Multiple reports from controllers chronicling the absence of correct flight plan information; i.e. R...

Narrative:

I was working the radar position at the wabash sector. The traffic volume was heavy but complexity was about average. I accepted the hand off on a glex but failed to notice that the glex was non-rvsm per the flight strip notes. The aircraft was filed as a glex/Q which is rvsm capable and I did not dig deeper into the flight strip notes to think any differently. I handled the glex as an rvsm equipped aircraft until I started the hand off to ZKC. The ZKC receiving sector called my d-side to ask if the glex was rvsm capable at which time we were alerted to the flight strip notes saying that they were not. I then asked the glex if he was rvsm capable at which time he said he was not. I then vectored the aircraft to miss FL390 traffic opposite direction. We then asked the aircraft if he could accept FL430 (non-rvsm altitude) at which time they said they could. We then climbed the glex to FL430 and switched the aircraft to ZKC. My recommendation would be to make sure that the correct identifier is always used for all aircraft especially those that are non-rvsm that are in or transitioning through rvsm airspace.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Multiple reports from controllers chronicling the absence of correct Flight Plan information; i.e. RVSM qualified; resulting in potential non standard separation event.

Narrative: I was working the RADAR position at the Wabash Sector. The traffic volume was heavy but complexity was about average. I accepted the hand off on a GLEX but failed to notice that the GLEX was NON-RVSM per the flight strip notes. The aircraft was filed as a GLEX/Q which is RVSM capable and I did not dig deeper into the flight strip notes to think any differently. I handled the GLEX as an RVSM equipped aircraft until I started the hand off to ZKC. The ZKC receiving sector called my D-Side to ask if the GLEX was RVSM capable at which time we were alerted to the flight strip notes saying that they were not. I then asked the GLEX if he was RVSM capable at which time he said he was not. I then vectored the aircraft to miss FL390 traffic opposite direction. We then asked the aircraft if he could accept FL430 (non-RVSM altitude) at which time they said they could. We then climbed the GLEX to FL430 and switched the aircraft to ZKC. My recommendation would be to make sure that the correct identifier is always used for all aircraft especially those that are Non-RVSM that are in or transitioning through RVSM airspace.

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.

Attributes
ACN	969761
Time
Date	201109
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	ZID.ARTCC
State Reference	IN
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Global Express (BD700)
Flight Phase	Cruise
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Person 2
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Airspace Violation All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Multiple reports from controllers chronicling the absence of correct flight plan information; i.e. Rvsm qualified; resulting in potential non standard separation event.