37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1376758 |
Time | |
Date | 201608 |
Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | RDG.TRACON |
State Reference | PA |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Helicopter |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | Cruise |
Route In Use | Vectors Airway TK502 |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Approach |
Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
Experience | Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 20 |
Events | |
Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Airspace Violation All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT |
Narrative:
Took a handoff on an aircraft thinking it was VFR when in fact it ended up being IFR. It was below the MVA (minimum vectoring altitude) for the area and was not on a route that would ensure terrain and obstruction clearance. Through conversation with the pilot I determined he was IFR and immediately vectored him away from nearest obstruction and climbed him to the MVA. Confusing the matter further is the fact that the handoff from phl approach indicated in the data block to us that it was a VFR handoff (the data tag had a diamond symbol at the rear of the tag).I believe phl TRACON also thought the aircraft was VFR because our letter of agreement would not have allowed for an IFR handoff at that altitude. Once the aircraft was safely squared away I probed a little deeper and found out that the helicopter departed VFR and became IFR at some point and was supposed to be on TK502 airway (low level RNAV helo route) that would have provided him guaranteed terrain and obstruction clearance. Someone vectored him away from the airway putting him in an unsafe situation due to his altitude. Also compounding the situation is the fact that we did not receive any strips or other automation on the aircraft even though he was on a flight plan. Even though he was airborne and in the system on the correct computer assigned beacon code; the flight strip we later obtained showed he was still proposed and not yet active in the system. When we handed him off to the next facility we had to do a VFR handoff in order to get him to flash to mdt. We verbally advised mdt via landline that he was indeed IFR.the pilot indicated to me that somewhere back in new york TRACON's airspace he didn't think they understood his intentions. I feel that possibly there was some break down in the communication process. Also; a refresher on tk routes may be in order. When I asked around my facility if anybody knew what a tk route was; there was a lack of knowledge.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A Controller took a handoff on a helicopter whose data tag indicated it was on a VFR flight plan. The Controller deduced that the helicopter was on an IFR flight plan and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Narrative: Took a handoff on an aircraft thinking it was VFR when in fact it ended up being IFR. It was below the MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) for the area and was not on a route that would ensure terrain and obstruction clearance. Through conversation with the pilot I determined he was IFR and immediately vectored him away from nearest obstruction and climbed him to the MVA. Confusing the matter further is the fact that the handoff from PHL approach indicated in the data block to us that it was a VFR handoff (the data tag had a diamond symbol at the rear of the tag).I believe PHL TRACON also thought the aircraft was VFR because our letter of agreement would not have allowed for an IFR handoff at that altitude. Once the aircraft was safely squared away I probed a little deeper and found out that the helicopter departed VFR and became IFR at some point and was supposed to be on TK502 airway (Low Level RNAV Helo Route) that would have provided him guaranteed terrain and obstruction clearance. Someone vectored him away from the airway putting him in an unsafe situation due to his altitude. Also compounding the situation is the fact that we did not receive any strips or other automation on the aircraft even though he was on a flight plan. Even though he was airborne and in the system on the correct computer assigned beacon code; the flight strip we later obtained showed he was still proposed and not yet active in the system. When we handed him off to the next facility we had to do a VFR handoff in order to get him to flash to MDT. We verbally advised MDT via landline that he was indeed IFR.The pilot indicated to me that somewhere back in New York TRACON's airspace he didn't think they understood his intentions. I feel that possibly there was some break down in the communication process. Also; a refresher on TK routes may be in order. When I asked around my facility if anybody knew what a TK route was; there was a lack of knowledge.
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.