HCF Controllers described a conflict event between a VFR and IFR aircraft during a relief briefing period; the reporters listing equipment limitations as one contributing factor.
Synopsis
HCF Controllers described a conflict event between a VFR and IFR aircraft during a relief briefing period; the reporters listing equipment limitations as one contributing factor.
Narrative
Aircraft X was on an IFR flight plan inbound to JULLE on the JULLE4 arrival level at 8000. Aircraft Y was VFR opposite direction; climbing to 7500. Traffic was issued to both planes from 13NM and 12NM apart. The planes were going to meet at the sector boundary. The next sector had already taken the hand off on Aircraft X; but I didn't switch him due to traffic. When they were about 1 mile apart Aircraft X reported Aircraft Y on TCAS; he also said he was going to have an RA. I asked the pilot if he wanted a vector around the traffic; he answered affirmative. Between issuing traffic and Aircraft X reporting Aircraft Y on TCAS; I had started giving a position relief briefing to another Controller. My Instructor had plugged in overhead to listen. When Aircraft X reported that he was going to have an RA; since the relieving Controller did not do anything; my Instructor unplugged him and plugged in with me again. When my OJT Instructor plugged in; the relieving Controller said that Aircraft Y had reported the RA. Because of this mix up; time was spent questioning Aircraft Y rather than vectoring Aircraft X. Shortly after that; Aircraft X reported that he was climbing in response to an RA. We advised the Supervisor. Recommendation; I learned how to respond to a pilot reporting an RA. Also; we should have the ability to have three controllers plugged into the same position so that the relieving Controller; the OJTI; and the trainee can do a position relief briefing.
Second reporter narrative
We were in our Relief Briefing. My trainee was giving the briefing to the relieving Controller while I had plugged into the overhead in the monitor position. At the end of the briefing I heard Aircraft X say that his TCAS was showing 400 ft and he MAY get a RA soon. I tried to key in to ask Aircraft X if he wanted a RADAR vector for traffic; but my transmission did not go out since I was in the overhead and in monitor only. The relieving Controller did not attempt to transmit for any help to Aircraft X; so I unplugged him and plugged back into the jack and asked Aircraft X if he wanted a RADAR vector. The relieving Controller told me it was not Aircraft X that said he was about to get the RA and that it was Aircraft Y that said that. Aircraft X did not reply to my question; so I assumed the Controller was correct. What happened was that when I asked the question I did not go out since I was plugged in the overhead. So I asked Aircraft Y if he wanted a RADAR vector. Aircraft Y said he was planning on descending instead. (BACKGROUND: we were giving traffic from 13 miles apart opposite direction). My Trainee said he/she did not switch Aircraft X yet. Aircraft X then said they were going to react to a RA. I advised the Supervisor. They passed with 1 mile and had 700 ft. As we discussed this later; my Trainee said as I was unplugging from the overhead to plug into the regular jack; Aircraft X had said affirmative when asked if he wanted a RADAR vector for traffic. This all happened within seconds. Recommendation; I should not have been plugged in a jack that could not transmit till I relinquish position. We need to be able to all (three of us) plug in together to give and receive a briefing. The FAA should think about improving this faulty equipment. It should be a cheap fix. No one was really in jeopardy. We were controlling an IFR and giving traffic to both the IFR and VFR aircraft. The VFR should maintain VFR!
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.