Several ZAB controllers described a NMAC event when an IFR enroute aircraft was required to take evasive action to avoid a parachute jump aircraft; reporters indicating track starts on jump aircraft; drop zone relocation and VFR altitude restrictions could assist in preventing additional conflicts.

Date: 2010-04 · Aircraft: Light Transport · Phase: cruise

Anomalies: conflict-nmac

Synopsis

Narrative

I was training a D side on 46. We were quite busy; with several conflicts that had either been rectified or were in the process. Aircraft Y was westbound on V94 at 120. V94 is the only airway we have going East and West that we can put IFR aircraft on due to high terrain northeast of TUS. Aircraft X; was doing jump activities at E60. Military Y was westbound on V94 at 120. V94 is the only airway we have going East and West that we can put IFR aircraft on; due to high terrain northeast of TUS. Aircraft X was doing jump activities at E60; which is about a half mile south of V94; close to TOTEC intersection. We took a hand off on an Air Carrier climbing slowly out of 9;000 that we were worried about getting above Military Y. The R-side told us to call and make sure we had positive separation; so I called the Santan Controller at Phoenix to tell them to have the aircraft cross the boundary at or above 130. At the same time; a new R-side Controller came in to get a relief briefing. I saw the Aircraft X beacon code; no track started; about two miles away from Military Y when the Controller told one of the aircraft about the other; not sure which one. I believe the Controller told them both about each other. We had a lot of data block clutter around the airport as well as several Mode C intruder and VFR targets. Military Y advised that they were maneuvering to avoid the Aircraft X; stating that they missed by 20 feet; had to use 90 degree bank to avoid; and descended out of 120 to 105. Aircraft X said a few minutes later that is was closer to 150 or 200 feet. At the time when the two aircraft got close; the code on Aircraft X went from what appeared to be about 2 miles to merging with Military Y.

Second reporter narrative

I was relieving the Controller on R46. The Controller started the position relief briefing and when the Controller was done giving me the status of the board; the Controller went on to brief me about the traffic. While the Controller was briefing me on the traffic situation he/she started calling traffic to Military Y about Aircraft X that was at the same altitude. At that time Military Y said that they were taking evasive action and they actually had to do a 90 degree bank turn and descend 1500 feet to avoid the jump aircraft. The pilot let the Controller know that they missed by about 20 feet. The jump aircraft advised the Controller that they had not passed that close and that it was more like 160 feet. The Controller than continued to give me the rest of the briefing and when she was done I took over the sector. Recommendation; R46 is a very complex and busy sector. Even with a few aircraft the complexity of the sector is very high. Now that we have to make sure to call traffic for the Jump aircraft over the Eloy and Coolidge Airports it makes it even more complex and in turn makes it even more dangerous. We are required to separate our aircraft from the jump aircraft even though the jump aircraft are flying VFR. We are supposed to give RADAR advisories to the jump aircraft to all known traffic within a 5 mile radius of the airports. We have an arrival into PHX that goes right over one of those jump airports that we have to be constantly vigilant about. All the jump activity just adds a lot more stress and complexity in a sector where no more stress and complexity is needed. Unfortunately we have no other way of running this sector unless we can somehow get the jump activity moved to another area which I don't see happening.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.

← All incident reports Global safety overview