Narrative:

I was radar controller and accepted a hand off on a PA34 five miles south of rkd at 7;000. Per our LOA with pwm approach; I had control for descent (10 miles from airspace boundary and east of V93). At approximately 3 miles east of rkd; I told the PA34; 'descend at pilot's discretion; maintain 3;000'. The pilot read instructions back and began a gradual descent. A few moments later; the aircraft was approximately 8 miles east of rkd and I noticed a target underneath the PA34. As I slewed on target to see beacon code and speed information; pwm approach called on the shout line with an IFR point out. I picked up the line and the controller asked for a point out on code 3465 10 miles east of rkd; a jet climbing to center altitudes east bound stopping at 6;000. Bgr owns a shelf 6;000-10;000 above rkd and both aircraft were well within the bgr airspace boundaries. At this point their jet was climbing out of 4;000 at a rapid rate and the PA35 was descending slowly through 5;000. Longitudinal separation was established but only because of the actions I took. I believe there was training in progress at pwm. This airspace over rkd is problematic. Pwm approach cannot usually see targets below 5;000 in that area; yet they own the airspace? In this case though; the jet should have never been released off rkd (especially without prior coordination with bgr since it was cleared into bgr's airspace) because of numerous reasons. Had aircraft 2 not been a jet; I don't know what would have happened. [We need] prior coordination of rkd departure with bgr approach; altitude restriction; which without coordination would not work because of the LOA. Hold aircraft until there was no confliction. Bangor approach should own this airspace to the surface. Bangor sees all aircraft to almost 1;000 ft; pwm approach can hardly see aircraft at 5;500.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BGR Controller voiced concern regarding the airspace over RKD; describing the shelf airspace as problematic; noting a recent near loss of separation as evidence of the confused airspace.

Narrative: I was RADAR Controller and accepted a hand off on a PA34 five miles south of RKD at 7;000. Per our LOA with PWM Approach; I had control for descent (10 miles from airspace boundary and east of V93). At approximately 3 miles east of RKD; I told the PA34; 'descend at pilot's discretion; maintain 3;000'. The pilot read instructions back and began a gradual descent. A few moments later; the aircraft was approximately 8 miles east of RKD and I noticed a target underneath the PA34. As I slewed on target to see beacon code and speed information; PWM Approach called on the shout line with an IFR point out. I picked up the line and the Controller asked for a point out on code 3465 10 miles east of RKD; a jet climbing to center altitudes east bound stopping at 6;000. BGR owns a shelf 6;000-10;000 above RKD and both aircraft were well within the BGR airspace boundaries. At this point their jet was climbing out of 4;000 at a rapid rate and the PA35 was descending slowly through 5;000. Longitudinal separation was established but only because of the actions I took. I believe there was training in progress at PWM. This airspace over RKD is problematic. PWM Approach cannot usually see targets below 5;000 in that area; yet they own the airspace? In this case though; the jet should have never been released off RKD (especially without prior coordination with BGR since it was cleared into BGR's airspace) because of numerous reasons. Had aircraft 2 not been a jet; I don't know what would have happened. [We need] prior coordination of RKD Departure with BGR Approach; altitude restriction; which without coordination would not work because of the LOA. Hold aircraft until there was no confliction. Bangor Approach should own this airspace to the surface. Bangor sees all aircraft to almost 1;000 FT; PWM Approach can hardly see aircraft at 5;500.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.