Narrative:

I was controller in charge/di (flight data) in the radar room at pbi. A mia approach controller called our 'I' sector for a manual hand off; the mia controller gave our controller the beacon code; call sign; type aircraft; destination and altitude. The pbi controller observed the code near the south boundary and called radar contact. From the flight data position that I was working I recalled that I had a flight progress strip for that aircraft. I went to the 'I' scope strip bay and showed the strip to the controller. It looked like a fight plan someone had typed in using the ARTS because the equipment suffix was 'T' (the normal default). The strip read VFR mia..ism; beacon 37XX; time E0155 the cid 464. This was an IFR aircraft on a VFR beacon code and not routed via standard routing. This lead to several issues: first; when mia approach enters a ARTS flight plan and it does not have a fix in our airspace and/or the line of flight does not enter our airspace they always have to call for a manual hand off because the ARTS does not recognize that the aircraft should be in our airspace. If pbi wanted to provide continued flight following to ZMA then we have to amend the fdio (flight data input/output) or call ZMA for a manual hand off. It can lead to excessive land line coordination and be very distracting to the controller. This night we were very slow but on busy days the mia approach controller can; and does; call multiple times for manual hand offs. I am not sure that they understand the problem for pbi; or if they feel that a land line call is easy and it is over for them. These manual hand offs always result in work for pbi to solve if we intend to hand off to ZMA. Second: the exchange between the mia controller and the pbi controller was lacking a key piece of information. Even though mia stated the aircraft was at 6000 ft the beacon code the aircraft was on was a mia VFR subset the aircraft was squawking 43XX; this has no MSAW processing. The pbi controller would not expect this aircraft to be IFR on that code especially when a NAS (national airspace system) flight plan already existed and the aircraft was taken off the NAS code for some reason. Third: the pbi controller asked the aircraft if he was IFR and he said he believed so; since we only had a VFR NAS strip and the aircraft was on a mia local VFR code I took the strip amended the flight path and altitude and the pbi controller re-issued an IFR clearance just to be on the safe side. We then had to drop the ARTS tag; force the new flight plan via fdio into our ARTS; advise the pilot to squawk the NAS code 37XX; let the new code acquire on the scope; slew and enter on the tag because when it re-acquires it displayed on the radar scope on a ZMA center tag; then slew and enter a hand off to ZMA and watched to be sure it flashed to the proper ZMA sector. Last night we were slow; but imagine doing this process multiple times during a busy session. Sometimes we have to ask a flm (front line manager) to do the land line coordination for manual hand offs to ZMA. Forth: when the pbi controller called the mia controller to ask why an IFR aircraft was on a VFR subset and recommended that he should have just changed his NAS flight plan to IFR; the mia controller said he would take it under consideration. His answer does not indicate that he understands the MSAW processing or the impact for lost communications nor that pbi would have not considered this aircraft IFR on that beacon code. Pbi controllers deal many times with flight plans that need some sort of correction from mia approach; either the aircraft will not hand off so they call for a manual hand off or the put in a new NAS code near the boundary and then flash that aircraft to us and when we try to hand off to ZMA we discover there are multiple fight plans in the system; either active or proposed. It is more obvious when an aircraft displays either a double nn or an incomplete call sign. We are very familiarwith full routing a call sign; finding there are multiples; strip requesting one; try to remove it if we can; then ARTS force the remaining one to us; amend the route into our airspace so we can hand off to ZMA. This is a very labor intensive process for us. This was a single incident but the problem we face with mia approach is chronic; it has been mentions many times and does not seem to be of a concern to many above the flm level either at pbi or mia. Recommendation; train the mia controller as to what the VFR subset is for and what the limitations are. They need to know that if they are going to enter multiple flight plans it will have an impact to the NAS. They need to know what impact excessive land line calling can do to the adjacent facility.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PBI Controller provided a detailed example of MIA TRACON's failure to insure proper beacon codes/flight plan information are contained in the data blocks/NAS prior to attempting hand offs.

Narrative: I was CIC/DI (Flight Data) in the RADAR room at PBI. A MIA Approach Controller called our 'I' sector for a manual hand off; the MIA Controller gave our controller the beacon code; call sign; type aircraft; destination and altitude. The PBI Controller observed the code near the south boundary and called RADAR contact. From the Flight Data position that I was working I recalled that I had a flight progress strip for that aircraft. I went to the 'I' scope strip bay and showed the strip to the controller. It looked like a fight plan someone had typed in using the ARTS because the equipment suffix was 'T' (the normal default). The strip read VFR MIA..ISM; beacon 37XX; time E0155 the CID 464. This was an IFR aircraft on a VFR beacon code and not routed via standard routing. This lead to several issues: First; When MIA Approach enters a ARTS flight plan and it does not have a fix in our airspace and/or the line of flight does not enter our airspace they always have to call for a manual hand off because the ARTS does not recognize that the aircraft should be in our airspace. If PBI wanted to provide continued flight following to ZMA then we have to amend the FDIO (Flight Data Input/Output) or call ZMA for a manual hand off. It can lead to excessive land line coordination and be very distracting to the controller. This night we were very slow but on busy days the MIA Approach Controller can; and does; call multiple times for manual hand offs. I am not sure that they understand the problem for PBI; or if they feel that a land line call is easy and it is over for them. These manual hand offs always result in work for PBI to solve if we intend to hand off to ZMA. Second: The exchange between the MIA Controller and the PBI Controller was lacking a key piece of information. Even though MIA stated the aircraft was at 6000 FT the beacon code the aircraft was on was a MIA VFR subset the aircraft was squawking 43XX; this has no MSAW processing. The PBI Controller would not expect this aircraft to be IFR on that code especially when a NAS (National Airspace System) flight plan already existed and the aircraft was taken off the NAS code for some reason. Third: The PBI Controller asked the aircraft if he was IFR and he said he believed so; since we only had a VFR NAS strip and the aircraft was on a MIA local VFR code I took the strip amended the flight path and altitude and the PBI Controller re-issued an IFR clearance just to be on the safe side. We then had to drop the ARTS tag; force the new flight plan via FDIO into our ARTS; advise the pilot to squawk the NAS code 37XX; let the new code acquire on the scope; slew and enter on the tag because when it re-acquires it displayed on the RADAR scope on a ZMA Center tag; then slew and enter a hand off to ZMA and watched to be sure it flashed to the proper ZMA sector. Last night we were slow; but imagine doing this process multiple times during a busy session. Sometimes we have to ask a FLM (Front Line Manager) to do the land line coordination for manual hand offs to ZMA. Forth: When the PBI Controller called the MIA Controller to ask why an IFR aircraft was on a VFR subset and recommended that he should have just changed his NAS flight plan to IFR; the MIA Controller said he would take it under consideration. His answer does not indicate that he understands the MSAW processing or the impact for lost communications nor that PBI would have not considered this aircraft IFR on that beacon code. PBI Controllers deal many times with flight plans that need some sort of correction from MIA Approach; either the aircraft will not hand off so they call for a manual hand off or the put in a new NAS code near the boundary and then flash that aircraft to us and when we try to hand off to ZMA we discover there are multiple fight plans in the system; either active or proposed. It is more obvious when an aircraft displays either a double NN or an incomplete call sign. We are very familiarwith full routing a call sign; finding there are multiples; strip requesting one; try to remove it if we can; then ARTS force the remaining one to us; amend the route into our airspace so we can hand off to ZMA. This is a very labor intensive process for us. This was a single incident but the problem we face with MIA approach is chronic; it has been mentions many times and does not seem to be of a concern to many above the FLM level either at PBI or MIA. Recommendation; train the MIA Controller as to what the VFR subset is for and what the limitations are. They need to know that if they are going to enter multiple flight plans it will have an impact to the NAS. They need to know what impact excessive land line calling can do to the adjacent facility.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.