Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Human Factors; Procedure
ATL was departing two runways simultaneously (Runway's 26L and 27R); and utilizing RNAV departures (dual tracks on each runway). Weather/convective activity quickly moved in to the terminal area; which blocked the RNAV departure tracks. In order to continue departing; single headings were coordinated with A80 for each runway; which would allow departures to avoid the weather. Runway 26L departures were to be assigned a 260 degree heading; while Runway 27R departures would be assigned a 240 degree heading. The on-duty Front Line Manager (FLM) accomplished the coordination with A80; and informed the Local Control 2 of the heading to be used. As the on-coming FLM; I was engaged in 'pre-brief' and situational familiarization; while preparing to assume the FLM position. After over-hearing the on-duty FLM coordinate with A80; I verified the coordinated heading for Runway 27R with the FLM. As I was nearer to the south side of the cab; I wrote the 240 degree heading on a blank flight progress strip and hand-delivered it to the Local Control 3 (Runway 27R) Controller; and verbally coordinated the heading to be assigned by stating 'all of your departures on a 240 heading for weather.' I then decided that two FLM's would be necessary in the operation due to rapidly changing weather conditions and complexity issues; and told the on-duty FLM to assign me to the Tower Supervisor South position (TS-S); so that I could actively monitor the South side of the operation. As I 'plugged' in to the position; I turned to scan the RACD (Local RADAR display); and noticed Air Carrier X (Runway 27R departure); and Air Carrier Y (Runway 26L departure) in very close proximity; side-by-side at the same altitude approximately 2 miles west of the airport and their respective departure runways. It was clear that their courses were converging; and I immediately called the A80 Departure Coordinator (D-CI) to ask if they were 'talking' to those two aircraft just to the West of the airport. The D-CI responded that he wasn't but 'his guys were' (paraphrasing). I believe that the Departure South (DR-S) did turn Air Carrier X away from Air Carrier Y; but I can not confirm at this time. When time permitted; I asked the Local Control 3 Controller where Air Carrier X was (position) when the direction (for 240 headings) was delivered. Local Control 3 responded that the aircraft was on departure roll at that time; which meant there was more than adequate time to amend the departure instructions for Air Carrier X. Local Control 3 offered no explanation as to why Air Carrier X was left on the RNAV departure (approximately 270 degree track); instead of being turned to a 240 heading. Because Air Carrier X was not taken off the RNAV track; while Air Carrier Y was assigned the coordinated 260 heading; these two aircraft were separated by just .55 miles (just over 5/10's of a mile); and zero (0) vertical feet; while on a converging track. Proper RADAR Training (ie RTF) should be a requirement for all terminal controllers with any interaction with; and/or responsibility for; RADAR separation. Busier/complex facilities should be staffed by the best the system has o offer. That is not to denigrate those with little or no experience; but these facilities are not well suited for 'ab-inito' training programs.
ATL Front Line Manager described a loss of separation event development when controllers; briefed on required headings due to weather; failed to issue same and/or take immediate corrective action. The reporter noted proper initial RADAR training is not being conducted for trainees at high volume/complex facilities.