Narrative:

I was working alone on turkey. We were split with raider-ultra high. Because of this the traffic wasn't heavy; but due to the circumstances; it was abnormally task-complex. We had lancer active in low up to 260; an aircraft that had just left lancer split between my altitudes and raider; as well as another entering my altitudes and lancer. At the same time I had a sjt arrival that ink/lee wanted turned out for their maf departure. I also had a flight of two re-fuelers coming from ink/lee that were breaking up and an aircraft coming from bgd-left trying to descend into cvs-a who couldn't hear me. The aircraft of subject was a BE30 landing maf who I have a pd descent to FL240 and handed off to lbb-left and switched. This is obviously where I dropped the ball; becoming consumed with the other tasks happening relatively at the same time while dealing with bad rides and poor frequencies. I lost focus until the BE30 had already crossed 61/82's boundary; at which point I called and pointed him out. I have long felt that unless the traffic volume is incredibly heavy; it's much more advantageous to have a d-side than have the ultra high sector open. For issues such as this; a d-side to make/take calls is much more effective; where the coordination can be alleviated off the r-side. That being said; much of this came on quickly so it would've been hard to anticipate such events to accumulate at once. If I had any suggestions for myself or supervisors it'd be to recognize when complex issues are rising and add a d-side rather than have an ultra high sector open on a normal traffic volume afternoon; especially one with issues like we had today with poor frequency reception on both ends and bad rides; resulting in more frequency congestion by the r-side; tying up time needed to coordinate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZFW Controller experienced an airspace infraction when internal coordination requirements increased the workload significantly; the reporter arguing that a D-Side would be more helpful than 'splitting' the sector.

Narrative: I was working alone on Turkey. We were split with Raider-ultra high. Because of this the traffic wasn't heavy; but due to the circumstances; it was abnormally task-complex. We had Lancer active in low up to 260; an aircraft that had just left Lancer split between my altitudes and Raider; as well as another entering my altitudes and Lancer. At the same time I had a SJT arrival that INK/LEE wanted turned out for their MAF departure. I also had a flight of two re-fuelers coming from INK/LEE that were breaking up and an aircraft coming from BGD-L trying to descend into CVS-A who couldn't hear me. The aircraft of subject was a BE30 landing MAF who I have a PD descent to FL240 and handed off to LBB-L and switched. This is obviously where I dropped the ball; becoming consumed with the other tasks happening relatively at the same time while dealing with bad rides and poor frequencies. I lost focus until the BE30 had already crossed 61/82's boundary; at which point I called and pointed him out. I have long felt that unless the traffic volume is incredibly heavy; it's much more advantageous to have a D-Side than have the ultra high sector open. For issues such as this; a D-Side to make/take calls is much more effective; where the coordination can be alleviated off the R-Side. That being said; much of this came on quickly so it would've been hard to anticipate such events to accumulate at once. If I had any suggestions for myself or supervisors it'd be to recognize when complex issues are rising and add a D-Side rather than have an ultra high sector open on a normal traffic volume afternoon; especially one with issues like we had today with poor frequency reception on both ends and bad rides; resulting in more frequency congestion by the R-Side; tying up time needed to coordinate.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.