 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Speed deviation by a B767 flight crew because of light chop is cause for ATC to lecture the crew regarding traffic separation and speed reductions that require an ATC notification, 172 mi east of grb, wi.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 546543 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200205 |
| Day | Mon |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | navaid : grb.vortac |
| State Reference | WI |
| Altitude | msl single value : 31000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Weather Elements | Turbulence |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zmp.artcc |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | other |
| Flight Phase | cruise : level |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zmp.artcc |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Flight Phase | cruise : level |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 282 |
| ASRS Report | 546543 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Experience | flight time total : 3709 |
| ASRS Report | 546542 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe inflight encounter : turbulence non adherence : required legal separation non adherence : clearance non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued advisory controller : separated traffic |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 60000 vertical : 0 |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance Company Flight Crew Human Performance Weather Chart Or Publication |
| Primary Problem | Chart Or Publication |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
In cruise at FL310, mach .81, we entered an area of continuous light chop and intermittent light turbulence. I asked the first officer to seat the passenger and advise ATC of the ride. At the same time I slowed to turbulence airspeed of mach .78, we also sent an ACARS message to dispatch about the rides. However, we overlooked advising ATC of our speed reduction. After we had been slow for about 2 mins, he asked if we had slowed, and the first officer replied that we had. The controller was less than happy with us because he must have had another company aircraft close behind us at the same flight level. This was not intentional on our part, but we did get busy with taking care of the aircraft and our passenger. I did check to see if we had slowed more than 5% of our mach number and true airspeed which went from 481 KTS to 463 KTS and we did not. According to our fom, a speed change of 5% or more requires a report to ATC. If this is incorrect, please let me know. I do feel we should have let ATC know of our speed change even if it was less than the 5%. I will in the future make sure as soon as I make a speed change of any kind on my own, no matter how small, to let ATC know. This occurred approximately 150-200 NM east of grb.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SPD DEV BY A B767 FLC BECAUSE OF LIGHT CHOP IS CAUSE FOR ATC TO LECTURE THE CREW REGARDING TFC SEPARATION AND SPD REDUCTIONS THAT REQUIRE AN ATC NOTIFICATION, 172 MI E OF GRB, WI.
Narrative: IN CRUISE AT FL310, MACH .81, WE ENTERED AN AREA OF CONTINUOUS LIGHT CHOP AND INTERMITTENT LIGHT TURB. I ASKED THE FO TO SEAT THE PAX AND ADVISE ATC OF THE RIDE. AT THE SAME TIME I SLOWED TO TURB AIRSPD OF MACH .78, WE ALSO SENT AN ACARS MESSAGE TO DISPATCH ABOUT THE RIDES. HOWEVER, WE OVERLOOKED ADVISING ATC OF OUR SPD REDUCTION. AFTER WE HAD BEEN SLOW FOR ABOUT 2 MINS, HE ASKED IF WE HAD SLOWED, AND THE FO REPLIED THAT WE HAD. THE CTLR WAS LESS THAN HAPPY WITH US BECAUSE HE MUST HAVE HAD ANOTHER COMPANY ACFT CLOSE BEHIND US AT THE SAME FLT LEVEL. THIS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL ON OUR PART, BUT WE DID GET BUSY WITH TAKING CARE OF THE ACFT AND OUR PAX. I DID CHK TO SEE IF WE HAD SLOWED MORE THAN 5% OF OUR MACH NUMBER AND TRUE AIRSPD WHICH WENT FROM 481 KTS TO 463 KTS AND WE DID NOT. ACCORDING TO OUR FOM, A SPD CHANGE OF 5% OR MORE REQUIRES A RPT TO ATC. IF THIS IS INCORRECT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I DO FEEL WE SHOULD HAVE LET ATC KNOW OF OUR SPD CHANGE EVEN IF IT WAS LESS THAN THE 5%. I WILL IN THE FUTURE MAKE SURE AS SOON AS I MAKE A SPD CHANGE OF ANY KIND ON MY OWN, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, TO LET ATC KNOW. THIS OCCURRED APPROX 150-200 NM E OF GRB.
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.