Narrative:

I was providing ojti at R9. My trainee accepted an automated radar hand off from sct on a PRM1 climbing to 10;000. His route was kpsp..trm.V208.ocn..crq. This is a good route because it provides terrain separation southwest of trm. Once the aircraft are climbed to at or above 11;000 we issue the preferred routing for jets arriving kcrq which is direct escon..kcrq. The PRM1 checked on frequency over trm level at 10;000. My trainee issued a traffic call for a F18/I opposite direction; 10 miles; at 11;000. After a couple of radar updates it appeared that PRM1 was not established on V208 but rather appeared to be turning for escon. This is dangerous because direct escon takes the aircraft through an MEA block of 11;000. He was still level at 10;000 and we were unable to climb him due to the F18. We noticed it immediately and my trainee questioned the PRM1; asking him if they are established on V208. The pilot replied 'affirmative' and then asked for higher. My trainee issued the traffic again; now 5 miles opposite direction at 11;000. The aircraft continued to track southwest bound towards escon. My trainee issued a 20 degree left turn to rejoin V208. The pilot asked for higher again for terrain. My trainee reissued the traffic now 2-3 miles and 1;000 ft above and issued a 30 degree left turn to join V208. The aircraft never complied with either turn. I questioned the pilot and advised him that he appeared to be direct escon. He said that he would like direct escon but that he was direct ocn..kcrq. This was contrary to the routing in uret and both pilots' previous statements that they were on V208. As soon as the PRM1 was 5 miles clear of the F18 I climbed him to 12;000. Once the PRM1 was above 11;000 I cleared him direct escon..kcrq. Once the situation was corrected I asked the pilot what routing he had been issued on the ground. He said trm..ocn..kcrq. It is my understanding that a tape check at sct revealed that he was issued the correct routing over V208. I understand that their tape check also revealed that he was issued a heading by sct to join V208 or precede direct trm when able. I also observed a conversation between the OM and the pilot in which the pilot stated his FMS had trm..escon..kcrq preloaded because it is considered the preferential routing. I did have a discussion with the OM regarding the lack of a low altitude alert. I did advise the pilot that he was below our meas with traffic preventing his climb. The pilot did acknowledge that he was below the MEA. This was a unique situation in which I felt issuing a low altitude alert when I am unable to climb the aircraft may be stressful and confusing to the pilot; especially when he has already acknowledged his predicament and has been given a solution (two turns towards V208 that he did not comply with). Had the pilot reported the F18 in sight we could have climbed him with visual separation. Had the pilot complied with ATC instructions and turned towards V208 he would have been within his standard deviation for the airway.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLA Controller described a below MEA event when IFR traffic failed to navigate as cleared and/or follow corrective turn instructions; the reports indicating a clear pilot deviation.

Narrative: I was providing OJTI at R9. My trainee accepted an automated RADAR hand off from SCT on a PRM1 climbing to 10;000. His route was KPSP..TRM.V208.OCN..CRQ. This is a good route because it provides terrain separation southwest of TRM. Once the aircraft are climbed to at or above 11;000 we issue the preferred routing for jets arriving KCRQ which is direct ESCON..KCRQ. The PRM1 checked on frequency over TRM level at 10;000. My trainee issued a traffic call for A F18/I opposite direction; 10 miles; at 11;000. After a couple of RADAR updates it appeared that PRM1 was not established on V208 but rather appeared to be turning for ESCON. This is dangerous because direct ESCON takes the aircraft through an MEA block of 11;000. He was still level at 10;000 and we were unable to climb him due to the F18. We noticed it immediately and my trainee questioned the PRM1; asking him if they are established on V208. The pilot replied 'affirmative' and then asked for higher. My trainee issued the traffic again; now 5 miles opposite direction at 11;000. The aircraft continued to track southwest bound towards ESCON. My trainee issued a 20 degree left turn to rejoin V208. The pilot asked for higher again for terrain. My trainee reissued the traffic now 2-3 miles and 1;000 FT above and issued a 30 degree left turn to join V208. The aircraft never complied with either turn. I questioned the pilot and advised him that he appeared to be direct ESCON. He said that he would like direct ESCON but that he was direct OCN..KCRQ. This was contrary to the routing in URET and both pilots' previous statements that they were on V208. As soon as the PRM1 was 5 miles clear of the F18 I climbed him to 12;000. Once the PRM1 was above 11;000 I cleared him direct ESCON..KCRQ. Once the situation was corrected I asked the pilot what routing he had been issued on the ground. He said TRM..OCN..KCRQ. It is my understanding that a tape check at SCT revealed that he was issued the correct routing over V208. I understand that their tape check also revealed that he was issued a heading by SCT to join V208 or precede direct TRM when able. I also observed a conversation between the OM and the pilot in which the pilot stated his FMS had TRM..ESCON..KCRQ preloaded because it is considered the preferential routing. I did have a discussion with the OM regarding the lack of a Low Altitude Alert. I did advise the pilot that he was below our MEAs with traffic preventing his climb. The pilot did acknowledge that he was below the MEA. This was a unique situation in which I felt issuing a Low Altitude Alert when I am unable to climb the aircraft may be stressful and confusing to the pilot; especially when he has already acknowledged his predicament and has been given a solution (two turns towards V208 that he did not comply with). Had the pilot reported the F18 in sight we could have climbed him with visual separation. Had the pilot complied with ATC instructions and turned towards V208 he would have been within his standard deviation for the airway.

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.