ALERT BULLETIN AB 2018:13/9-3 3/22/ , , , FAA (ATM P80 TRACON) INFO:

Transcription

1 ALERT BULLETIN AB 2018:13/9-3 3/22/ , , , TO: INFO: FROM: SUBJ: FAA (ATM P80 TRACON) FAA (AVP-1, AVP-200, AFS-100, AFS-280, AFS-200, ANM-600, ATM PDX ATCT, SEA-FPO, Director of Air Traffic Operations WSA North), A4A, ALPA, AMFA, APA, ASAP, ATSG, CAPA, IAM, IATA, ICASS, IFALPA, IPA, NTSB, PAMA, TWU Becky L. Hooey, Director (Acting) NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System PDX Airspace VFR/IFR Traffic Conflicts We recently received an ASRS report describing a safety concern that may involve your area of operational responsibility. We do not have sufficient details to assess either the factual accuracy or possible gravity of the report. It is our policy to relay the reported information to the appropriate authority for evaluation and any necessary follow-up. We feel you should be aware of the following: ASRS received a report from a P80 TRACON Controller describing airborne conflict issues between IFR arrivals and VFR operators in the PDX area. Reporter stated he has filed multiple safety reports on this issue, and expressed concern that a serious incident could result if no action is taken. Reporter specifically mentioned conflicts with VUO airport near the approach end of Runway 10L and TTD airport near the approach end of Runway 28R. Reports , , describe similar PDX conflict issues. These reports are also enclosed. Additionally, ASRS has previously alerted on this subject. Alert messages /8-8 and /8-2 are also enclosed. To properly assess the usefulness of our alert message service, we would appreciate it if you would take the time to give us your feedback on the value of the information that we have provided. Please contact Dennis Doyle at (408) or at dennis.j.doyle@nasa.gov Aviation Safety Reporting System P.O. Box 189 Moffett Field, CA

2 ACN: Date: Local Of Day: Locale Reference.ATC Facility: P80.TRACON State Reference: OR Altitude.MSL.Single Value: 4000 Environment Flight Conditions: VMC Aircraft 1 Make Model Name: Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng Aircraft 2 Make Model Name: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer Person 1 Function.Air Traffic Control: Approach ASRS Report Number: Anomaly.ATC Issue: All Types Anomaly.Conflict: Airborne Conflict Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural: Published Material / Policy Detector.Person: Air Traffic Control Result.Air Traffic Control: Issued Advisory / Alert Result.Air Traffic Control: Separated Traffic Result.Air Traffic Control: Issued New Clearance Narrative 1 Portland was landing Runway 10. I had to vector Aircraft X to avoid a mid-air collision with a primary only target departing VUO. I don't know what needs to be done. I keep filing these reports for the same issue and I am at a point where I think nothing will ever get done. Unfortunately there will probably have to be a near mid-air or another dangerous incident for something to change. Our airport configuration is very dangerous in my opinion. We have VUO airport near the approach end of Runway 10L and on the east side there is TTD at the approach end of Runway 28R. To further compound the situation there is SPB and HIO 15 miles northwest and southwest of Portland [respectively] and aircraft fly constantly back and forth through the approach corridor at very bad altitudes that conflict with air carriers on a radar downwind or base leg. We need a procedure/airspace change that restricts the VFR aircraft to below 2000 feet in the approach corridor. P80 TRACON Controller reported they had to vector an aircraft off of their approach to avoid a merging aircraft target with no transponder.

3 ACN: Date: Local Of Day: Locale Reference.ATC Facility: P80.TRACON State Reference: OR Altitude.MSL.Single Value: 4000 Aircraft 1 Make Model Name: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model Aircraft 2 Make Model Name: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer Aircraft 3 Make Model Name: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer Person 1 Function.Air Traffic Control: Approach ASRS Report Number: Anomaly.ATC Issue: All Types Anomaly.Conflict: Airborne Conflict Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural: Published Material / Policy Detector.Person: Air Traffic Control Result.Air Traffic Control: Separated Traffic Narrative 1 I was working the final sector on a runway 10 flow into Portland. I noticed two primary targets north of my airspace heading southbound. I did a minimum separation function on the stars display and decided that the targets were likely going to be close to my B737 jet. But the targets were spaced out in such a way that I couldn't extend the B737 on the downwind to miss the first target, because it would likely merge with the second target. I descended the B737 jet and turned base, hoping to turn final south of the two targets. I called traffic at least 3 or 4 times to the B737 jet and the pilot never got either target in sight. I then called local 2 and asked if they could see any low level aircraft out to the west. They said no. The target eventually got to within.333 of a mile to the B737 at about a 6 mile final before it crossed final and headed to the southeast. The second target did not cross final and instead appeared to land at [ a satellite] airport. This was a normal/daily operation at KPDX. Unidentified targets, both primary targets and 1200 codes, cross Portland final all day constantly and they hardly ever call approach for flight following. One day this is going to end in a near midair or even worse. There are a lot of controllers here [submitting safety reports on] these events and we get little to no feedback. Management seems indifferent as well. What do you want us to do? One day a collision is going to be unavoidable without an airspace design change. It really is. P80 TRACON Controller reported the PDX class C airspace does not provide separation to arrivals from non-participating air traffic.

4 ACN: Date: Local Of Day: Locale Reference.ATC Facility: P80.TRACON State Reference: OR Altitude.MSL.Single Value: 5000 Aircraft 1 Make Model Name: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model Aircraft 2 Make Model Name: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer Person 1 Function.Air Traffic Control: Approach ASRS Report Number: Anomaly.ATC Issue: All Types Anomaly.Conflict: Airborne Conflict Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural: Published Material / Policy Detector.Person: Air Traffic Control Result.Air Traffic Control: Separated Traffic Narrative 1 I was working final on a runway 10 flow into Portland. A Regional Jet was descending via the timbers arrival STAR and level at I noticed a VFR target squawking 1200 eastbound at The aircraft preceded to cross the timbers STAR. I issued traffic to the CRJ and the aircraft never got the 1200 target in sight. I had to turn and issue an expedited descent to the CRJ to avoid merging the targets. The unidentified aircraft continued eastbound, just south of KPDX and I handed the target off to the hood sector. Hood stopped all PDX departures at 4000 as the target continued to fly up the departure corridor at a slow rate of speed. This was not a safe operation. In no way whatsoever. Our class Charlie airspace is completely at fault. The aircraft technically didn't deviate protected airspace. However, our arrival routes are not protected by the class Charlie rules. The timbers arrival descends to 5000 feet and often we can't go lower because of terrain and arrivals/departures off of KHIO airport. The final sector's airspace needs to be protected at the standard downwind/base/final approach altitudes. Every day there are targets crossing final in front of aircraft, below aircraft, and above aircraft and we aren't talking to those airplanes and have no way to verify their mode C. It is extremely unsafe, and unfortunately, something will happen someday that we all are desperately trying to avoid. This needs to be fixed soon, like yesterday. P80 TRACON Controller reported the PDX class C airspace compromises separation for arrivals and departures due to non-participating air traffic in the area.

5 ACN: Date: Local Of Day: Locale Reference.ATC Facility: P80.TRACON State Reference: OR Altitude.MSL.Single Value: Aircraft 1 Make Model Name: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR Aircraft 2 Make Model Name: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model Aircraft 3 Make Model Name: B Person 1 Function.Air Traffic Control: Approach ASRS Report Number: Anomaly.ATC Issue: All Types Anomaly.Conflict: Airborne Conflict Anomaly.Deviation - Procedural: Published Material / Policy Detector.Person: Air Traffic Control Result.Air Traffic Control: Separated Traffic Narrative 1 Aircraft X, an ERJ-175, [was] climbing off of PDX via WHAMY departure. Clear him to WHAMY while pulling up the Minimum Separation between the ERJ-175 and a primary only target, northbound 20 miles southeast of PDX. Minimum Separation shows close, so I vector [the] ERJ-175 south around the primary target. As they get close, the primary turns northwest into the ERJ-175. They passed about 1 mile apart. While that was going on Aircraft Y, a B737, checked in climbing on the WHAMY departure. I issued him the traffic and took him north around the primary. While all that was going on, Aircraft Z, a B737 was descending on the TMBRS arrival near FLOWR. There was another primary only target 5 miles north of FLOWR headed southwest. As Aircraft Z made the turn at FLOWR I gave him vectors off the arrival for the primary traffic. PDX has class C airspace and safety would benefit greatly if we had class B or at least a mode C veil. A TRACON Controller reported that aircraft are routinely in conflict, at both arrivals and departures, from and to PDX and mentioned the associated Class C would benefit tremendously by either an upgrade to Class B, or a Mode C veil.

6 Previous Alert(s)

7 4/5/2013 FOR YOUR INFORMATION To: FAA (ATM PDX ATCT) / Info: FAA (DIRECTOR OF WESTERN TERMINAL OPERATIONS, ANM-600, AFS-230, AFS-200, ASA-100), AASC, ALPA, AOPA, APA, ASAP, A4A, ATSAP, CAPA, IPA, NAFI, NATCA, NBAA, NTSB, RAA, SWAPA, USAPA From: Linda J. Connell, Director NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System Re: Potential Conflict between PDX and VUO Traffic We recently received an ASRS report describing a safety concern which may involve your area of operational responsibility. We do not have sufficient details to assess either the factual accuracy or possible gravity of the report. It is our policy to relay the reported information to the appropriate authority for evaluation and any necessary follow-up. We feel you should be aware of the enclosed deidentified report. ABFYITxt To properly assess the usefulness of our alert message service, we would appreciate it if you would take the time to give us your feedback on the value of the information that we have provided. Please contact Gary Brauch at (408) or at gary.j.brauch@nasa.gov. Aviation Safety Reporting System P.O. Box 189 Moffett Field, CA

8 ACN: Date: Local Of Day: Locale Reference.Airport: PDX.Airport State Reference: OR Altitude.MSL.Single Value: 1300 Aircraft 1 ATC / Advisory.Tower: PDX Make Model Name: A320 Aircraft 2 ATC / Advisory.CTAF: VUO Make Model Name: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer Person 1 Function.Air Traffic Control: Local ASRS Report Number: Person 2 Function.Air Traffic Control: Other / Unknown ASRS Report Number: Anomaly.ATC Issue: All Types Anomaly.Conflict: Airborne Conflict Detector.Person: Air Traffic Control Result.Air Traffic Control: Issued Advisory / Alert Narrative 1 An A320 was on Runway 10L ILS approach to PDX. When he checked on my frequency, I immediately issued traffic on two targets that appeared to be in the pattern for Runway 8 at VUO. The pilot stated that he was just starting to break out at about 2,000 FT, but did not have the traffic in sight due to rain and poor visibility. One of the targets appeared to be turning base in front of the A320, so issued traffic again. He never saw the traffic. After passing VUO, the pilot stated that he had been unable to stay on the glide slope due to the traffic. He was not happy and obviously felt it was an unsafe operation. He was still able to continue visually and land. Open a Tower at VUO and control the traffic. Current VUO procedures are a joke. The VUO advisory position monitors a CTAF frequency but can't control anything. It's also confusing to the pilots. Narrative 2 I was on the Pearson advisory position, monitoring the VUO CTAF frequency. Several aircraft had reported in the VUO Runway 08 traffic pattern, including a C172, a SR22, and another C172. An A320 was on an ILS approach to Runway 10L at PDX. I issued traffic information and a wake turbulence advisory on CTAF when the A320 was about 3 miles west of VUO descending through 020, this is about 6 mile final to Runway 10L. At or about that time the A320 pilot leveled off and left the glide slope due to the VUO traffic. I issued information again as the A320 passed over VUO at 1,300 FT descending. The 10L glide slope goes directly over the 08 threshold and penetrates the airspace. Two of the VUO aircraft reported light chop on short final below 100 FT. The ceiling was about 018. Put a Control Tower back at VUO to control the traffic. PDX Controllers voiced concern regarding the current procedures between PDX arrival traffic and aircraft operating at the VUO airport. The reporters recommend an ATC Tower be established at VUO.

9 4/27/2006 FOR YOUR INFORMATION To: Info: From: Re: FAA (ATM PDX ATCT, DIRECTOR OF WESTERN TERMINAL OPS, AIRPORT MANAGER, PEARSON (VUO), VANCOUVER, WASH) / FAA (AFS-230 AFS-200, FSDO 09 PDX, ANM-620) AASC, AIA, ALPA, AOPA, APA, ASAP, ATA, CAPA, IFALPA, ICASS, IPA, NATCA, NBAA, NTSB, RAA, SWAPA Linda J. Connell, Director NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System CONFLICT BETWEEN PDX AND VUO TRAFFIC We recently received an ASRS report describing a safety concern which may involve your area of operational responsibility. We do not have sufficient details to assess either the factual accuracy or possible gravity of the report. It is our policy to relay the reported information to the appropriate authority for evaluation and any necessary follow-up. We feel you should be aware of the enclosed deidentified report. ABFYITxt To properly assess the usefulness of our FYI service, we would appreciate it if you would take the time to give us your feedback on the value of the information that we have provided. Please contact Harvey Hartmann or Don Purdy at (408) or at hhartmann@mail.arc.nasa.gov, dpurdy@mail.arc.nasa.gov. Aviation Safety Reporting System 385 Moffet Park Dr Suite 200 Sunnyvale CA 94089

10 ACN: Date : Day : Thu Local Of Day : 0601 To 1200 Locale Reference.Airport : PDX.Airport State Reference : OR Altitude.MSL.Single Value : 1000 Environment Flight Conditions : VMC Aircraft / 1 Controlling Facilities.Tower : PDX.Tower Make Model : Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model Aircraft / 2 Make Model : Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer Person / 1 Function.Controller : Local ASRS Report : Person / 2 Function.Oversight : PIC Function.Flight Crew : Captain Person / 3 Function.Flight Crew : Single Pilot Anomaly.Conflict : Airborne Less Severe Anomaly.Other Anomaly.Other : Airspace Proximity Independent Detector.Other.ControllerA : 1 Resolutory Action.None Taken : Anomaly Accepted Narrative A B737 ON 3 MILE FINAL TO RWY 10R AT PDX. OTHER ACFT WAS IN THE PATTERN AT VUO. VUO ACFT NOT TALKING TO ANY CTLR. I CALLED THAT TFC TO B737 AND THEY SAID IT WAS 'IN SIGHT.' THE PLT THEN STATED, 'THAT IS REALLY DANGEROUS,' REFERRING TO ARRS TO PDX GETTING TOO CLOSE TO VUO UNCTLED TFC. THE B737 PLT THEN SAID HE HAD AN 'RA' SITUATION WITH ANOTHER VUO ACFT WHEN HE WAS INBOUND TO PDX TWO WEEKS AGO. I HAVE OBSERVED NUMEROUS 'RA' AND 'CLOSE CALLS' WITH OUR TFC AND VUO ACFT OVER THE YEARS. AN ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS SCENARIO IS WHEN THE VUO TFC PATTERN IS RWY 26 AND PDX IS ARRIVING TO RWYS 10R AND 10L. THE ILS RWY APCH PRACTICALLY FLIES THROUGH THE VUO PATTERN. MY SOLUTION WOULD BE TO CLOSE VUO TO PREVENT THE NMAC THAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. PDX CTLR EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF VUO TFC PATTERN AND CONTINUED CONFLICTS WITH PDX TFC.