Narrative:

I was working radar flight data at dayton approach. While working the position, west arrival/departure requested that I amend small aircraft X altitude from 7000 to 9000. I made the amendment and received an acceptance on the amendment. This altitude amendment caused a routing change that I had not been briefed on (but the office did know about the change) and I subsequently overlooked the routing change and did not post the new strip. The new routing was never issued and ZID (who were working non radar at this time) had a system error with this aircraft after it had departed dayton approach's airspace. (At the time of handoff with ZID.) the controller from dayton advised the controller from indianapolis that the aircraft was on the old routing and the controller from the center acknowledged the receipt of this comment. It has now come down that I was a contributing factor to this system error. Supplemental information from acn 191201: london radar system taken off the air for maintenance. Non radar 12000 and below in vicinity of dayton, oh. Aircraft filed desired route at 7000 MSL. Airborne he requested 9000 and was moved by dayton approach. At 9000 he is required to navigation a different airway for preferential routing. This routing was not issued by dayton, although my strip indicated he had the route. In the course of explaining information to my trainee, I missed information by dayton approach. The controller was on the line and said small aircraft X on the boundary, V72, 9000, do you want me to terminate him? My trainee said okay. Somehow I missed this conversation, and my trainee failed to look at his strip and correlate the 2 airways. Shortly thereafter our d-side calls ZOB to advise this aircraft will be at 9000, non radar V435. Cleveland unable 9000 or higher. The d-side must now go to mansfield approach to appreq lower. My trainee asked the aircraft his DME and to verify established on V435. The aircraft replies, negative, V72 27.1 DME (2 mi from my boundary). The cleveland radar controller calls and asks if I'm working that XXXX beacon. I say yes. He says go hard left, he's got traffic. I turn my aircraft 40 degree left. He replies and reports seeing other aircraft. Contributing factors: radar being OTS. Dayton approach controller not issuing routing, or not appreqing V72. Myself for not hearing the critical conversation with dayton approach. ZOB for not correctly protecting airspace when they had been advised our radar was OTS and we would be non radar. The distance between the conflict points of the 2 airways in cleveland's airspace is about 12 mi. The cleveland controller had also already stopped his 8000 ft traffic to columbus approach, so he had to use valuable time calling elsewhere to move his traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON ARTCC INTERFAC COORD PROBLEM CAUSES LTSS IN SECOND ARTCC AIRSPACE.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING RADAR FLT DATA AT DAYTON APCH. WHILE WORKING THE POS, W ARR/DEP REQUESTED THAT I AMEND SMA X ALT FROM 7000 TO 9000. I MADE THE AMENDMENT AND RECEIVED AN ACCEPTANCE ON THE AMENDMENT. THIS ALT AMENDMENT CAUSED A RTING CHANGE THAT I HAD NOT BEEN BRIEFED ON (BUT THE OFFICE DID KNOW ABOUT THE CHANGE) AND I SUBSEQUENTLY OVERLOOKED THE RTING CHANGE AND DID NOT POST THE NEW STRIP. THE NEW RTING WAS NEVER ISSUED AND ZID (WHO WERE WORKING NON RADAR AT THIS TIME) HAD A SYS ERROR WITH THIS ACFT AFTER IT HAD DEPARTED DAYTON APCH'S AIRSPACE. (AT THE TIME OF HDOF WITH ZID.) THE CTLR FROM DAYTON ADVISED THE CTLR FROM INDIANAPOLIS THAT THE ACFT WAS ON THE OLD RTING AND THE CTLR FROM THE CENTER ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF THIS COMMENT. IT HAS NOW COME DOWN THAT I WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THIS SYS ERROR. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 191201: LONDON RADAR SYS TAKEN OFF THE AIR FOR MAINT. NON RADAR 12000 AND BELOW IN VICINITY OF DAYTON, OH. ACFT FILED DESIRED RTE AT 7000 MSL. AIRBORNE HE REQUESTED 9000 AND WAS MOVED BY DAYTON APCH. AT 9000 HE IS REQUIRED TO NAV A DIFFERENT AIRWAY FOR PREFERENTIAL RTING. THIS RTING WAS NOT ISSUED BY DAYTON, ALTHOUGH MY STRIP INDICATED HE HAD THE RTE. IN THE COURSE OF EXPLAINING INFO TO MY TRAINEE, I MISSED INFO BY DAYTON APCH. THE CTLR WAS ON THE LINE AND SAID SMA X ON THE BOUNDARY, V72, 9000, DO YOU WANT ME TO TERMINATE HIM? MY TRAINEE SAID OKAY. SOMEHOW I MISSED THIS CONVERSATION, AND MY TRAINEE FAILED TO LOOK AT HIS STRIP AND CORRELATE THE 2 AIRWAYS. SHORTLY THEREAFTER OUR D-SIDE CALLS ZOB TO ADVISE THIS ACFT WILL BE AT 9000, NON RADAR V435. CLEVELAND UNABLE 9000 OR HIGHER. THE D-SIDE MUST NOW GO TO MANSFIELD APCH TO APPREQ LOWER. MY TRAINEE ASKED THE ACFT HIS DME AND TO VERIFY ESTABLISHED ON V435. THE ACFT REPLIES, NEGATIVE, V72 27.1 DME (2 MI FROM MY BOUNDARY). THE CLEVELAND RADAR CTLR CALLS AND ASKS IF I'M WORKING THAT XXXX BEACON. I SAY YES. HE SAYS GO HARD L, HE'S GOT TFC. I TURN MY ACFT 40 DEG L. HE REPLIES AND RPTS SEEING OTHER ACFT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: RADAR BEING OTS. DAYTON APCH CTLR NOT ISSUING RTING, OR NOT APPREQING V72. MYSELF FOR NOT HEARING THE CRITICAL CONVERSATION WITH DAYTON APCH. ZOB FOR NOT CORRECTLY PROTECTING AIRSPACE WHEN THEY HAD BEEN ADVISED OUR RADAR WAS OTS AND WE WOULD BE NON RADAR. THE DISTANCE BTWN THE CONFLICT POINTS OF THE 2 AIRWAYS IN CLEVELAND'S AIRSPACE IS ABOUT 12 MI. THE CLEVELAND CTLR HAD ALSO ALREADY STOPPED HIS 8000 FT TFC TO COLUMBUS APCH, SO HE HAD TO USE VALUABLE TIME CALLING ELSEWHERE TO MOVE HIS TFC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.