Phoenix Approach, possible controller error, I have a number for you to call, advise when ready to copy.

flyingron

flyingron

Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
25,166
Location
Catawba, NC
Display Name
Display name:
FlyingRon
Blancolirio on YouTube had a great review of that Incident. I'm sure the controller was pulled and sent for additional training.
 
I'm not ATC, but it seems bad policy to intentionally place two aircraft on a potential collision course dependent on future additional instruction to avoid the collision. As happened in this situation, what happens when the controller gets distracted, frequency gets busy, an aircraft goes NORDO, etc. There have been a couple of collisions recently of aircraft on merging base to finals where an aircraft overshot its final course and hit the other.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I'm not ATC, but it seems bad policy to intentionally place two aircraft on a potential collision course dependent on future additional instruction to avoid the collision. As happened in this situation, what happens when the controller gets distracted, frequency gets busy, an aircraft goes NORDO, etc. There have been a couple of collisions recently of aircraft on merging base to finals where an aircraft overshot its final course and hit the other.
Click to expand...

Happens hundred to thousand times a day.
 
Mikey52 said:
Happens hundred to thousand times a day.
Click to expand...
Not in this way they’re not. This controller 1) never ensured approved separation (1000 / 3) and 2) didn’t have the aircraft established on a 30 degree or less intercept after having approved separation… that crappy last second vector doesn’t count.

Finally, the audio was trimmed so not sure if DAL1070 reported field in sight before the VA clearance. She forced that on him for a reason. Once both are cleared for VAs in this situation (parallels), visual sep is now on the pilots. Problem is, she lost approved radar sep long before she tried that last second VA nonsense.
 
Velocity173 said:
Not in this way they’re not. This controller 1) never ensured approved separation (1000 / 3) and 2) didn’t have the aircraft established on a 30 degree or less intercept after having approved separation… that crappy last second vector doesn’t count.

Finally, the audio was trimmed so not sure if DAL1070 reported field in sight before the VA clearance. She forced that on him for a reason. Once both are cleared for VAs in this situation (parallels), visual sep is now on the pilots. Problem is, she lost approved radar sep long before she tried that last second VA nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think they're saying "seems bad policy to intentionally place two aircraft on a potential collision course dependent on future additional instruction" happens hundreds of times a day, which is true and totally safe.

Unless it's different at P50, only one A/C is required to be on the VA approach to discontinue other forms of sep. You're right that the A/C must have approved separation prior to and until the A/C is established on a heading that's =/< 30 degrees from the RWY. That last second vector SHOULD have been a traffic alert to one or both A/C, but DAL1070 did report the field insight despite the controller never pointing the field out to them. Some audio is cut but it's blatantly obvious that the controller working was inexcusably negligent.
 
Shift8 said:
I think they're saying "seems bad policy to intentionally place two aircraft on a potential collision course dependent on future additional instruction" happens hundreds of times a day, which is true and totally safe.

Unless it's different at P50, only one A/C is required to be on the VA approach to discontinue other forms of sep. You're right that the A/C must have approved separation prior to and until the A/C is established on a heading that's =/< 30 degrees from the RWY. That last second vector SHOULD have been a traffic alert to one or both A/C, but DAL1070 did report the field insight despite the controller never pointing the field out to them. Some audio is cut but it's blatantly obvious that the controller working was inexcusably negligent.
Click to expand...
I was assuming parallels between 2,500 - 4300 ft. But yeah, if it’s over 4,300 then only one needs the VA clearance to discontinue radar sep. I didn’t catch where 1070 reported field in sight though. Only after the clearance was issued.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Not in this way they’re not. This controller 1) never ensured approved separation (1000 / 3) and 2) didn’t have the aircraft established on a 30 degree or less intercept after having approved separation… that crappy last second vector doesn’t count.

Finally, the audio was trimmed so not sure if DAL1070 reported field in sight before the VA clearance. She forced that on him for a reason. Once both are cleared for VAs in this situation (parallels), visual sep is now on the pilots. Problem is, she lost approved radar sep long before she tried that last second VA nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yup.

7−2−1. VISUAL SEPARATION
Visual separation may be applied when other approved separation is assured before and after the application of
visual separation. To ensure that other separation will exist, consider aircraft performance, wake turbulence,
closure rate, routes of flight, known weather conditions, and aircraft position. Weather conditions must allow
the aircraft to remain within sight until other separation exists. Visual separation is not authorized when the lead
aircraft is a super.
 
Last time I went into PHX, they gave us an at or above speed that reduced separation from our interval to <2 miles, dumped us loose on final off a dogleg vector that only made the problem worse, and then approved S turns north over the city. I did one good one, opened up enough to allow the (thankfully fast) SWA 73 to land and exit by the time we were about to flare. Didn't help that their -700 approach speed was probably 20 knots slower than out -900ER fully loaded speed. Some Navy CV-1 avoiding wave off survival instinct of mine kicked in at some point and we made it happen on our own, but that controller was over his skis that day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top