Commercial Fixed Wing
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Human Factors; Procedure
I had just completed a position relief briefing from previous Controller. A special airspace circle of 5 NM radius was depicted on the RADAR map located on the LIN113012 for unmanned rocket activity up to 15;300 FT. The special airspace zone mentioned above was active. I had taken RADAR on Aircraft X from the Sunol Sector and noticed the aircraft was descending below 16;000 FT; the route of flight went through the middle of the special use airspace. As I was attempting to call Sunol to correct this situation; Sunol called me to inform me that the Aircraft X has not been advised of the rocket activity. I instructed Sunol to turn the Aircraft X out to avoid the special use airspace and another voice gets on the line and says negative; the airspace is not a TFR; we don't have to avoid it. Apparently OJT was in progress. The Aircraft X checked on still on flight plan route; descending to 14;000 FT headed into the active rocket airspace. I turned the Aircraft X westbound for avoidance and advised him why. The assigned vector was barely able to miss the rocket airspace due to speed and position of aircraft when I received communication. Sunol never did inform the pilot of the rocket activity. I gave the Sunol Controller a control instruction which was blatantly ignored. I immediately informed the Supervisor who went over to Area C to address the incident. Apparently; the Sunol Sector had been descending aircraft into the active rocket airspace since it went active; basically over an hour. Nothing had been addressed until I made a complaint. The Student came over shortly thereafter to talk with me. The Student said his/her Instructor was instructing that once a NOTAM has been issued; ATC did not need to or have to advise pilots of special use or restricted airspace because it is the pilot's responsibility to get the NOTAM and miss the airspace. The Instructor went on to explain that it is the pilot's responsibility to file IFR routing to avoid special use airspace. Because the special use airspace had not been designated a TFR; it was not necessary for ATC to ensure the aircraft avoid the area. Apparently the Area C Supervisor agreed with this interpretation as the Supervisor was aware of this situation and allowed it to continue. I asked the Student how he/she would respond if an aircraft was knowingly sent through airspace with active rocket launches and no advisory; and if a rocket hit the aircraft; destroyed the aircraft; killed all aboard and people on the ground. What would be his/her defense? After the incident with the Aircraft X; I instructed Sunol to either vector around the airspace; I didn't care what heading; or leave the aircraft at 16;000 FT. This was passed on to the relieving Controller as well. What is amazing to me is the complete disregard for human life and safety. To actually provide instruction that encourages reckless behavior is unbelievable. To actually provide instruction that promotes unsafe attitude and control actions is unbelievable. To instruct a student to knowingly send an aircraft into a known unsafe situation; especially since the airspace was so easily avoided; is unbelievable. To have an operational supervisor standby and watch it happen and do NOTHING to correct the problem is unbelievable. Why are we even here if this is the type of service that is provided? This conduct violates the public trust. A remark that came out of the Supervisor conversation was that the rockets were small and weren't expected to get very high; so going through the airspace wasn't that unsafe. Size matters where safety is concerned? The designated airspace for this rocket activity was from the surface up to 15;300 FT and not predicated on rocket size. Any size rocket could seriously damage or destroy an aircraft. Thanks to the Area D Supervisor who understood the problem and immediately corrected it. No pilot would want to fly through this type of airspace. No Controller concerned with safety would knowingly send aircraft into this type of activity. Pilots on IFR flight plans expect ATC to use vectors and/or altitude to avoid unsafe/restricted/special; etc. use airspace when needed. VFR aircraft should expect this as well. Another concern is how long this problem had been going on before it got to me. Why were the supervisors on duty at the time allowing this to happen? The Area D Supervisor who addressed the problem was doing other administrative duties prior and had just returned to the floor. I would also observe that FAA is providing not only a serious disservice to pilots; but also to the Student involved in this incident. Students represent future performance and service in the FAA for years to come. FAA instructors should be providing a sound foundation not only of correct procedure but emphasizing the importance of safety. The FAA would have no defense if an aircraft were impaled by rocket due to a control instruction or lack thereof by the FAA and that is the bottom line. What can one recommend when the FAA's operational supervisors are aware of and go along with this type of operation?
The reporter voiced the same concerns expressed in the original submission.
NCT Controller voiced concern regarding an IFR aircraft that was routed through a known unmanned rocket activity special airspace area; adding additional concern regarding Controller/Supervisor attitude regarding this procedure.