ZJX controller experienced operational error at FL240; assigning conflicting headings to the aircraft and then xferred both aircraft to 2 different controllers.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	694599
Time
Date	200604
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : zjx.artcc
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl single value : 24000
Environment
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zjx.artcc tower : iah.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Regional Jet 200 ER&LR
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zjx.artcc
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Military
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	cruise : level
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller radar : 14 controller time certified in position1 : 14
ASRS Report	694599
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : required legal separation
Independent Detector	atc equipment : conflict alert other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance controller : issued alert flight crew : took evasive action
Consequence	faa : investigated
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Error

Narrative:

I was working R48 and we combined R47 onto my sector which added the lower altitudes to the ones I was already working. Among the planes I acquired when we combined was aircraft Y at FL240. A few mins later we combined sectors; I had air carrier X check on who was landing chs. I gave air carrier X a descent clearance to FL240 which is the base of my altitudes and began flashing the aircraft to the low sector. He was not in conflict with aircraft Y on his current routing. The low controller called and asked that I put air carrier X on an assigned heading at 190 degrees. I assigned the heading requested by the controller and switched the aircraft to that controller. I also within that same time period had switched aircraft Y to ZDC. The new heading assigned to air carrier X turned the aircraft into aircraft Y and when the conflict alert initiated; the controller in communication with air carrier X turned the aircraft west and re-established separation but our minimums were violated. I wasn't communicating with either aircraft at the actual time separation was lost.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZJX CTLR EXPERIENCED OPERROR AT FL240; ASSIGNING CONFLICTING HDGS TO THE ACFT AND THEN XFERRED BOTH ACFT TO 2 DIFFERENT CTLRS.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING R48 AND WE COMBINED R47 ONTO MY SECTOR WHICH ADDED THE LOWER ALTS TO THE ONES I WAS ALREADY WORKING. AMONG THE PLANES I ACQUIRED WHEN WE COMBINED WAS ACFT Y AT FL240. A FEW MINS LATER WE COMBINED SECTORS; I HAD ACR X CHK ON WHO WAS LNDG CHS. I GAVE ACR X A DSCNT CLRNC TO FL240 WHICH IS THE BASE OF MY ALTS AND BEGAN FLASHING THE ACFT TO THE LOW SECTOR. HE WAS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ACFT Y ON HIS CURRENT ROUTING. THE LOW CTLR CALLED AND ASKED THAT I PUT ACR X ON AN ASSIGNED HDG AT 190 DEGS. I ASSIGNED THE HDG REQUESTED BY THE CTLR AND SWITCHED THE ACFT TO THAT CTLR. I ALSO WITHIN THAT SAME TIME PERIOD HAD SWITCHED ACFT Y TO ZDC. THE NEW HDG ASSIGNED TO ACR X TURNED THE ACFT INTO ACFT Y AND WHEN THE CONFLICT ALERT INITIATED; THE CTLR IN COM WITH ACR X TURNED THE ACFT WEST AND RE-ESTABLISHED SEPARATION BUT OUR MINIMUMS WERE VIOLATED. I WASN'T COMMUNICATING WITH EITHER ACFT AT THE ACTUAL TIME SEPARATION WAS LOST.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.