Narrative:

In a very recent NTSB incident report involving a near mid-air collision near the ard VORTAC, a new york center controller was asked if he knew who owned the airspace at that location. His basic response was that if you were to ask ten different controllers the same question, you would get ten different answers. This controller may have slightly overstated his position, but what he said is not all-together untrue. I feel that one of the main reasons for this apparent gap in controller knowledge is the fact that there is not one comprehensive source of information that accurately and authoritatively depicts airspace ownership. The regulations and orders that govern us, as air traffic controllers, are spelled out in very minute detail. These regulations are written by the lawyers 'downtown' who, apparently, do their respective jobs very well. They (the regulations) are set down in black and white, are all encompassing, and leave very little, if any room for misunderstanding. Some of our other 'technical' publications are not quite so exacting and leave a great deal to chance. Specifically, I am speaking of the way our airspace is depicted in our SOP's and LOA's. As air traffic controllers and trainees, it is our responsibility to be intimately familiar with our area of jurisdiction as well as all other jurisdictions that are laterally or vertically adjacent to our area. When this familiarization, or refamiliarization, as the case may be, becomes necessary, the publication of choice (our only choices), are the SOP's and LOA's. The problem with the maps depicted in these publications is that they present a very incomplete picture, and are inconsistent with maps that depict adjacent airspace. As an example of what I term an inconsistency, I wish to take note of point 'B97' (ZDC SOP, woodstown sector), aka (also known as) point 'ii' (phl LOA), aka point 'P' (wri LOA), and aka point 'west' (ZNY LOA). My 'point' is that with all of these different references for the same geographical location it is nearly impossible topaint an accurate mental picture of who owns what and where. I have even tried plotting out the individual points on our controller charts only to find that they are not correctly aligned. The maps, as they are now presented, show absolutely no adjacent airspace. In addition, these maps are each drawn to a different scale, show no scale in mi, are not sufficiently detailed and cross-referenced with other maps, and in many cases appear only as points floating in space. Another example: let's say that you wanted to examine the airspace that surrounds the potomac high sector at the washington center. To accomplish this task you would first have to obtain copies of the ZDC SOP, ZNY SOP, ZOB SOP, and the dca LOA. Now for the fun part: you must now carefully examine no less than eighteen additional sector and/or facility maps to insure that you get the 'big picture' of the potomac sector. It is also worth mentioning than within these publications you would find at least seven different referencing systems (each area or facility has it's own method of identifying each geographical point), and just like good old 'B97', you could have as many as four different reference numbers for the same location. The problem is the same for every sector, in every facility, that depends on this type of information. The solution? Well, it's easier said than done, but simply stated: we need publications that offer unimpeachable information on airspace ownership. The maps offered in these publications should be single page references with all data pertinent to each sector clearly delineated. In order that the maps offer the degree of detail necessary, they will probably have to be made larger and in color and possibly include plastic overlays to alleviate congestion. As I stated above, my solution is a simple one, but one that is not easily realized. There are many logistical and practical problems that must be overcome to effect the degree of change that I advocate. I understand this, but we mustbe prepared to continuously offer better tools to our air traffic controllers, tools that will make the system a safer place in which to operate.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ARTCC RADAR CTLR COMPLAINT ABOUT SECTOR AND AIRSPACE CHARTING AT ZDC AND OTHER LOCATIONS.

Narrative: IN A VERY RECENT NTSB INCIDENT REPORT INVOLVING A NEAR MID-AIR COLLISION NEAR THE ARD VORTAC, A NEW YORK CENTER CTLR WAS ASKED IF HE KNEW WHO OWNED THE AIRSPACE AT THAT LOCATION. HIS BASIC RESPONSE WAS THAT IF YOU WERE TO ASK TEN DIFFERENT CTLRS THE SAME QUESTION, YOU WOULD GET TEN DIFFERENT ANSWERS. THIS CTLR MAY HAVE SLIGHTLY OVERSTATED HIS POSITION, BUT WHAT HE SAID IS NOT ALL-TOGETHER UNTRUE. I FEEL THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THIS APPARENT GAP IN CTLR KNOWLEDGE IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT ONE COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE OF INFORMATION THAT ACCURATELY AND AUTHORITATIVELY DEPICTS AIRSPACE OWNERSHIP. THE REGULATIONS AND ORDERS THAT GOVERN US, AS AIR TFC CTLRS, ARE SPELLED OUT IN VERY MINUTE DETAIL. THESE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN BY THE LAWYERS 'DOWNTOWN' WHO, APPARENTLY, DO THEIR RESPECTIVE JOBS VERY WELL. THEY (THE REGULATIONS) ARE SET DOWN IN BLACK AND WHITE, ARE ALL ENCOMPASSING, AND LEAVE VERY LITTLE, IF ANY ROOM FOR MISUNDERSTANDING. SOME OF OUR OTHER 'TECHNICAL' PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT QUITE SO EXACTING AND LEAVE A GREAT DEAL TO CHANCE. SPECIFICALLY, I AM SPEAKING OF THE WAY OUR AIRSPACE IS DEPICTED IN OUR SOP'S AND LOA'S. AS AIR TFC CTLRS AND TRAINEES, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH OUR AREA OF JURISDICTION AS WELL AS ALL OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE LATERALLY OR VERTICALLY ADJACENT TO OUR AREA. WHEN THIS FAMILIARIZATION, OR REFAMILIARIZATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BECOMES NECESSARY, THE PUBLICATION OF CHOICE (OUR ONLY CHOICES), ARE THE SOP'S AND LOA'S. THE PROBLEM WITH THE MAPS DEPICTED IN THESE PUBLICATIONS IS THAT THEY PRESENT A VERY INCOMPLETE PICTURE, AND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH MAPS THAT DEPICT ADJACENT AIRSPACE. AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I TERM AN INCONSISTENCY, I WISH TO TAKE NOTE OF POINT 'B97' (ZDC SOP, WOODSTOWN SECTOR), AKA (ALSO KNOWN AS) POINT 'II' (PHL LOA), AKA POINT 'P' (WRI LOA), AND AKA POINT 'W' (ZNY LOA). MY 'POINT' IS THAT WITH ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT REFERENCES FOR THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TOPAINT AN ACCURATE MENTAL PICTURE OF WHO OWNS WHAT AND WHERE. I HAVE EVEN TRIED PLOTTING OUT THE INDIVIDUAL POINTS ON OUR CTLR CHARTS ONLY TO FIND THAT THEY ARE NOT CORRECTLY ALIGNED. THE MAPS, AS THEY ARE NOW PRESENTED, SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO ADJACENT AIRSPACE. IN ADDITION, THESE MAPS ARE EACH DRAWN TO A DIFFERENT SCALE, SHOW NO SCALE IN MI, ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY DETAILED AND CROSS-REFERENCED WITH OTHER MAPS, AND IN MANY CASES APPEAR ONLY AS POINTS FLOATING IN SPACE. ANOTHER EXAMPLE: LET'S SAY THAT YOU WANTED TO EXAMINE THE AIRSPACE THAT SURROUNDS THE POTOMAC HIGH SECTOR AT THE WASHINGTON CENTER. TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASK YOU WOULD FIRST HAVE TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ZDC SOP, ZNY SOP, ZOB SOP, AND THE DCA LOA. NOW FOR THE FUN PART: YOU MUST NOW CAREFULLY EXAMINE NO LESS THAN EIGHTEEN ADDITIONAL SECTOR AND/OR FACILITY MAPS TO INSURE THAT YOU GET THE 'BIG PICTURE' OF THE POTOMAC SECTOR. IT IS ALSO WORTH MENTIONING THAN WITHIN THESE PUBLICATIONS YOU WOULD FIND AT LEAST SEVEN DIFFERENT REFERENCING SYSTEMS (EACH AREA OR FACILITY HAS IT'S OWN METHOD OF IDENTIFYING EACH GEOGRAPHICAL POINT), AND JUST LIKE GOOD OLD 'B97', YOU COULD HAVE AS MANY AS FOUR DIFFERENT REFERENCE NUMBERS FOR THE SAME LOCATION. THE PROBLEM IS THE SAME FOR EVERY SECTOR, IN EVERY FACILITY, THAT DEPENDS ON THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION. THE SOLUTION? WELL, IT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE, BUT SIMPLY STATED: WE NEED PUBLICATIONS THAT OFFER UNIMPEACHABLE INFORMATION ON AIRSPACE OWNERSHIP. THE MAPS OFFERED IN THESE PUBLICATIONS SHOULD BE SINGLE PAGE REFERENCES WITH ALL DATA PERTINENT TO EACH SECTOR CLEARLY DELINEATED. IN ORDER THAT THE MAPS OFFER THE DEGREE OF DETAIL NECESSARY, THEY WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE MADE LARGER AND IN COLOR AND POSSIBLY INCLUDE PLASTIC OVERLAYS TO ALLEVIATE CONGESTION. AS I STATED ABOVE, MY SOLUTION IS A SIMPLE ONE, BUT ONE THAT IS NOT EASILY REALIZED. THERE ARE MANY LOGISTICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS THAT MUST BE OVERCOME TO EFFECT THE DEGREE OF CHANGE THAT I ADVOCATE. I UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT WE MUSTBE PREPARED TO CONTINUOUSLY OFFER BETTER TOOLS TO OUR AIR TFC CTLRS, TOOLS THAT WILL MAKE THE SYSTEM A SAFER PLACE IN WHICH TO OPERATE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.