Reporter alleged a mem approach controller refused the handoff of an en route DA50 after interfacili...

Narrative:

In the FAA there seems to be a movement among some controllers to try to avoid working aircraft that transition through their airspace. The following is an example of this trend. On the evening of aug/fri/97, I was working maw-lo (R6) in ZME. At approximately XX30Z I accepted the handoff on a DA50 out of phk inbound to jbr which was descending out of the high altitude stratum from FL250 descending to FL240 and 25 mi east of mem. I pointed it out to an adjacent low-altitude sector and issued the descent clearance to maintain 17000 ft. Mem approach works 16000 ft and below, therefore, 17000 ft was the lowest altitude available to me. I called mem approach on the land line to manually coordinate. While I was on the line the DA50 leveled at 17000 ft 12 mi northeast of mem and 55 mi southeast of jbr requesting descent. The controller at mem said my transmission was not understandable and asked if I could call on the other line. I called back on the second line. After telling the mem controller the information twice he replied, 'well, I don't need to work him. Pointout approved.' I replied to him that 'this is not a pointout it is a handoff.' again, he gave me the same reply. I stated again this wasn't a pointout and asked if he was refusing the handoff. He replied, 'affirmative.' I released the land line and returned to the frequencys. The DA50 was desperate for lower altitude and canceled his IFR clearance. Due to the mem approach controllers refusal, I was forced to either leave the DA50 at 17000 ft until he cleared mem approach's airspace 17 mi from jbr or work the aircraft through mem approach's airspace a distance of 45 mi and up to 12000 ft below my lowest altitude in the mem vicinity. For the R6 controller to work an aircraft that far outside of their area of specialty would have been unsafe to the flight due to frequency coverage and controller unfamiliarity to the area. To level the aircraft at 17000 ft until 17 mi from the destination for no reason is inappropriate. As a result the aircraft was not provided the IFR service to the jbr airport. Why do aircraft file IFR flight plans? For safety. The DA50 was not provided safe or expeditious service.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR ALLEGED A MEM APCH CTLR REFUSED THE HDOF OF AN ENRTE DA50 AFTER INTERFAC COORD IN WHICH THE CTLR HAD GIVEN A 'POINTOUT APPROVED' AUTH FOR THE ACFT TO ENTER AND DSND IN THE CTLR'S AIRSPACE.

Narrative: IN THE FAA THERE SEEMS TO BE A MOVEMENT AMONG SOME CTLRS TO TRY TO AVOID WORKING ACFT THAT TRANSITION THROUGH THEIR AIRSPACE. THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS TREND. ON THE EVENING OF AUG/FRI/97, I WAS WORKING MAW-LO (R6) IN ZME. AT APPROX XX30Z I ACCEPTED THE HDOF ON A DA50 OUT OF PHK INBOUND TO JBR WHICH WAS DSNDING OUT OF THE HIGH ALT STRATUM FROM FL250 DSNDING TO FL240 AND 25 MI E OF MEM. I POINTED IT OUT TO AN ADJACENT LOW-ALT SECTOR AND ISSUED THE DSCNT CLRNC TO MAINTAIN 17000 FT. MEM APCH WORKS 16000 FT AND BELOW, THEREFORE, 17000 FT WAS THE LOWEST ALT AVAILABLE TO ME. I CALLED MEM APCH ON THE LAND LINE TO MANUALLY COORDINATE. WHILE I WAS ON THE LINE THE DA50 LEVELED AT 17000 FT 12 MI NE OF MEM AND 55 MI SE OF JBR REQUESTING DSCNT. THE CTLR AT MEM SAID MY XMISSION WAS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AND ASKED IF I COULD CALL ON THE OTHER LINE. I CALLED BACK ON THE SECOND LINE. AFTER TELLING THE MEM CTLR THE INFO TWICE HE REPLIED, 'WELL, I DON'T NEED TO WORK HIM. POINTOUT APPROVED.' I REPLIED TO HIM THAT 'THIS IS NOT A POINTOUT IT IS A HDOF.' AGAIN, HE GAVE ME THE SAME REPLY. I STATED AGAIN THIS WASN'T A POINTOUT AND ASKED IF HE WAS REFUSING THE HDOF. HE REPLIED, 'AFFIRMATIVE.' I RELEASED THE LAND LINE AND RETURNED TO THE FREQS. THE DA50 WAS DESPERATE FOR LOWER ALT AND CANCELED HIS IFR CLRNC. DUE TO THE MEM APCH CTLRS REFUSAL, I WAS FORCED TO EITHER LEAVE THE DA50 AT 17000 FT UNTIL HE CLRED MEM APCH'S AIRSPACE 17 MI FROM JBR OR WORK THE ACFT THROUGH MEM APCH'S AIRSPACE A DISTANCE OF 45 MI AND UP TO 12000 FT BELOW MY LOWEST ALT IN THE MEM VICINITY. FOR THE R6 CTLR TO WORK AN ACFT THAT FAR OUTSIDE OF THEIR AREA OF SPECIALTY WOULD HAVE BEEN UNSAFE TO THE FLT DUE TO FREQ COVERAGE AND CTLR UNFAMILIARITY TO THE AREA. TO LEVEL THE ACFT AT 17000 FT UNTIL 17 MI FROM THE DEST FOR NO REASON IS INAPPROPRIATE. AS A RESULT THE ACFT WAS NOT PROVIDED THE IFR SVC TO THE JBR ARPT. WHY DO ACFT FILE IFR FLT PLANS? FOR SAFETY. THE DA50 WAS NOT PROVIDED SAFE OR EXPEDITIOUS SVC.

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.

Attributes
ACN	377847
Time
Date	199708
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : mem
State Reference	TN
Altitude	msl bound lower : 17000 msl bound upper : 17000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zme tracon : mem tower : atl
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Falcon 50
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	cruise other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller non radar : 5 controller radar : 7
ASRS Report	377847
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Reporter alleged a mem approach controller refused the handoff of an en route DA50 after interfacility coordination in which the controller had given a 'pointout approved' authority/authorized for the aircraft to enter and descend in the controller's airspace.