 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A ZOB controller described a loss of separation where the application of visual separation was not completed according to legal requirements.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 968111 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201109 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZOB.ARTCC |
| State Reference | OH |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200) |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | A319 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Climb |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Enroute |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict |
Narrative:
I climbed an A319 to 160 while they were on the departure procedure off cle. I called the traffic at 170 and told them to report traffic in sight. I then called traffic to the CRJ2 about the airbus and told them when they had them in sight that I would be climbing visually through their altitude. I made a couple other calls [and] then called the traffic to the A319 again. The A319 reported traffic in sight and I climbed them visually to FL230. I then called the traffic to the CRJ2 and informed them the airbus had them in sight and was climbing through their altitudes. The CRJ2 said they had an RA and I responded with 'roger'. I didn't want to make any changes to my clearance due to the fact the A319 was already in the maneuver and I figured it was safer; since they had them in sight; for them to continue than for me to try and change anything. The CRJ2 said they no longer had the RA. I was later informed I used visual separation wrong since I did not say targets appear likely to merge. I forgot to say the phrase targets appear likely to merge.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A ZOB Controller described a loss of separation where the application of visual separation was not completed according to legal requirements.
Narrative: I climbed an A319 to 160 while they were on the departure procedure off CLE. I called the traffic at 170 and told them to report traffic in sight. I then called traffic to the CRJ2 about the Airbus and told them when they had them in sight that I would be climbing visually through their altitude. I made a couple other calls [and] then called the traffic to the A319 again. The A319 reported traffic in sight and I climbed them visually to FL230. I then called the traffic to the CRJ2 and informed them the Airbus had them in sight and was climbing through their altitudes. The CRJ2 said they had an RA and I responded with 'roger'. I didn't want to make any changes to my clearance due to the fact the A319 was already in the maneuver and I figured it was safer; since they had them in sight; for them to continue than for me to try and change anything. The CRJ2 said they no longer had the RA. I was later informed I used visual separation wrong since I did not say targets appear likely to merge. I forgot to say the phrase targets appear likely to merge.
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.