Aircraft entered adjacent facility airspace without a handoff.

Attributes
ACN	126305
Time
Date	198910
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : spi
State Reference	IL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 7000 msl bound upper : 7000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : spi
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	cruise other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : departure
Qualification	controller : radar
ASRS Report	126305
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Deviation Inter Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

When the aircraft was 1/2 mi south of the taz NDB, I attempted an automated handoff with cmi approach. The data block flashed if, meaning interfacility fail: the aircraft was outside of cmi radar coverage. When the handoff was first attempted the aircraft was less than 8 mi from the spi/cmi boundary. After recalling the failed handoff, I attended to other duties. When I went to hand off the aircraft a second time, it was in cmi airspace. No other aircraft was involved. Cmi was very helpful and immediately took radar contact. I believe one of the main reasons this occurred is because of insufficient radar coverage. I also believe one of the best ways, if not the only way, to prevent this from happening again will be to increase cmi radar coverage in its southwest corner.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT ENTERED ADJACENT FAC AIRSPACE WITHOUT A HANDOFF.

Narrative: WHEN THE ACFT WAS 1/2 MI S OF THE TAZ NDB, I ATTEMPTED AN AUTOMATED HANDOFF WITH CMI APCH. THE DATA BLOCK FLASHED IF, MEANING INTERFACILITY FAIL: THE ACFT WAS OUTSIDE OF CMI RADAR COVERAGE. WHEN THE HANDOFF WAS FIRST ATTEMPTED THE ACFT WAS LESS THAN 8 MI FROM THE SPI/CMI BOUNDARY. AFTER RECALLING THE FAILED HANDOFF, I ATTENDED TO OTHER DUTIES. WHEN I WENT TO HAND OFF THE ACFT A SECOND TIME, IT WAS IN CMI AIRSPACE. NO OTHER ACFT WAS INVOLVED. CMI WAS VERY HELPFUL AND IMMEDIATELY TOOK RADAR CONTACT. I BELIEVE ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THIS OCCURRED IS BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT RADAR COVERAGE. I ALSO BELIEVE ONE OF THE BEST WAYS, IF NOT THE ONLY WAY, TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN WILL BE TO INCREASE CMI RADAR COVERAGE IN ITS SW CORNER.

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.