37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 610076 |
Time | |
Date | 200403 |
Day | Tue |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | navaid : mam.vor |
State Reference | FO |
Altitude | msl single value : 13000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : crp.tracon tracon : mmma.tracon |
Operator | common carrier : air taxi |
Make Model Name | Convair Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
Flight Phase | climbout : intermediate altitude |
Route In Use | departure : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | government : faa |
Function | controller : clearance delivery |
Experience | controller radar : 4 flight time total : 250 |
ASRS Report | 610076 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | government : foreign |
Function | controller : approach |
Events | |
Anomaly | airspace violation : entry non adherence : required legal separation non adherence : published procedure |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Operational Deviation Intra Facility Coordination Failure Inter Facility Coordination Failure |
Narrative:
Aircraft X was leaving an uncontrolled field (pil, cameron county, tx) for tlc, mexico. Aircraft X called clearance delivery for his IFR clearance. 'FD' read the clearance and then coordinated with mam (mamamoros, mexico) to get a revised routing. Revised routings are a normal occurrence when flying to mexico. Aircraft X was issued the revised routing by clearance delivery. Some time passed and aircraft X called ready for IFR departure from pil. I (the radar controller) gave him his departure clearance and release. He checked on airborne and was vectored on course approximately 5-7 mi north of the bro VOR, aircraft X was leaving 8000 ft MSL and I terminated radar service (mam is non radar approach) and switched him to mam approach control. Now, as aircraft X was passing over mam VOR, mam called back and said they had no information on this aircraft. I said that we had just received a rerte from them. They said they did have a flight plan but no release. We normally ask for release and pass an expected time over a fix for them to use non radar timing. I thought 'FD' had gotten a time when passing the flight plan and he didn't know I also wanted a release from mexico. Human factors are involved, in that confusion was present as a result of miscom and local orders state that coordinators are responsible for coordination, but usually those position are combined to radar. If flight data gets rertes, it would seem simpler to have them get releases at the same time instead of increasing the radar controller's workload.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CRP CTLR EXPERIENCED OPDEV WITH ACFT ENTRY INTO MEXICAN AIRSPACE WITHOUT RELEASE.
Narrative: ACFT X WAS LEAVING AN UNCTLED FIELD (PIL, CAMERON COUNTY, TX) FOR TLC, MEXICO. ACFT X CALLED CLRNC DELIVERY FOR HIS IFR CLRNC. 'FD' READ THE CLRNC AND THEN COORDINATED WITH MAM (MAMAMOROS, MEXICO) TO GET A REVISED ROUTING. REVISED ROUTINGS ARE A NORMAL OCCURRENCE WHEN FLYING TO MEXICO. ACFT X WAS ISSUED THE REVISED ROUTING BY CLRNC DELIVERY. SOME TIME PASSED AND ACFT X CALLED READY FOR IFR DEP FROM PIL. I (THE RADAR CTLR) GAVE HIM HIS DEP CLRNC AND RELEASE. HE CHKED ON AIRBORNE AND WAS VECTORED ON COURSE APPROX 5-7 MI N OF THE BRO VOR, ACFT X WAS LEAVING 8000 FT MSL AND I TERMINATED RADAR SVC (MAM IS NON RADAR APCH) AND SWITCHED HIM TO MAM APCH CTL. NOW, AS ACFT X WAS PASSING OVER MAM VOR, MAM CALLED BACK AND SAID THEY HAD NO INFO ON THIS ACFT. I SAID THAT WE HAD JUST RECEIVED A RERTE FROM THEM. THEY SAID THEY DID HAVE A FLT PLAN BUT NO RELEASE. WE NORMALLY ASK FOR RELEASE AND PASS AN EXPECTED TIME OVER A FIX FOR THEM TO USE NON RADAR TIMING. I THOUGHT 'FD' HAD GOTTEN A TIME WHEN PASSING THE FLT PLAN AND HE DIDN'T KNOW I ALSO WANTED A RELEASE FROM MEXICO. HUMAN FACTORS ARE INVOLVED, IN THAT CONFUSION WAS PRESENT AS A RESULT OF MISCOM AND LCL ORDERS STATE THAT COORDINATORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORD, BUT USUALLY THOSE POS ARE COMBINED TO RADAR. IF FLT DATA GETS RERTES, IT WOULD SEEM SIMPLER TO HAVE THEM GET RELEASES AT THE SAME TIME INSTEAD OF INCREASING THE RADAR CTLR'S WORKLOAD.
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.