Narrative:

We had been briefed that a 'vip' was scheduled to depart las and to anticipate holding. We were advised that the schedule had changed and las was closed and we began holding aircraft. I was working the high altitude sector (FL240-330) that feeds the southeast arrival (kaddy) gate for las. Sector 8; the low sector; had 4 aircraft in holding when I was advised to begin holding las arrivals. I had 3 aircraft in holding a pgs when ZAB43 started handing off air carrier X at FL280. This aircraft had departed phx so I called the tmu to find out if they knew we were holding and if they knew who had released the aircraft. They responded that they did know we were holding and they had released the aircraft. I accepted the hand off and cleared the aircraft to hold at igm with a 30 minute efc. The pilot questioned the reason for holding and I advised 'vip movement'. I briefed in the d-side and we accepted 3 more las arrivals; 2 held at pgs and one at igm. At this point; ZAB43 started the hand off on another air carrier and ZAB92 started the hand off on a third. The second air carrier had departed phx and the third had departed tus. At or near air carrier X's efc; the airport had just cleared and the low sector was re clearing aircraft to the airport when the pilot advised that he would have to return to phx because of fuel concerns. Recommendation; this narrative barely describes what an unsafe and unjustifiable situation I found myself in. When I talked to tmu; they claim that they had requested a 1st tier ground-stop thru central flow and were denied. They added that the airlines would rather get airborne; and hold; than sit on the ground. If that is indeed the case I question how the agency defines its first mission as safety when central flow has final authority on whether a facility needs a ground stop or not. It was evident that there were plenty of airplanes already airborne that we capable of 'keeping pressure' on the airport once the vip departed. To add 3 aircraft whose en route times did not exceed 60 minutes each seems extremely inefficient and unsafe. Additionally; if aircraft are going to depart into known holding conditions; it would seem prudent to me that they have some extra fuel on board for said holding.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLA Controller described a multiple aircraft holding situation when Traffic Management elected to release aircraft to LAS when VIP operations were anticipated to require holding.

Narrative: We had been briefed that a 'VIP' was scheduled to depart LAS and to anticipate holding. We were advised that the schedule had changed and LAS was closed and we began holding aircraft. I was working the high altitude sector (FL240-330) that feeds the southeast arrival (KADDY) gate for LAS. Sector 8; the low sector; had 4 aircraft in holding when I was advised to begin holding LAS arrivals. I had 3 aircraft in holding a PGS when ZAB43 started handing off Air Carrier X at FL280. This aircraft had departed PHX so I called the TMU to find out if they knew we were holding and if they knew who had released the aircraft. They responded that they did know we were holding and they had released the aircraft. I accepted the hand off and cleared the aircraft to hold at IGM with a 30 minute EFC. The pilot questioned the reason for holding and I advised 'VIP movement'. I briefed in the D-Side and we accepted 3 more LAS arrivals; 2 held at PGS and one at IGM. At this point; ZAB43 started the hand off on another Air Carrier and ZAB92 started the hand off on a third. The second Air Carrier had departed PHX and the third had departed TUS. At or near Air Carrier X's EFC; the airport had just cleared and the low sector was re clearing aircraft to the airport when the pilot advised that he would have to return to PHX because of fuel concerns. Recommendation; this narrative barely describes what an unsafe and unjustifiable situation I found myself in. When I talked to TMU; they claim that they had requested a 1st tier ground-stop thru Central Flow and were denied. They added that the airlines would rather get airborne; and hold; than sit on the ground. If that is indeed the case I question how the agency defines its first mission as safety when Central Flow has final authority on whether a facility needs a ground stop or not. It was evident that there were plenty of airplanes already airborne that we capable of 'keeping pressure' on the airport once the VIP departed. To add 3 aircraft whose en route times did not exceed 60 minutes each seems extremely inefficient and unsafe. Additionally; if aircraft are going to depart into known holding conditions; it would seem prudent to me that they have some extra fuel on board for said holding.

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.