|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||atc facility : ffm|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 4000|
msl bound upper : 5000
|Controlling Facilities||artcc : zmp|
|Make Model Name||Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear|
|Flight Phase||climbout : intermediate altitude|
|Make Model Name||Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear|
|Flight Phase||cruise other|
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||controller : radar|
|Qualification||controller : radar|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
|Anomaly||altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude|
non adherence : clearance
|Independent Detector||atc equipment other atc equipment : unspecified|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
none taken : detected after the fact
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
Aircraft X was not under radar control. There was traffic aircraft Y 1000' above him, and to the southwest. Non-radar rules in use. Pilot requested a climb. We asked him his position from a VOR to determine proximity of higher aircraft. Pilot responded that he was having a very difficult time reading us, and 'assume the climb's ok.' we took immediate action to reclear him to original altitude and issued a new frequency. About one minute later we observed his beacon target with mode C indicating 4700'. I am greatly concerned with the increasing frequency of this type of problem with general aviation pilots. We seem to be seeing it more and more, and this year's traffic levels will no doubt be at an all time high. I believe these pilot's need to be alerted of this serious safety issue now, before the heavier traffic and thunderstorms of the summer season arrives! The aircraft involved were a considerable distance away from each other with increasing separation. But without ascertaining the pilot's position before we issued a climb, we could not be assured of their proximity. The bottom line in this situation is that the pilot having a difficult time hearing the center should have stayed at previously assigned altitude or declared an emergency and advised us of nature and action he was taking. Assuming that the climb was okay was a dangerous mistake!
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SMALL ACFT X MADE UNAUTH CLIMB TO OCCUPIED ALT. PLT DEVIATION.
Narrative: ACFT X WAS NOT UNDER RADAR CONTROL. THERE WAS TFC ACFT Y 1000' ABOVE HIM, AND TO THE SW. NON-RADAR RULES IN USE. PLT REQUESTED A CLIMB. WE ASKED HIM HIS POSITION FROM A VOR TO DETERMINE PROX OF HIGHER ACFT. PLT RESPONDED THAT HE WAS HAVING A VERY DIFFICULT TIME READING US, AND 'ASSUME THE CLIMB'S OK.' WE TOOK IMMEDIATE ACTION TO RECLEAR HIM TO ORIGINAL ALT AND ISSUED A NEW FREQ. ABOUT ONE MINUTE LATER WE OBSERVED HIS BEACON TARGET WITH MODE C INDICATING 4700'. I AM GREATLY CONCERNED WITH THE INCREASING FREQUENCY OF THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM WITH GENERAL AVIATION PLTS. WE SEEM TO BE SEEING IT MORE AND MORE, AND THIS YEAR'S TFC LEVELS WILL NO DOUBT BE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. I BELIEVE THESE PLT'S NEED TO BE ALERTED OF THIS SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE NOW, BEFORE THE HEAVIER TFC AND THUNDERSTORMS OF THE SUMMER SEASON ARRIVES! THE ACFT INVOLVED WERE A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE AWAY FROM EACH OTHER WITH INCREASING SEPARATION. BUT WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE PLT'S POSITION BEFORE WE ISSUED A CLIMB, WE COULD NOT BE ASSURED OF THEIR PROX. THE BOTTOM LINE IN THIS SITUATION IS THAT THE PLT HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME HEARING THE CENTER SHOULD HAVE STAYED AT PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED ALT OR DECLARED AN EMER AND ADVISED US OF NATURE AND ACTION HE WAS TAKING. ASSUMING THAT THE CLIMB WAS OKAY WAS A DANGEROUS MISTAKE!
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.