIONS WERE INSTRUCTED AND TAKEN TO AVOID A TFC CONFLICT YET HAVING THE TCASII GENERATE A TFC ALERT WHILE UNDER POSITIVE CTL WAS A SHAKING EVENT. SHORT OF INTERROGATING EVERY NEW CTLR REGARDING THEIR EXPECTATIONS FOR THE NEXT RTE SEGMENT (NOT VERY PRACTICAL), I DON'T SEE HOW THIS EVENT COULD HAVE BEEN OVERCOME. PREFERRED ROUTES EXIST BTWN ARPTS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PLTS (AND ATC) TO PLAN APPROPRIATE ROUTES. IN HIGH TFC AREAS SUCH AS THE LA BASIN, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THOSE ROUTES WERE ADHERED TO UNLESS LIGHTER TFC CONDITIONS PERMIT SHORTCUTS. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WHILE THE THERMAL TO SANTA BARBARA RTE IS PUBLISHED UNDER THE PREFERRED ROUTES FOR PALM SPRINGS, THERE IS NO RTE PUBLISHED UNDER SANTA BARBARA DEPS FOR ANY OF THE ARPTS IN THE PALM SPRINGS AREA. HAVING A PREFERRED RTE IN THE OTHER DIRECTION WOULD CERTAINLY REDUCE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONFUSION.

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.