Narrative:

When I relieved the controller at R18/20 I was briefed about the possible issues with the military aircraft operating in R3403 and the associated jpg MOA. The controller and flm both advised that aircraft X had spilled out of the protected airspace multiple times and the supervisor informed me he was trying to contact the range controller to get more information about what was going on; but what he knew at that point was the aircraft was supposed to be 'dropping off divers' (there was confusion on if that meant parachute operations; or the aircraft was landing and offloading them?). I was also briefed there was an aircraft Z somewhere flying that had been through the airspace and may be back at some point. I had a track on aircraft X and continued to watch the aircraft do a circular holding pattern that caused the aircraft to go into and out of the protected airspace. The area the aircraft was circling around was also an area that had a NOTAM out for uav aircraft activity. I do not remember the exact specifics but it was close to 3nm in diameter 3500 msl and below; with a center point of OVO090003. I was also briefed that ind ATCT; cvg ATCT; and sdf ATCT had all been updated about the situation.when I sat down I decided to call each approach control to confirm they had been updated and see if they had any additional information. When I spoke with ind ATCT they said they saw the limited and would protect from that aircraft and that airspace in general. When I spoke with cvg ATCT they also saw the limited but had a question as to what altitude that jpg D MOA was hot to because part of the flight path aircraft X had been flying was inside the lateral boundary of jgd D but above the altitude cap of 040 since aircraft X was flying at 100 or 110. They asked me to confirm what altitude the jpd D was 'hot' to.to error on the side of caution i told them to show the jgd D airspace hot to 130; which is the top of cvg ATCT airspace. I do not know the full ramifications of this but when doing so I knew this would potentially impact the northwest departure course out of cvg. When I spoke with sdf ATCT they informed me they were talking to aircraft y who was currently holding at the abb VOR and planning on entering the jpg moa at some point; but they were not sure what the aircraft plans were after they entered the jgp MOA. They also wanted to know if they should have aircraft y stay on his current assigned beacon code or not. I asked them to leave him on his current assigned code so I would be able to track the flight.at that point I pulled up a track on aircraft Y. I then watched aircraft Y (time unknown) enter the jpd MOA from the south and track directly northeast to the same holding pattern as aircraft X around the uav area; in doing so aircraft y spilled out the north side of the jpg MOA and into my airspace with no radio calls. At some point during all of this my supervisor informed me that he had spoken with the range controller and they were 'not sure exactly what was going on; but they needed to fly in those areas to accomplish their mission'. He also informed me the range controller had told him when the military aircraft go outside of the protected airspace and into mine 'they are operating VFR'. I questioned him on this and how that was acceptable for us to run operations and he told me he had the same concerns but that was the answer he was given by the range controller and the operations manager here at ZID. At that point I called all three approach controls and updated them that 'they are operating VFR outside of protected airspace' but to use extreme caution and just because they are 'VFR' doesn't mean we do not have to protect from them. As I was being relieved I briefed the incoming controller of what was going on and that they expected the activity to be done in the next hour to hour and a half. After I had completed my overlap and put my headset up I went back to make sure there were no questions and noticed a track on aircraft z to the west of the airspace near BFR airport but since I was not plugged in I do not know what role that aircraft played in the situation.since the incident occurred I reviewed the LOA's for R3403 and the jpg MOA to make sure I had not been aware of some 'operating VFR outside protected airspace' portion of the LOA. In the it very clearly defines how aircraft are supposed to enter and exit the protected airspace both in VFR and IFR conditions. I feel that by us (ZID) allowing the military to operate outside the confines of the LOA without recourse we are promoting an unsafe culture that will eventually lead to a real accident/incident. I also know that IFR/VFR separation has been one of the top 5 concerns and feel by allowing the military to say we are 'operating VFR' does not remove any risk; but instead probably adds to it. In the LOA it clearly defines if the military needs additional airspace the procedures for making those requests. I also have noticed a major increase in the amount of uav activity at this location over the past 6 months and was even briefed by my flm approximately a year ago during a team meeting about the uav activity at maskatuc/jefferson proving grounds. I have two recommendations:1- revisit the R3403 and jpg MOA LOA's and add to them procedures that include operations for the uav activities.2- fully investigate this incident and then brief all controllers/military using this airspace so we can learn from this incident. Lastly I am a member of our local best practices work group here at ZID and we have been working to better open up communication with our military users.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZID Controller describes a situation where an aircraft is outside of a Restricted Area maneuvering while IFR.

Narrative: When I relieved the controller at R18/20 I was briefed about the possible issues with the military aircraft operating in R3403 and the associated JPG MOA. The controller and FLM both advised that Aircraft X had spilled out of the protected airspace multiple times and the supervisor informed me he was trying to contact the range controller to get more information about what was going on; but what he knew at that point was the aircraft was supposed to be 'dropping off divers' (there was confusion on if that meant parachute operations; or the aircraft was landing and offloading them?). I was also briefed there was an Aircraft Z somewhere flying that had been through the airspace and may be back at some point. I had a track on Aircraft X and continued to watch the aircraft do a circular holding pattern that caused the aircraft to go into and out of the protected airspace. The area the aircraft was circling around was also an area that had a NOTAM out for UAV aircraft activity. I do not remember the exact specifics but it was close to 3nm in diameter 3500 msl and below; with a center point of OVO090003. I was also briefed that IND ATCT; CVG ATCT; and SDF ATCT had all been updated about the situation.When I sat down I decided to call each approach control to confirm they had been updated and see if they had any additional information. When I spoke with IND ATCT they said they saw the limited and would protect from that aircraft and that airspace in general. When I spoke with CVG ATCT they also saw the limited but had a question as to what altitude that JPG D MOA was hot to because part of the flight path Aircraft X had been flying was inside the lateral boundary of JGD D but above the altitude cap of 040 since Aircraft X was flying at 100 or 110. They asked me to confirm what altitude the JPD D was 'hot' to.To error on the side of caution i told them to show the JGD D airspace hot to 130; which is the top of CVG ATCT airspace. I do not know the full ramifications of this but when doing so I knew this would potentially impact the northwest departure course out of CVG. When I spoke with SDF ATCT they informed me they were talking to aircraft y who was currently holding at the ABB VOR and planning on entering the jpg moa at some point; but they were not sure what the aircraft plans were after they entered the JGP MOA. They also wanted to know if they should have aircraft y stay on his current assigned beacon code or not. I asked them to leave him on his current assigned code so I would be able to track the flight.At that point I pulled up a track on Aircraft Y. I then watched Aircraft Y (time unknown) enter the JPD MOA from the south and track directly northeast to the same holding pattern as Aircraft X around the UAV area; in doing so aircraft y spilled out the north side of the JPG MOA and into my airspace with no radio calls. At some point during all of this my supervisor informed me that he had spoken with the range controller and they were 'not sure exactly what was going on; but they needed to fly in those areas to accomplish their mission'. He also informed me the range controller had told him when the military aircraft go outside of the protected airspace and into mine 'they are operating VFR'. I questioned him on this and how that was acceptable for us to run operations and he told me he had the same concerns but that was the answer he was given by the range controller and the operations manager here at ZID. At that point I called all three approach controls and updated them that 'they are operating VFR outside of protected airspace' but to use extreme caution and just because they are 'VFR' doesn't mean we do not have to protect from them. As I was being relieved I briefed the incoming controller of what was going on and that they expected the activity to be done in the next hour to hour and a half. After I had completed my overlap and put my headset up I went back to make sure there were no questions and noticed a track on aircraft z to the west of the airspace near BFR airport but since I was not plugged in I do not know what role that aircraft played in the situation.Since the incident occurred I reviewed the LOA's for R3403 and the JPG MOA to make sure I had not been aware of some 'operating VFR outside protected airspace' portion of the LOA. In the it very clearly defines how aircraft are supposed to enter and exit the protected airspace both in VFR and IFR conditions. I feel that by us (ZID) allowing the military to operate outside the confines of the LOA without recourse we are promoting an unsafe culture that will eventually lead to a real accident/incident. I also know that IFR/VFR separation has been one of the top 5 concerns and feel by allowing the military to say we are 'operating VFR' does not remove any risk; but instead probably adds to it. In the LOA it clearly defines if the military needs additional airspace the procedures for making those requests. I also have noticed a major increase in the amount of UAV activity at this location over the past 6 months and was even briefed by my FLM approximately a year ago during a team meeting about the UAV activity at maskatuc/jefferson proving grounds. I have two recommendations:1- Revisit the R3403 and JPG MOA LOA's and add to them procedures that include operations for the UAV activities.2- Fully investigate this incident and then brief all controllers/military using this airspace so we can learn from this incident. Lastly I am a member of our local best practices work group here at ZID and we have been working to better open up communication with our military users.

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.