 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A center controller recieved a handoff from the TRACON of an aircraft below their minimum IFR altitude.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1486600 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201710 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZDV.ARTCC |
| State Reference | CO |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Small Aircraft High Wing 1 Eng Fixed Gear |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Route In Use | Direct |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Enroute |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Experience | Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 3.0 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT |
Narrative:
I was the radar assist on the sector. We received a handoff from TRACON for an aircraft at 7000 feet. This altitude is ok for their requirements; but as soon as they enter our airspace it is an minimum IFR altitude (mia) violation because our mia is 8000 feet. The MSAW alert was going off; however due to the busy and complex sector we did not analyze the situation until it was too late. Another thing that I believe contributed to complacency is that [it] is common to have aircraft being handed to us from the TRACON with a MSAW alert; but there is actually no problem. This can be for several reasons. Here are some examples. The aircraft is VFR; the aircraft is taken off their route and the TRACON didn't update it; or the aircraft is assigned a different altitude and the TRACON didn't update it.as soon as I realized the MSAW was valid; I told the radar controller to climb the aircraft; and that happened on the TRACON airspace boundary just as the violation happened. Busy traffic and complexity prevented us from scanning the traffic to be able to prevent the violation. This could be avoided if we had the same mia as denver departure east. We should be more vigilant of MSAW alerts even though some of them are not valid. TRACON should keep flight plans updated as required in the faah 7110.65
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A Center Controller recieved a handoff from the TRACON of an aircraft below their Minimum IFR Altitude.
Narrative: I was the Radar Assist on the sector. We received a handoff from TRACON for an aircraft at 7000 feet. This altitude is ok for their requirements; but as soon as they enter our airspace it is an Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) violation because our MIA is 8000 feet. The MSAW alert was going off; however due to the busy and complex sector we did not analyze the situation until it was too late. Another thing that I believe contributed to complacency is that [it] is common to have aircraft being handed to us from the TRACON with a MSAW alert; but there is actually no problem. This can be for several reasons. Here are some examples. The aircraft is VFR; the aircraft is taken off their route and the TRACON didn't update it; or the aircraft is assigned a different altitude and the TRACON didn't update it.As soon as I realized the MSAW was valid; I told the Radar Controller to climb the aircraft; and that happened on the TRACON airspace boundary just as the violation happened. Busy traffic and complexity prevented us from scanning the traffic to be able to prevent the violation. This could be avoided if we had the same MIA as Denver departure East. We should be more vigilant of MSAW alerts even though some of them are not valid. TRACON should keep flight plans updated as required in the FAAH 7110.65
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.