 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
ZNY oceanic controller failed to pass aircraft information to czqm or czqx artccs, aircraft entered adjacent center airspace without coordination.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 102749 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198901 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : yqy |
| State Reference | NS |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 29000 msl bound upper : 29000 |
| Environment | |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : czqm artcc : czqx |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Navigation In Use | Other |
| Flight Phase | cruise other |
| Route In Use | enroute : atlantic enroute : other oceanic enroute airway : czqx enroute airway : czqm |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : non radar |
| Qualification | controller : non radar |
| ASRS Report | 102749 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Qualification | controller : developmental controller : non radar |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure non adherence other other anomaly other other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | faa : investigated |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Operational Deviation Intra Facility Coordination Failure Inter Facility Coordination Failure |
Narrative:
On 1/thu/89 at XB40 local time an aircraft, (route tbpb 27/5836 30/58 35/58 40/57 konch cyzw) progressed the ZNY/moncton boundary. Immediately afterward gander control called ZNY inquiring as to the identify of the aircraft. ZNY's boundary strip showed that moncton had the information and would pass to gander. Review of tapes by all facs indicated no coordination had taken place. Field 24 of ZNY's boundary strip was marked. Although not mentioned in ZNY's strip marking guide as valid coordination, this shorthand is used extensively by ZNY oceanic indicating all coordination is done. From XA38 through the end of the shift I was working the sector (D84). Around XB00 an atcs developmental began working the sector, under my supervision, in an unofficial training mode, as is customary on midshifts in ny oceanic area. At XB05 the controller I relieved at XA38 called from home to point out the aircraft in question because it was on an abnormal routing, at a prime altitude and as such, had not been mentioned at all in the position relief briefing. I assured him we noticed the aircraft and jokingly added that now he could go to sleep. At no time during this call was coordination or a lack thereof mentioned. The only markings placed on the boundary strip by the trnee or myself were the previous strip progress time and pilot estimate for konch. We did not circle the qm/qx in field 24, nor had we any reason to, this marking was already on the strip when I took over the sector. After assuming control of the sector, because traffic was light and I wanted to be able to work sector D82-88 while monitoring the trnee, I moved it to the vacant D89 position. This is regularly and customarily done on midshifts to accommodate bootleg training. The konch strip on medium large transport, if canted out before the move, was canted in during the move because of the aforementioned strip marking which led me to believe the aircraft was coordinated already. Supplemental information from acn 102647: any sector D84/85 non radar oceanic control. Aircraft was heading northbound via routing 3800N/5800W direct konch direct and landing cyqx. I was relieved from the position an hour before the aircraft was estimating konch. ZNY is required by letter agreement to coordinate with moncton center (30 mins) and gander center prior to the konch estimate. The flight progress strip used for coordination was canted out on the boards. There was no strip marking on the strip that showed coordination. While driving home I became concerned about this aircraft and upon arriving home I called the controller and re-emphasized the need to coordinate this aircraft. For whatever reason, the controller did not coordinate the aircraft with moncton center and gander center. Thus the aircraft entered moncton center and gander center's airspace west/O proper coordination. Shift I was working was a swing. The other controller involved was working a mid shift. The other controller is saying the flight progress strip showed coordination in a fashion that is not approved for showing coordination. The other controller is outright lying to cover his fanny.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ZNY OCEANIC CTLR FAILED TO PASS ACFT INFORMATION TO CZQM OR CZQX ARTCCS, ACFT ENTERED ADJACENT CENTER AIRSPACE WITHOUT COORD.
Narrative: ON 1/THU/89 AT XB40 LCL TIME AN ACFT, (ROUTE TBPB 27/5836 30/58 35/58 40/57 KONCH CYZW) PROGRESSED THE ZNY/MONCTON BOUNDARY. IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD GANDER CTL CALLED ZNY INQUIRING AS TO THE IDENT OF THE ACFT. ZNY'S BOUNDARY STRIP SHOWED THAT MONCTON HAD THE INFO AND WOULD PASS TO GANDER. REVIEW OF TAPES BY ALL FACS INDICATED NO COORD HAD TAKEN PLACE. FIELD 24 OF ZNY'S BOUNDARY STRIP WAS MARKED. ALTHOUGH NOT MENTIONED IN ZNY'S STRIP MARKING GUIDE AS VALID COORD, THIS SHORTHAND IS USED EXTENSIVELY BY ZNY OCEANIC INDICATING ALL COORD IS DONE. FROM XA38 THROUGH THE END OF THE SHIFT I WAS WORKING THE SECTOR (D84). AROUND XB00 AN ATCS DEVELOPMENTAL BEGAN WORKING THE SECTOR, UNDER MY SUPERVISION, IN AN UNOFFICIAL TRNING MODE, AS IS CUSTOMARY ON MIDSHIFTS IN NY OCEANIC AREA. AT XB05 THE CTLR I RELIEVED AT XA38 CALLED FROM HOME TO POINT OUT THE ACFT IN QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS ON AN ABNORMAL ROUTING, AT A PRIME ALT AND AS SUCH, HAD NOT BEEN MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE POS RELIEF BRIEFING. I ASSURED HIM WE NOTICED THE ACFT AND JOKINGLY ADDED THAT NOW HE COULD GO TO SLEEP. AT NO TIME DURING THIS CALL WAS COORD OR A LACK THEREOF MENTIONED. THE ONLY MARKINGS PLACED ON THE BOUNDARY STRIP BY THE TRNEE OR MYSELF WERE THE PREVIOUS STRIP PROGRESS TIME AND PLT ESTIMATE FOR KONCH. WE DID NOT CIRCLE THE QM/QX IN FIELD 24, NOR HAD WE ANY REASON TO, THIS MARKING WAS ALREADY ON THE STRIP WHEN I TOOK OVER THE SECTOR. AFTER ASSUMING CONTROL OF THE SECTOR, BECAUSE TFC WAS LIGHT AND I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO WORK SECTOR D82-88 WHILE MONITORING THE TRNEE, I MOVED IT TO THE VACANT D89 POS. THIS IS REGULARLY AND CUSTOMARILY DONE ON MIDSHIFTS TO ACCOMMODATE BOOTLEG TRNING. THE KONCH STRIP ON MLG, IF CANTED OUT BEFORE THE MOVE, WAS CANTED IN DURING THE MOVE BECAUSE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED STRIP MARKING WHICH LED ME TO BELIEVE THE ACFT WAS COORDINATED ALREADY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 102647: ANY SECTOR D84/85 NON RADAR OCEANIC CTL. ACFT WAS HDG NBOUND VIA ROUTING 3800N/5800W DIRECT KONCH DIRECT AND LNDG CYQX. I WAS RELIEVED FROM THE POS AN HOUR BEFORE THE ACFT WAS ESTIMATING KONCH. ZNY IS REQUIRED BY LETTER AGREEMENT TO COORDINATE WITH MONCTON CENTER (30 MINS) AND GANDER CENTER PRIOR TO THE KONCH ESTIMATE. THE FLT PROGRESS STRIP USED FOR COORD WAS CANTED OUT ON THE BOARDS. THERE WAS NO STRIP MARKING ON THE STRIP THAT SHOWED COORD. WHILE DRIVING HOME I BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ACFT AND UPON ARRIVING HOME I CALLED THE CTLR AND RE-EMPHASIZED THE NEED TO COORDINATE THIS ACFT. FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE CTLR DID NOT COORDINATE THE ACFT WITH MONCTON CENTER AND GANDER CENTER. THUS THE ACFT ENTERED MONCTON CENTER AND GANDER CENTER'S AIRSPACE W/O PROPER COORD. SHIFT I WAS WORKING WAS A SWING. THE OTHER CTLR INVOLVED WAS WORKING A MID SHIFT. THE OTHER CTLR IS SAYING THE FLT PROGRESS STRIP SHOWED COORD IN A FASHION THAT IS NOT APPROVED FOR SHOWING COORD. THE OTHER CTLR IS OUTRIGHT LYING TO COVER HIS FANNY.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.