Narrative:

Joshua approach called for an IFR handoff for aircraft X. The scratch pad was parts pie; not indicating the destination but as it was a military flight I assumed they were landing [at] ZZZ and would be on the route north of the 11;700 MVA. On check in; [I] became aware that approach had left the aircraft on [the victor airway] at 11;000 ft.; putting the aircraft in the 11;700 MVA on initial contact. I issued a low altitude alert and [an] immediate climb to 12;000 ft. I still assumed he was landing [at] ZZZ because we had no other military facilities in the area. I asked for a full route strip and the aircraft advised they were not landing [at] ZZZ but instead had [a different victor airway]; ZZZ1; zzzzz; ZZZZZ1; [and then] ZZZ3 as a previously cleared route. Before I could reroute the aircraft; the flight cancelled IFR. There are many routes that are incomplete or incorrect from joshua approach to [our approach]. It is expected that all aircraft will be cleared along a route that keeps them clear of the mvas. 11;000 ft. On [the victor airway] eastbound is below the MVA by 700 ft. At no time should joshua approach be clearing aircraft on [the victor airway] at 11;000. Not only is this too low; but radar and radio communications are reduced in this area. Aircraft X had a difficult time hearing me and I did not know his intentions until 15 NM past his initial check in. Furthermore; this should have been a request. An enroute clearance such as this should be coordinated and discussed to avoid confusion and could have prevented entry into the higher MVA.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller reported the adjacent TRACON handed them off an aircraft on the wrong route and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.

Narrative: Joshua Approach called for an IFR handoff for Aircraft X. The scratch pad was parts pie; not indicating the destination but as it was a military flight I assumed they were landing [at] ZZZ and would be on the route north of the 11;700 MVA. On check in; [I] became aware that Approach had left the aircraft on [the Victor airway] at 11;000 ft.; putting the aircraft in the 11;700 MVA on initial contact. I issued a low altitude alert and [an] immediate climb to 12;000 ft. I still assumed he was landing [at] ZZZ because we had no other military facilities in the Area. I asked for a full route strip and the aircraft advised they were not landing [at] ZZZ but instead had [a different Victor airway]; ZZZ1; ZZZZZ; ZZZZZ1; [and then] ZZZ3 as a previously cleared route. Before I could reroute the aircraft; the flight cancelled IFR. There are many routes that are incomplete or incorrect from Joshua Approach to [our Approach]. It is expected that all aircraft will be cleared along a route that keeps them clear of the MVAs. 11;000 ft. on [the Victor airway] eastbound is below the MVA by 700 ft. At no time should Joshua Approach be clearing aircraft on [the Victor airway] at 11;000. Not only is this too low; but radar and radio communications are reduced in this area. Aircraft X had a difficult time hearing me and I did not know his intentions until 15 NM past his initial check in. Furthermore; this should have been a request. An enroute clearance such as this should be coordinated and discussed to avoid confusion and could have prevented entry into the higher MVA.

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.