It was the controller's second loss of separation incident in less than two years and she was traumatized by the event.
As she says in her NTSB interview:
The Burbank controller had yelled over to her and said watch out for the MVAs with EVA015. She said that she knew she needed to be higher with EVA015 when she looked at the MVA map. Everybody in the TRACON heard what was going on because she was talking loudly and using expletives between transmissions.
Looks like our early analysis on this thread of the close encounter with the Mount Wilson antenna farm was pretty accurate.
Originally Posted by
aterpster
I recommend downloading the entire docket and, if the audio is still available on the Internet, to give it a good listen once you have read the docket materials.
The audio is still online here:
Because the controller submitted an Air Traffic Safety Action Program report, the NTSB was not able to determine if she again received additional remedial training (Skill Enhancement Training) due to confidentiality rules.
Because of the significant MOR for this incident, the incident controller was recommended for SET by the SCT Local Safety Council and the ATM. However, because the controller submitted an ATSAP report, the SET request was submitted to the WSA ERC for consideration. According to FAA JO 7200.20, Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs (VSRP), “Keep confidential, to the extent feasible, information requested by, and all skill enhancement training recommended by the ERC.” Accordingly, there is no record of the approved SET by the ERC.
Before this incident, the SCT Manhattan sector controller had received SET on March 16, 2015 because of a loss of separation event between two aircraft. On February 27, 2015, she was working the SCT Malibu radar sector in the DEL area separation was lost between two aircraft that she was responsible to provide separation between. The SET was recommended by the OM for the Del Ray area and concurred with by the WSA ERC. The SET noted that its purpose was to assist the controller with an “opportunity to improve your knowledge, skills, abilities, and performance in the radar environment.”
Also, the FAA would not reveal whether the ATSAP report was accepted late after the 24 hour reporting deadline:
An interview with the incident controller revealed that she submitted her ATSAP report on December 17, 2016 and acknowledged it was more than 24 hours after being notified of the incident. The NTSB made efforts to determine if the ATSAP report was accepted by the ERC, however, FAA ATO declined to provide that information.