37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1551043 |
Time | |
Date | 201806 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZDV.ARTCC |
State Reference | CO |
Environment | |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | PC-12 |
Flight Phase | Climb |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Enroute |
Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
Experience | Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 1 |
Events | |
Anomaly | Airspace Violation All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT |
Narrative:
Aircraft X was a departure from D01; level at 090 requesting FL280. While in ho (handoff) status; I noticed that aircraft X was level 090 and appeared to not be climbing to FL230 per the LOA (letter of agreement) with D01. Aircraft X began flashing MSAW (minimum safe altitude warning) and checked in looking for higher. I verified aircraft X was level 090 with no climb clearance; issued a climb to FL260; advised him that the minimum altitude is 100. [I] called cos approach as they were calling me to request climb/po (point out) aircraft X. They requested communications and I shipped aircraft X. There was no coordination from D01 on this aircraft; and apparently aircraft X had lost communication with D01; and was inquiring on guard as to who to talk to.it is not uncommon for aircraft to flash MSAW climbing from either cos approach or D01- as their minimum altitudes are different than ours. Many times; departures off apa climb later; and flash MSAW in D01's airspace; but they are above the terrain by the time we talk to them. It is very common to take a ho with MSAW flashing in the data block. I don't know where the miscommunication occurred; for D01 to never climb this aircraft and never call to let me know aircraft X was NORAC (no radio contact). Cos approach called later; and they believe aircraft X was having radio issues. Coordination absolutely needs to be done between D01; sector 41; and cos approach to verify everyone knows what is happening.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ZDV Controller reported receiving a handoff that leveled at an altitude below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude; due to the aircraft not being in radio contact.
Narrative: Aircraft X was a departure from D01; level at 090 requesting FL280. While in HO (Handoff) status; I noticed that Aircraft X was level 090 and appeared to not be climbing to FL230 per the LOA (Letter of Agreement) with D01. Aircraft X began flashing MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) and checked in looking for higher. I verified Aircraft X was level 090 with no climb clearance; issued a climb to FL260; advised him that the minimum altitude is 100. [I] called COS Approach as they were calling me to request climb/PO (Point Out) Aircraft X. They requested communications and I shipped Aircraft X. There was no coordination from D01 on this aircraft; and apparently Aircraft X had lost communication with D01; and was inquiring on guard as to who to talk to.It is not uncommon for aircraft to flash MSAW climbing from either COS Approach or D01- as their minimum altitudes are different than ours. Many times; departures off APA climb later; and flash MSAW in D01's airspace; but they are above the terrain by the time we talk to them. It is very common to take a HO with MSAW flashing in the data block. I don't know where the miscommunication occurred; for D01 to never climb this aircraft and never call to let me know Aircraft X was NORAC (No Radio Contact). COS Approach called later; and they believe Aircraft X was having radio issues. Coordination absolutely needs to be done between D01; sector 41; and COS Approach to verify everyone knows what is happening.
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.