Searching for solution
It is quite sad to read that the controller was fired after the incident. I don't know the history of the ATCo, or his "personal file", but if this was the only major mistake, the resulting procedures at that ANSP are disgraceful... Where is the Safety Officer? Safety system? Just culture?
I hope that you have a Union or at least a national ATCA, who will help the controller.
Of course I agree with the previous posts regarding the call sign similarities in the sector. Many steps were taken in the past to avoid it, but the system is still far from perfect. And there are other factors, like huge delays, or unplanned reroutings that compromise the idea sometimes.
But going deeper... I see another issue here. It is the human factor, it is how our brain works. Why?
I see that the controller was looking at the conflict with the 3rd acft, 100NM away. His brain was somewhat locked onto that problem. He started with preplanning, asking the pilot (2nd acft) for higher levels. The answer was negative, and it was surely not a relief for the ATCo. Minutes later, the 1st acft asked for higher level - and here we are... Because his brain was still preoccupied with the conflict ahead, he "heard" what he wanted to hear, his brain seeking for some ease and... the assumption happens. A very common thing in ATC.
Maybe a small issue here is trying to solve the problems to early. Of course identifying the problem, and searching for the best solution is obvious, but 100NM can sometimes be a bit to early. I've seen many mistakes where controllers were focused on the problem that was 6, 7 or more minutes ahead, issued an instruction (climb, turn, descent) and at the same time they totally forgot or missed the conflicting acft, (or the new conflict with the 3rd acft, as a result from the instruction) that was in only 20NM range of the acft being "vectored". Doing step by step, monitor the conflicts that are still 10 or more min away, and rethink the best solution is sometimes better that taking immediate action.
The second thing is identifying and being aware of the possible misunderstanding due to the similar call signs. It is not just similar call signs. Sometimes even just the same company, like CLX call, will be enough for the problem. Same as above - "wrong expectation" -, if the pilot asked for a higher level, was put on stand-by and moments later a new acft from the same company made the inital call and was instructed to continue climb to FL, which was the same as the requested from the pilot nr. 1, it can happen that just that nr. 1 will also read-back "Climbing to level xxx"... We're all humans.
In the case of CLX749 and CLX794, stressing out the call sign when instructing can be a solution, for example;
CLX749, I SAY AGAIN, CLX 7-4-9, CLIMB TO FL330.
Maybe in latter case at least the pilots of the both acft would identify the mistake made by ATCo.
And the administration accused the controller because of the temporary west/east FL allocation?? I'm sure, they were never working surveillance ATC...
Last edited by UpperATC; 10th Apr 2013 at 12:29.