Narrative:

Working moderate traffic at 36/37; one holding the sector. Sector was complex due to practice approach in progress as well as multiple climbing/descending traffic that needed to be threaded through other traffic as well as vfrs. Bdl called for a manual handoff. I observed the target at 3;100 indicating a '-' sign and 4;000 as the assigned altitude. The mia in that area is 3;600. I do not remember bdl advising me of the aircraft's assigned altitude. I observed the aircraft at 3;200 and believed it climbing to 4;000. The aircraft had PAR routing and the data tag was controlled by unknown. I had to '/ok' the data block. I was unable to suppress the pdr with an amendment message and had to manually go into the flight plan on the d-side and manually append a * to suppress the pdr. Meanwhile; I noticed the aircraft was back at 3;100 and called bdl to confirm the aircraft's assigned altitude. Bdl did not answer the line. I also had to coordinate with leb for a different helicopter doing an approach there so I accomplished that. I called bdl again and this time they answered. They sounded annoyed. I asked what altitude the helicopter was assigned. They said 3;000. I instructed them to climb the helicopter to 4;000. They said they had already shipped him and started yelling over the line something which I did not understand. I called out to the helicopter and he answered. I climbed him to 4;000; returning him to a safe altitude.I was unable to determine why bdl was unable to flash the helicopter to me; who had control of the data block; why the assigned altitude in the data block was different than what the aircraft was assigned; why the route had pdr that was not suppressed; why I was unable to suppress the pdr through normal means; or why bdl was upset with me for coordinating to ensure safety of flight. This happened because the bdl mias are different from the center mias; and additionally the complexity of the sector meant I needed to spend minimum time on the land lines so I did not verify the aircraft's assigned altitude. Additionally; bdl was distinctly unhelpful as I attempted to ensure safety of flight. A d-side would have been helpful but the sector 'blew up' so fast there was not time to obtain one; and the sector was back under control a few seconds later.facilities that have mias lower than adjacent facilities need to have that information readily available to them; so in situations where the automation fails it is less likely that an improper altitude assignment will be missed. It needs to be investigated why the automation failed here. This is not an isolated event between bdl and ZBW. It happens routinely.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZBW Controller reported receiving a non-automated handoff from BDL below the Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) indicating climbing to an assigned altitude of 4;000. The aircraft was actually assigned an altitude below the ZBW Controller's MIA.

Narrative: Working moderate traffic at 36/37; one holding the sector. Sector was complex due to practice approach in progress as well as multiple climbing/descending traffic that needed to be threaded through other traffic as well as VFRs. BDL called for a manual handoff. I observed the target at 3;100 indicating a '-' sign and 4;000 as the assigned altitude. The MIA in that area is 3;600. I do not remember BDL advising me of the aircraft's assigned altitude. I observed the aircraft at 3;200 and believed it climbing to 4;000. The aircraft had PAR routing and the data tag was controlled by unknown. I had to '/ok' the data block. I was unable to suppress the PDR with an amendment message and had to manually go into the flight plan on the D-side and manually append a * to suppress the PDR. Meanwhile; I noticed the aircraft was back at 3;100 and called BDL to confirm the aircraft's assigned altitude. BDL did not answer the line. I also had to coordinate with LEB for a different helicopter doing an approach there so I accomplished that. I called BDL again and this time they answered. They sounded annoyed. I asked what altitude the helicopter was assigned. They said 3;000. I instructed them to climb the helicopter to 4;000. They said they had already shipped him and started yelling over the line something which I did not understand. I called out to the helicopter and he answered. I climbed him to 4;000; returning him to a safe altitude.I was unable to determine why BDL was unable to flash the helicopter to me; who had control of the data block; why the assigned altitude in the data block was different than what the aircraft was assigned; why the route had PDR that was not suppressed; why I was unable to suppress the PDR through normal means; or why BDL was upset with me for coordinating to ensure safety of flight. This happened because the BDL MIAs are different from the center MIAs; and additionally the complexity of the sector meant I needed to spend minimum time on the land lines so I did not verify the aircraft's assigned altitude. Additionally; BDL was distinctly unhelpful as I attempted to ensure safety of flight. A D-side would have been helpful but the sector 'blew up' so fast there was not time to obtain one; and the sector was back under control a few seconds later.Facilities that have MIAs lower than adjacent facilities need to have that information readily available to them; so in situations where the automation fails it is less likely that an improper altitude assignment will be missed. It needs to be investigated why the automation failed here. This is not an isolated event between BDL and ZBW. It happens routinely.

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.