Narrative:

3 different 'events' for special use airspace (sua) all back to back and or adjacent airspace. Aircraft requesting (aircraft X and aircraft Y) sua have different events with the same start/end times. Aircraft Y has the wrong event number and shows up early. This creates a coordination nightmare to delay the aircraft outside the airspace when it is active with another user. Also; aircraft Y's wingman called for clearance and exited the airspace late.using event numbers is cumbersome and creates more work for the controller since they have to be verified on the airspace strip and the flight plan remarks. This requires the controller to have more 'heads down' time or time looking away from the scope. Previously we used call signs for who is requesting to use sua and that procedure was less of a workload to the controller because he or she didn't have to verify for example that aircraft Y has event ZZZ and that sua area is also event ZZZ and that the start time is xa:50 and aircraft X isn't early. Sounds confusing right? I can provide more examples if need be for reasons why event numbers are more workload intensive for the controller compared to previous procedures.no overlap on events or missions start/end times. I would suggest a 10 minute gap as an example. Create a workgroup with all parties to come up with a safer procedure. Go back to the previous procedure using call signs instead of event numbers until a new procedure is in place since using call signs seems to be safer for the sector.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Center Controller reported military aircraft in and out times and schedules for special use airspace were not correct and procedures for ensuring entry exit are unnecessarily cumbersome.

Narrative: 3 different 'events' for Special Use Airspace (SUA) all back to back and or adjacent airspace. Aircraft requesting (aircraft X and aircraft Y) SUA have different events with the same start/end times. Aircraft Y has the wrong event number and shows up early. This creates a coordination nightmare to delay the aircraft outside the airspace when it is active with another user. Also; Aircraft Y's wingman called for clearance and exited the airspace late.Using event numbers is cumbersome and creates more work for the controller since they have to be verified on the airspace strip and the flight plan remarks. This requires the controller to have more 'heads down' time or time looking away from the scope. Previously we used call signs for who is requesting to use SUA and that procedure was less of a workload to the controller because he or she didn't have to verify for example that aircraft Y has event ZZZ and that SUA Area is also event ZZZ and that the start time is XA:50 and Aircraft X isn't early. Sounds confusing right? I can provide more examples if need be for reasons why event numbers are more workload intensive for the controller compared to previous procedures.No overlap on events or missions start/end times. I would suggest a 10 minute gap as an example. Create a workgroup with all parties to come up with a safer procedure. Go back to the previous procedure using call signs instead of event numbers until a new procedure is in place since using call signs seems to be safer for the sector.

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.