 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Twf controller providing non radar separation procedures assumed radar procedures were being used by slc and issued both a climb and descent clearance resulting in a loss of separation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 873042 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201002 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0001-0600 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | TWF.Airport |
| State Reference | ID |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Small Transport Low Wing 2 Turboprop Eng |
| Flight Phase | Climb |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Descent |
| Route In Use | Visual Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Aircraft X departed for slc. At the same time air carrier Y was inbound from slc. I was providing non-radar approach separation to them. I instructed both aircraft to report 20 DME from the twf VOR. The ZLC controller called saying he/she had aircraft X at 12.5 and he was approved to FL230. Thinking that he/she had them both on radar I climbed aircraft X to FL230 and descended air carrier Y for the visual approach. I was assuming he/she had both aircraft on radar and was providing radar separation for both aircraft. Recommendation; better communication between the two facilities would have resolved this conflict.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: TWF Controller providing non RADAR separation procedures assumed RADAR procedures were being used by SLC and issued both a climb and descent clearance resulting in a loss of separation.
Narrative: Aircraft X departed for SLC. At the same time Air Carrier Y was inbound from SLC. I was providing non-radar approach separation to them. I instructed both aircraft to report 20 DME from the TWF VOR. The ZLC controller called saying he/she had Aircraft X at 12.5 and he was approved to FL230. Thinking that he/she had them both on RADAR I climbed Aircraft X to FL230 and descended Air Carrier Y for the visual approach. I was assuming he/she had both aircraft on RADAR and was providing RADAR separation for both aircraft. Recommendation; better communication between the two facilities would have resolved this conflict.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.