Narrative:

I arrived to work and was instructed to relieve the sector 41 radar controller because he was going home soon. During the briefing; the controller reiterated that tad radar was out and that most of the aircraft were adsb. I asked if anyone was on an 'illegal' route. He said he had aircraft X at 170 MSL; non-radar going direct to ALS. I asked if he was paired with a fix to make it a legal route and he replied; no. This is an ongoing problem where controllers are not issuing good gnss routing assuming that everything will 'work out fine'; which it does over 99.9% of the time; but is contrary to the 7110.65. The aircraft was somewhere north of cim about 125 miles away from ALS. In the event of search and rescue; there is no definite paired fix to fall back on and could end up in litigation for unnecessary reasons. I hesitated accepting the sector and the relieving controller asked if I wanted to get someone else out. I said that I did.I was redirected to sector 46 radar to get that controller out. During the pre-brief and almost ready to indicate that I had previewed the sector and was ready for the verbal briefing; someone else came to relieve me. I agreed to go. I put away my headset and asked the flm if it was ok to go or should I do something different. He indicated that I was scamming the system by refusing to take a position then taking a break and that I should probably just start over at the top of the list and get the next person out (a controller who arrived within 2 minutes of my arrival). There was no support from the flm for me trying to bring to light a common illegal procedure; only ridicule. This is an unacceptable response from those who are in charge of the control room and those who should be upholding of the rules that are supposed to be followed. He sarcastically told me I should 'let my conscious be my guide'. I told him to 'assign me work!' which he then reluctantly told me to take a break. I told him that regardless of the non-radar incident; I would be on a break right now.we need to review and reiterate the need for gnss routing to be paired with 2 fixes that can be re-callable from a database. Controllers seem to be unsure and unwilling to make these types of routes within compliance. We also need to reemphasize the NAVAID use limitation when not on a gnss route; including 'with respect to the field elevation'. The controller should not have accepted the handoff from ZAB (who has good radar); until the aircraft was on a good route.we also need to educate flm's on how embrace those in the control room who are pushing for adherence to the guidelines set forth and not create animosity. I don't understand this attitude. I expected support. This is not a 'safety culture' response from those in charge and this needs to be dealt with on that level also.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZDV Controller reported controllers are not issuing good GNSS routing in accordance with JO7110.65. Controller would not take sector with aircraft on improper routing.

Narrative: I arrived to work and was instructed to relieve the Sector 41 Radar Controller because he was going home soon. During the briefing; the controller reiterated that TAD Radar was out and that most of the aircraft were ADSB. I asked if anyone was on an 'illegal' route. He said he had Aircraft X at 170 MSL; non-radar going direct to ALS. I asked if he was paired with a fix to make it a legal route and he replied; no. This is an ongoing problem where controllers are not issuing good GNSS routing assuming that everything will 'work out fine'; which it does over 99.9% of the time; but is contrary to the 7110.65. The aircraft was somewhere north of CIM about 125 miles away from ALS. In the event of search and rescue; there is no definite paired fix to fall back on and could end up in litigation for unnecessary reasons. I hesitated accepting the sector and the relieving controller asked if I wanted to get someone else out. I said that I did.I was redirected to sector 46 Radar to get that controller out. During the pre-brief and almost ready to indicate that I had previewed the sector and was ready for the verbal briefing; someone else came to relieve me. I agreed to go. I put away my headset and asked the FLM if it was ok to go or should I do something different. He indicated that I was scamming the system by refusing to take a position then taking a break and that I should probably just start over at the top of the list and get the next person out (a controller who arrived within 2 minutes of MY arrival). There was no support from the FLM for me trying to bring to light a common illegal procedure; only ridicule. This is an unacceptable response from those who are in charge of the control room and those who should be upholding of the rules that are supposed to be followed. He sarcastically told me I should 'let my conscious be my guide'. I told him to 'assign me work!' which he then reluctantly told me to take a break. I told him that regardless of the Non-Radar incident; I would be on a break right now.We need to review and reiterate the need for GNSS routing to be paired with 2 fixes that can be re-callable from a database. Controllers seem to be unsure and unwilling to make these types of routes within compliance. We also need to reemphasize the NAVAID use limitation when not on a GNSS route; including 'with respect to the field elevation'. The controller should not have accepted the handoff from ZAB (who has good radar); until the aircraft was on a good route.We also need to educate FLM's on how embrace those in the control room who are pushing for adherence to the guidelines set forth and not create animosity. I don't understand this attitude. I expected support. This is not a 'safety culture' response from those in charge and this needs to be dealt with on that level also.

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.