Narrative:

ZAB has a procedure written called 'mutual weather deviations'. The intention is to reduce/eliminate 4th line use and land line coordination during weather events. When coordinating 'mutual weather deviations' the controllers are required to state the distance from the boundary; degrees of turns and the end time. This information is rarely coordinated. In this particular situation; sector 70 called to coordinate 'mutual weather deviations' and I declined. He questioned my answer and I restated that 'I do not want mutual weather deviations'. The controller responded sarcastically saying; 'nice job' and hung up. I reported this to the supervisor and made it clear that I do not appreciate being harassed about my decision. I was further challenged by a fellow controller that overheard the conversation. He said that all I am doing is releasing control for turns to the downstream sector. In one recent situation I was working an aircraft at FL280 when the aircraft suddenly turned about 60 degrees left and into a neighboring sector. When I questioned the pilot they told me that the previous controller cleared them to deviate left or right of course as necessary. This was not coordinated in any way other than to establish 'mutual weather deviations' earlier in the shift. I wonder what happens if an aircraft has been cleared to deviate by the previous controller through the coordination of 'mutual weather deviations'; flies through my sector and then into the next sector which I have not coordinated 'mutuals' and then deviates. Have I just violated the next sector because I should assume that all aircraft are deviating? Recommendation; I believe that 'mutual weather deviations' should be limited to giving control for turns to the down stream sector. I do not believe the 4th line information should be eliminated. As the receiving controller I am left to assume that all aircraft are deviating. I believe that this creates a potentially unsafe and unprofessional condition. My recommendation is to require that the data block always reflect what the aircraft is actually doing. It reduces potential confusion and gives the receiving controller an opportunity to anticipate how the aircraft has been cleared.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAB Controller voiced concern regarding the Mutual Weather Deviation/s procedure noting information in the Data Block regarding this type of information serves as a better means of coordination between sectors/controllers.

Narrative: ZAB has a procedure written called 'Mutual Weather Deviations'. The intention is to reduce/eliminate 4th line use and land line coordination during weather events. When coordinating 'Mutual Weather Deviations' the controllers are required to state the distance from the boundary; degrees of turns and the end time. This information is rarely coordinated. In this particular situation; Sector 70 called to coordinate 'Mutual Weather Deviations' and I declined. He questioned my answer and I restated that 'I do not want Mutual Weather Deviations'. The controller responded sarcastically saying; 'nice job' and hung up. I reported this to the supervisor and made it clear that I do not appreciate being harassed about my decision. I was further challenged by a fellow controller that overheard the conversation. He said that all I am doing is releasing control for turns to the downstream sector. In one recent situation I was working an aircraft at FL280 when the aircraft suddenly turned about 60 degrees left and into a neighboring sector. When I questioned the pilot they told me that the previous controller cleared them to deviate left or right of course as necessary. This was not coordinated in any way other than to establish 'Mutual Weather Deviations' earlier in the shift. I wonder what happens if an aircraft has been cleared to deviate by the previous controller through the coordination of 'Mutual Weather Deviations'; flies through my sector and then into the next sector which I have not coordinated 'Mutuals' and then deviates. Have I just violated the next sector because I should assume that all aircraft are deviating? Recommendation; I believe that 'Mutual Weather Deviations' should be limited to giving control for turns to the down stream sector. I do not believe the 4th line information should be eliminated. As the receiving controller I am left to assume that all aircraft are deviating. I believe that this creates a potentially unsafe and unprofessional condition. My recommendation is to require that the Data Block always reflect what the aircraft is actually doing. It reduces potential confusion and gives the receiving controller an opportunity to anticipate how the aircraft has been cleared.

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.