A controller took a handoff on a helicopter whose data tag indicated it was on a VFR flight plan. Th...

Narrative:

Took a handoff on an aircraft thinking it was VFR when in fact it ended up being IFR. It was below the MVA (minimum vectoring altitude) for the area and was not on a route that would ensure terrain and obstruction clearance. Through conversation with the pilot I determined he was IFR and immediately vectored him away from nearest obstruction and climbed him to the MVA. Confusing the matter further is the fact that the handoff from phl approach indicated in the data block to us that it was a VFR handoff (the data tag had a diamond symbol at the rear of the tag).I believe phl TRACON also thought the aircraft was VFR because our letter of agreement would not have allowed for an IFR handoff at that altitude. Once the aircraft was safely squared away I probed a little deeper and found out that the helicopter departed VFR and became IFR at some point and was supposed to be on TK502 airway (low level RNAV helo route) that would have provided him guaranteed terrain and obstruction clearance. Someone vectored him away from the airway putting him in an unsafe situation due to his altitude. Also compounding the situation is the fact that we did not receive any strips or other automation on the aircraft even though he was on a flight plan. Even though he was airborne and in the system on the correct computer assigned beacon code; the flight strip we later obtained showed he was still proposed and not yet active in the system. When we handed him off to the next facility we had to do a VFR handoff in order to get him to flash to mdt. We verbally advised mdt via landline that he was indeed IFR.the pilot indicated to me that somewhere back in new york TRACON's airspace he didn't think they understood his intentions. I feel that possibly there was some break down in the communication process. Also; a refresher on tk routes may be in order. When I asked around my facility if anybody knew what a tk route was; there was a lack of knowledge.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Controller took a handoff on a helicopter whose data tag indicated it was on a VFR flight plan. The Controller deduced that the helicopter was on an IFR flight plan and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.

Narrative: Took a handoff on an aircraft thinking it was VFR when in fact it ended up being IFR. It was below the MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) for the area and was not on a route that would ensure terrain and obstruction clearance. Through conversation with the pilot I determined he was IFR and immediately vectored him away from nearest obstruction and climbed him to the MVA. Confusing the matter further is the fact that the handoff from PHL approach indicated in the data block to us that it was a VFR handoff (the data tag had a diamond symbol at the rear of the tag).I believe PHL TRACON also thought the aircraft was VFR because our letter of agreement would not have allowed for an IFR handoff at that altitude. Once the aircraft was safely squared away I probed a little deeper and found out that the helicopter departed VFR and became IFR at some point and was supposed to be on TK502 airway (Low Level RNAV Helo Route) that would have provided him guaranteed terrain and obstruction clearance. Someone vectored him away from the airway putting him in an unsafe situation due to his altitude. Also compounding the situation is the fact that we did not receive any strips or other automation on the aircraft even though he was on a flight plan. Even though he was airborne and in the system on the correct computer assigned beacon code; the flight strip we later obtained showed he was still proposed and not yet active in the system. When we handed him off to the next facility we had to do a VFR handoff in order to get him to flash to MDT. We verbally advised MDT via landline that he was indeed IFR.The pilot indicated to me that somewhere back in New York TRACON's airspace he didn't think they understood his intentions. I feel that possibly there was some break down in the communication process. Also; a refresher on TK routes may be in order. When I asked around my facility if anybody knew what a TK route was; there was a lack of knowledge.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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	1376758
Time
Date	201608
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	RDG.TRACON
State Reference	PA
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Helicopter
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Cruise
Route In Use	Vectors Airway TK502
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 20
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Airspace Violation All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

A controller took a handoff on a helicopter whose data tag indicated it was on a VFR flight plan. The controller deduced that the helicopter was on an IFR flight plan and below the minimum vectoring altitude.