Operation deviation.

Attributes
ACN	290629
Time
Date	199412
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : nrr
State Reference	PR
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : sju
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	other : other
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	departure sid : sid
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : departure
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller radar : 1
ASRS Report	290629
Person 2
Affiliation	government : military
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : military pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : investigated
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Deviation

Narrative:

How it arose, aircraft was on a prang east departure, a procedure used at this facility, the aircraft was not climbed, nor did the aircraft request to climb. Contributing factors: WX was a factor. Perhaps military personnel using local national guard procedures could become more familiar prior to filing flight plans arbitrarily. How it was discovered, pilot brought the altitude to my attention. Correct actions. Minimum vectoring altitude review, 7110.65 H review, and test to include military letters of agreements, 2 hours of dynamic simulation (dysim), 10 hours of OJT. Perceptions judgements decisions. I perceived the aircraft was IFR due to past practices, the aircraft would cancel at a particular fix. Judgement, the lack of judgement in not climbing the aircraft. Decision, to let the pilot request something that is not consistent with procedures, ie: direct roosevelt roads (nrr) at 3000 ft, the inaction of 'letting an aircraft fly below the MVA.' factors: effecting quality of human performance: none that I can recall!

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: OP DEV.

Narrative: HOW IT AROSE, ACFT WAS ON A PRANG E DEP, A PROC USED AT THIS FACILITY, THE ACFT WAS NOT CLBED, NOR DID THE ACFT REQUEST TO CLB. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: WX WAS A FACTOR. PERHAPS MIL PERSONNEL USING LCL NATIONAL GUARD PROCS COULD BECOME MORE FAMILIAR PRIOR TO FILING FLT PLANS ARBITRARILY. HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED, PLT BROUGHT THE ALT TO MY ATTN. CORRECT ACTIONS. MINIMUM VECTORING ALT REVIEW, 7110.65 H REVIEW, AND TEST TO INCLUDE MIL LETTERS OF AGREEMENTS, 2 HRS OF DYNAMIC SIMULATION (DYSIM), 10 HRS OF OJT. PERCEPTIONS JUDGEMENTS DECISIONS. I PERCEIVED THE ACFT WAS IFR DUE TO PAST PRACTICES, THE ACFT WOULD CANCEL AT A PARTICULAR FIX. JUDGEMENT, THE LACK OF JUDGEMENT IN NOT CLBING THE ACFT. DECISION, TO LET THE PLT REQUEST SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH PROCS, IE: DIRECT ROOSEVELT ROADS (NRR) AT 3000 FT, THE INACTION OF 'LETTING AN ACFT FLY BELOW THE MVA.' FACTORS: EFFECTING QUALITY OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE: NONE THAT I CAN RECALL!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.