Narrative:

Either msn approach called lnr to apreq a BE36/right climbing to 11000 ft or the d-side at lnr called msn approach. The d-side stated 'the lnr radar man is busy climb to 11000 ft and switch it to harley.' msn approach has no agreement to point out 11000 ft with mke approach. The BE36 checked on my frequency at harley 11000 ft and is eastbound in what is called the gregs track. The gregs track is where mke approach lines up the wbound departures from their airspace. I at harley have taken at least 3 handoffs from mke approach on aircraft being put in the gregs track. One of these aircraft is a DC9, I look and see it is head on with the BE36 but as per LOA, mke approach should be aware and missing the 11000 ft overflt traffic. This is when mke approach calls 'who the hell is the 11000 ft traffic out there.' the mke approach controller saw the limited data block and stopped (amended) the altitude of the DC9 with just enough room to avoid a deal. 'No error occurred,' that's the answer I get from supervisors, but they (supervisors, quality assurance, etc) also state if one had occurred, it would have been part my deal. Because I took the handoff to climb to 11000 ft, because I'm the one aware of both aircraft, etc. I've tried for 2 months to get something in writing to clarify this situation and get no answer, and this is why I'm writing you. I know if I would have seen the DC9 continuing to 11000 ft I would have climbed the BE36. But with the TCASII on the DC9 he would have probably also climbed. This is not good. This is not the first 11000 ft overflt which has not been pointed out to mke approach. Every time the FAA does an evaluation at mke (approach) they want to write ZAU (harley) up for airspace violations, but because mke approach likes being able to top their inbounds (which come in at 10000 ft) they do their best to get the evaluators to not write us up. It is possible (and has happened in the past to me, though not head on) for harley to have an 11000 ft overflt they are not talking to and a departure climbing to 11000 ft from mke approach they are also not talking to. In this described situation if mke approach had not seen the limited we would have at least a deal and at worse a collision. I feel aircraft should not be climbing to 11000 ft from mke approach or 11000 ft overflts should not be allowed. The attitude of ZAU seems to be it's worked so far don't mess with it. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated the d-man at the lnr sector should have made the pointout to mke. Reporter stated that he is attempting to get written clarification from the quality assurance specialist regarding the responsibility of the controller at the harley sector when a pointout is not made per facility procedures and there is less than standard separation. Reporter alleges 2 supervisors believe the reporter would have been partly involved because he was working one of the aircraft. Reporter indicated the union representative and other controllers feel he would not be involved based on the LOA's and facility procedures which specify the handoff/point out responsibility.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTED SIT OF CTR SECTOR APPROVING BE36 OVERFLT TFC FROM AN MSN APCH TO ENTER ZAU AIRSPACE EBOUND AT 11000 FT AND BEING WORKED BY RPTR IN ANOTHER SECTOR. THE BE36 CONFLICTS WITH A WBOUND DEP WHICH THROUGH LOA ALLOWS MKE APCH TO CLB IT TO 11000 FT IN THE RPTR'S AIRSPACE AFTER AN AUTOMATED HDOF HAS BEEN MADE. THE MKE CTLR OBSERVED THE TARGET OF THE BE36 AND STOPPED THE DC9 AT 9000 FT WHICH PREVENTED A LTSS. RPTR ALLEGES THIS IS UNSAFE PROC AS MSN IS NOT REQUIRED TO POINT OUT OVERFLT TFC TO MKE.

Narrative: EITHER MSN APCH CALLED LNR TO APREQ A BE36/R CLBING TO 11000 FT OR THE D-SIDE AT LNR CALLED MSN APCH. THE D-SIDE STATED 'THE LNR RADAR MAN IS BUSY CLB TO 11000 FT AND SWITCH IT TO HARLEY.' MSN APCH HAS NO AGREEMENT TO POINT OUT 11000 FT WITH MKE APCH. THE BE36 CHKED ON MY FREQ AT HARLEY 11000 FT AND IS EBOUND IN WHAT IS CALLED THE GREGS TRACK. THE GREGS TRACK IS WHERE MKE APCH LINES UP THE WBOUND DEPS FROM THEIR AIRSPACE. I AT HARLEY HAVE TAKEN AT LEAST 3 HDOFS FROM MKE APCH ON ACFT BEING PUT IN THE GREGS TRACK. ONE OF THESE ACFT IS A DC9, I LOOK AND SEE IT IS HEAD ON WITH THE BE36 BUT AS PER LOA, MKE APCH SHOULD BE AWARE AND MISSING THE 11000 FT OVERFLT TFC. THIS IS WHEN MKE APCH CALLS 'WHO THE HELL IS THE 11000 FT TFC OUT THERE.' THE MKE APCH CTLR SAW THE LIMITED DATA BLOCK AND STOPPED (AMENDED) THE ALT OF THE DC9 WITH JUST ENOUGH ROOM TO AVOID A DEAL. 'NO ERROR OCCURRED,' THAT'S THE ANSWER I GET FROM SUPVRS, BUT THEY (SUPVRS, QUALITY ASSURANCE, ETC) ALSO STATE IF ONE HAD OCCURRED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART MY DEAL. BECAUSE I TOOK THE HDOF TO CLB TO 11000 FT, BECAUSE I'M THE ONE AWARE OF BOTH ACFT, ETC. I'VE TRIED FOR 2 MONTHS TO GET SOMETHING IN WRITING TO CLARIFY THIS SIT AND GET NO ANSWER, AND THIS IS WHY I'M WRITING YOU. I KNOW IF I WOULD HAVE SEEN THE DC9 CONTINUING TO 11000 FT I WOULD HAVE CLBED THE BE36. BUT WITH THE TCASII ON THE DC9 HE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY ALSO CLBED. THIS IS NOT GOOD. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST 11000 FT OVERFLT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN POINTED OUT TO MKE APCH. EVERY TIME THE FAA DOES AN EVALUATION AT MKE (APCH) THEY WANT TO WRITE ZAU (HARLEY) UP FOR AIRSPACE VIOLATIONS, BUT BECAUSE MKE APCH LIKES BEING ABLE TO TOP THEIR INBOUNDS (WHICH COME IN AT 10000 FT) THEY DO THEIR BEST TO GET THE EVALUATORS TO NOT WRITE US UP. IT IS POSSIBLE (AND HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST TO ME, THOUGH NOT HEAD ON) FOR HARLEY TO HAVE AN 11000 FT OVERFLT THEY ARE NOT TALKING TO AND A DEP CLBING TO 11000 FT FROM MKE APCH THEY ARE ALSO NOT TALKING TO. IN THIS DESCRIBED SIT IF MKE APCH HAD NOT SEEN THE LIMITED WE WOULD HAVE AT LEAST A DEAL AND AT WORSE A COLLISION. I FEEL ACFT SHOULD NOT BE CLBING TO 11000 FT FROM MKE APCH OR 11000 FT OVERFLTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. THE ATTITUDE OF ZAU SEEMS TO BE IT'S WORKED SO FAR DON'T MESS WITH IT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THE D-MAN AT THE LNR SECTOR SHOULD HAVE MADE THE POINTOUT TO MKE. RPTR STATED THAT HE IS ATTEMPTING TO GET WRITTEN CLARIFICATION FROM THE QUALITY ASSURANCE SPECIALIST REGARDING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CTLR AT THE HARLEY SECTOR WHEN A POINTOUT IS NOT MADE PER FACILITY PROCS AND THERE IS LTSS. RPTR ALLEGES 2 SUPVRS BELIEVE THE RPTR WOULD HAVE BEEN PARTLY INVOLVED BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ONE OF THE ACFT. RPTR INDICATED THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHER CTLRS FEEL HE WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED BASED ON THE LOA'S AND FACILITY PROCS WHICH SPECIFY THE HDOF/POINT OUT RESPONSIBILITY.

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.