Narrative:

I was providing radar OJT at sector 25/26 in area 3 at ZDC. We took radar on a departure leaving hse direct to chs from cherry point approach control. The aircraft was in a slow climb to FL220 southwest bound and entered W122 after the appropriate point out was made and accepted by the W122 giant killer controller. It is always important to keep a constant scan while controlling air traffic and even more important when providing radar on the job training. I noticed a limited data block indicating FL209 heading due north towards aircraft X who again was in his slow climb leaving FL200 for FL220. When we called W122 to see what their aircraft was doing we were told that he was 'VFR at FL200.' VFR in the flight level does not exist in the en-route environment. Interestingly enough aircraft X told us he was IMC when my trainee made the traffic call for the aircraft Y that was on a course to merge with our target. I instructed my developmental to put aircraft X on a 270 heading which was accomplished in a timely manner and kept the targets from merging.there seems to be a discrepancy between military separation standards and en-route standards; again VFR in the flight levels is not a valid mode of operation in the en-route environment. This was clearly an unsafe operation that is somehow ok with the military controllers at navy giant killer. I don't know what was going on behind the scenes on the giant killer side of operations; but they did accept the point out for aircraft X to traverse their airspace in the climb. I don't know an exact mileage for the event; but I do know that standard separation (5 NM; 1;000 ft) was broken. This is clearly unsafe. I also believe that the fact that IMC conditions did exist kept the pilot of aircraft X calm; had he made visual contact with aircraft Y I think he would have been quite concerned. The military should have to enforce en-route separation when allowing IFR traffic to enter their airspace while under ARTCC control.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: En-route Controller reports of VFR aircraft at FL200 operating with adjacent facility while he was directing IFR traffic to avoid the VFR aircraft. VFR doesn't exist above 17;500 FT.

Narrative: I was providing Radar OJT at Sector 25/26 in area 3 at ZDC. We took radar on a departure leaving HSE direct to CHS from Cherry Point Approach Control. The aircraft was in a slow climb to FL220 southwest bound and entered W122 after the appropriate point out was made and accepted by the W122 Giant Killer Controller. It is always important to keep a constant scan while controlling air traffic and even more important when providing Radar on the job training. I noticed a limited data block indicating FL209 heading due north towards Aircraft X who again was in his slow climb leaving FL200 for FL220. When we called W122 to see what their aircraft was doing we were told that he was 'VFR at FL200.' VFR in the flight level does not exist in the en-route environment. Interestingly enough Aircraft X told us he was IMC when my trainee made the traffic call for the Aircraft Y that was on a course to merge with our target. I instructed my Developmental to put Aircraft X on a 270 heading which was accomplished in a timely manner and kept the targets from merging.There seems to be a discrepancy between military separation standards and en-route standards; again VFR in the flight levels is not a valid mode of operation in the en-route environment. This was clearly an unsafe operation that is somehow OK with the military controllers at Navy Giant Killer. I don't know what was going on behind the scenes on the Giant Killer side of operations; but they did accept the point out for Aircraft X to traverse their airspace in the climb. I don't know an exact mileage for the event; but I do know that standard separation (5 NM; 1;000 FT) was broken. This is clearly unsafe. I also believe that the fact that IMC conditions did exist kept the pilot of Aircraft X calm; had he made visual contact with Aircraft Y I think he would have been quite concerned. The military should have to enforce en-route separation when allowing IFR traffic to enter their airspace while under ARTCC Control.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.