 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Critical conflict during a visual separation climb between a climbing LR25 and a climbing MD80 20 mi northwest of bna, tn.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 597565 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200310 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : bna.airport |
| State Reference | TN |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 12000 msl bound upper : 16000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : bna.tracon |
| Operator | general aviation : corporate |
| Make Model Name | Learjet 25 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | climbout : intermediate altitude |
| Route In Use | departure : on vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : bna.tracon |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | climbout : intermediate altitude |
| Route In Use | departure : on vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : corporate |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 60 flight time total : 5300 flight time type : 500 |
| ASRS Report | 597565 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : corporate |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 9000 flight time type : 2000 |
| ASRS Report | 597725 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne critical non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | aircraft equipment : tcas other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : took evasive action |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 1000 vertical : 500 |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
As we climbed out of jwn near bna, we were told to proceed on course, but maintain separation from an MD80 at our 2 O'clock position. The captain picked a heading that would pass behind the MD80, and we decided to out-climb the aircraft. As we kept our eye on the MD80, it came apparent we both picked a direction that was conflicting with the other aircraft or the MD80, turned more in our direction. We did not have passenger and had to turn 30 degrees right and level off to avoid conflict. The MD80 received an RA. The problem could have been the angle we were approaching the aircraft was deceiving. It gave the impression separation was ok. Supplemental information from acn 597725: I was climbing off of jwn and the MD80 was climbing off of bna. We appeared to be climbing on parallel courses. I was increasing my rate of climb to out climb the MD80. It was going ok when it appeared the MD80 turned towards me. Reevaluating the situation, I elected to turn right with a 30 degree bank turn. When I was about 90 degrees from his course, the MD80 reported an RA and slowed his rate of climb. I believe the RA was from the projected courses and not the actual course resulting from my course change. I don't believe this was a near miss after talking to the controller from nashville approach. They made the statement that it was a 'clean' operation and that visual separation minimums were maintained.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CRITICAL CONFLICT DURING A VISUAL SEPARATION CLB BTWN A CLBING LR25 AND A CLBING MD80 20 MI NW OF BNA, TN.
Narrative: AS WE CLBED OUT OF JWN NEAR BNA, WE WERE TOLD TO PROCEED ON COURSE, BUT MAINTAIN SEPARATION FROM AN MD80 AT OUR 2 O'CLOCK POS. THE CAPT PICKED A HEADING THAT WOULD PASS BEHIND THE MD80, AND WE DECIDED TO OUT-CLB THE ACFT. AS WE KEPT OUR EYE ON THE MD80, IT CAME APPARENT WE BOTH PICKED A DIRECTION THAT WAS CONFLICTING WITH THE OTHER ACFT OR THE MD80, TURNED MORE IN OUR DIRECTION. WE DID NOT HAVE PAX AND HAD TO TURN 30 DEGS R AND LEVEL OFF TO AVOID CONFLICT. THE MD80 RECEIVED AN RA. THE PROB COULD HAVE BEEN THE ANGLE WE WERE APCHING THE ACFT WAS DECEIVING. IT GAVE THE IMPRESSION SEPARATION WAS OK. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 597725: I WAS CLBING OFF OF JWN AND THE MD80 WAS CLBING OFF OF BNA. WE APPEARED TO BE CLBING ON PARALLEL COURSES. I WAS INCREASING MY RATE OF CLB TO OUT CLB THE MD80. IT WAS GOING OK WHEN IT APPEARED THE MD80 TURNED TOWARDS ME. REEVALUATING THE SIT, I ELECTED TO TURN R WITH A 30 DEG BANK TURN. WHEN I WAS ABOUT 90 DEGS FROM HIS COURSE, THE MD80 RPTED AN RA AND SLOWED HIS RATE OF CLB. I BELIEVE THE RA WAS FROM THE PROJECTED COURSES AND NOT THE ACTUAL COURSE RESULTING FROM MY COURSE CHANGE. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WAS A NEAR MISS AFTER TALKING TO THE CTLR FROM NASHVILLE APCH. THEY MADE THE STATEMENT THAT IT WAS A 'CLEAN' OP AND THAT VISUAL SEPARATION MINIMUMS WERE MAINTAINED.
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.