ZAB controller voiced concern regarding the lack of formalized procedures with two military range op...

Narrative:

A flight of two B52s were enroute to yuma range complexes R2306 and R2308 at FL350. We do not have a letter of agreement with yuma range control that would depict agreed upon altitudes for aircraft to enter the range control. ZAB R65 called yuma range control to coordinate entry for the B52s flight. Yuma range had to call cibola range to coordinate. After coordination took place between with cibola and yuma; yuma called R65 and told us to have the B52s flight enter the range at or below FL300. R65 coordinated with R91 (R91 owns FL260 to FL330 and R65 owns FL340 and above) and after pointing out the aircraft to R91 they gave the B52s an altitude of FL280. B290; terminated the aircraft and put the B52s on cibola range control frequency. Cibola then descended the aircraft to FL250 without coordination. The B52 flight came within close proximity to a B737 descending to phx on the GEELA4 arrival. Recommendation: we need to have some sort of agreement with cibola range/yuma range that pertains to procedures entering and exiting the range. There should also be something put into place where there is no ambiguity on what range control has control for communication. ZAB sectors also shouldn't have to go through a third party to achieve any kind of coordination that would result in an undue delay to these aircraft. There also seems to be a real issue with cibola range on what they control.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAB Controller voiced concern regarding the lack of formalized procedures with two military range operations; suggesting an LOA be developed to clarify responsibilities.

Narrative: A flight of two B52s were enroute to Yuma Range Complexes R2306 and R2308 at FL350. We do not have a Letter of Agreement with Yuma Range Control that would depict agreed upon altitudes for aircraft to enter the range control. ZAB R65 called Yuma Range Control to coordinate entry for the B52s flight. Yuma Range had to call Cibola Range to coordinate. After coordination took place between with Cibola and Yuma; Yuma called R65 and told us to have the B52s flight enter the range at or below FL300. R65 coordinated with R91 (R91 owns FL260 to FL330 and R65 owns FL340 and above) and after pointing out the aircraft to R91 they gave the B52s an altitude of FL280. B290; terminated the aircraft and put the B52s on Cibola Range Control frequency. Cibola then descended the aircraft to FL250 without coordination. The B52 flight came within close proximity to a B737 descending to PHX on the GEELA4 arrival. Recommendation: We need to have some sort of agreement with Cibola Range/Yuma Range that pertains to procedures entering and exiting the range. There should also be something put into place where there is no ambiguity on what range control has control for communication. ZAB sectors also shouldn't have to go through a third party to achieve any kind of coordination that would result in an undue delay to these aircraft. There also seems to be a real issue with Cibola Range on what they control.

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.

Attributes
ACN	949404
Time
Date	201105
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	ZAB.ARTCC
State Reference	NM
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	STAR GEELA4
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Stratofortress (B-52)
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Supervisor / CIC
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Airspace Violation All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

ZAB controller voiced concern regarding the lack of formalized procedures with two military range operations; suggesting an LOA be developed to clarify responsibilities.