Narrative:

While working the combined radar approach and departure control position at the abilene FAA RAPCON located on dyess AFB, tx, I became aware that dyess tower (USAF) had called our flight data position to inquire if we had a flight progress strip reflecting the flight plan data on an aircraft to which they had just issued an ATC clearance to barksdale AFB, la. We had none and determined that the NAS computer at fort worth ARTCC did not have any flight plan filed for this cross country flight with a call sign of XXX. There was, however, 1 filed under that call sign from shreveport regional airport to barksdale AFB some time later. We asked dyess tower how they had issued an ATC clearance to the pilot without a flight plan filed. They replied that when no IFR flight plan was found off dyess, they'd simply amended the proposed departure time from shreveport in order for the computer to generate a transponder code and then issued the pilot an ATC clearance to barksdale as 'cleared as filed.' they made no other changes or inputs and the T38, was about to depart on an invalid ATC clearance based upon a non existent flight plan. We advised dyess tower that we could not accept the flight and to tell the pilot that he would have to file a flight plan with basops. Our supervisor then called their supervisor to find out how such a thing could happen. He was told that the party responsible was in fact the USAF supervisor who was working the flight data position and he apparently just does not understand the system. Since it was supervisor to supervisor, no other action was taken. To my certain knowledge, this is at least the second time this same thing has occurred this yr. The last one I was aware of we were not lucky enough to catch them in time and the aircraft actually got airborne on the invalid ATC clearance with no flight plan filed. Again no action was taken and these are just 2 examples of the lax attitudes of FAA supervisors towards dyess tower controller's deviations. The standard statement is 'well it won't do any good anyway.' that in turn, leads to the same attitude among our own controllers who feel it's no use to even report them.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MIL FACILITY DEV.

Narrative: WHILE WORKING THE COMBINED RADAR APCH AND DEP CTL POS AT THE ABILENE FAA RAPCON LOCATED ON DYESS AFB, TX, I BECAME AWARE THAT DYESS TWR (USAF) HAD CALLED OUR FLT DATA POS TO INQUIRE IF WE HAD A FLT PROGRESS STRIP REFLECTING THE FLT PLAN DATA ON AN ACFT TO WHICH THEY HAD JUST ISSUED AN ATC CLRNC TO BARKSDALE AFB, LA. WE HAD NONE AND DETERMINED THAT THE NAS COMPUTER AT FORT WORTH ARTCC DID NOT HAVE ANY FLT PLAN FILED FOR THIS CROSS COUNTRY FLT WITH A CALL SIGN OF XXX. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, 1 FILED UNDER THAT CALL SIGN FROM SHREVEPORT REGIONAL ARPT TO BARKSDALE AFB SOME TIME LATER. WE ASKED DYESS TWR HOW THEY HAD ISSUED AN ATC CLRNC TO THE PLT WITHOUT A FLT PLAN FILED. THEY REPLIED THAT WHEN NO IFR FLT PLAN WAS FOUND OFF DYESS, THEY'D SIMPLY AMENDED THE PROPOSED DEP TIME FROM SHREVEPORT IN ORDER FOR THE COMPUTER TO GENERATE A XPONDER CODE AND THEN ISSUED THE PLT AN ATC CLRNC TO BARKSDALE AS 'CLRED AS FILED.' THEY MADE NO OTHER CHANGES OR INPUTS AND THE T38, WAS ABOUT TO DEPART ON AN INVALID ATC CLRNC BASED UPON A NON EXISTENT FLT PLAN. WE ADVISED DYESS TWR THAT WE COULD NOT ACCEPT THE FLT AND TO TELL THE PLT THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO FILE A FLT PLAN WITH BASOPS. OUR SUPVR THEN CALLED THEIR SUPVR TO FIND OUT HOW SUCH A THING COULD HAPPEN. HE WAS TOLD THAT THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE WAS IN FACT THE USAF SUPVR WHO WAS WORKING THE FLT DATA POS AND HE APPARENTLY JUST DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE SYS. SINCE IT WAS SUPVR TO SUPVR, NO OTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN. TO MY CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE, THIS IS AT LEAST THE SECOND TIME THIS SAME THING HAS OCCURRED THIS YR. THE LAST ONE I WAS AWARE OF WE WERE NOT LUCKY ENOUGH TO CATCH THEM IN TIME AND THE ACFT ACTUALLY GOT AIRBORNE ON THE INVALID ATC CLRNC WITH NO FLT PLAN FILED. AGAIN NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AND THESE ARE JUST 2 EXAMPLES OF THE LAX ATTITUDES OF FAA SUPVRS TOWARDS DYESS TWR CTLR'S DEVS. THE STANDARD STATEMENT IS 'WELL IT WON'T DO ANY GOOD ANYWAY.' THAT IN TURN, LEADS TO THE SAME ATTITUDE AMONG OUR OWN CTLRS WHO FEEL IT'S NO USE TO EVEN RPT THEM.

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.