ZHU Controller voiced concern regarding the non-adherence to LOA directives concerning the operation of W228C and W228B.
Synopsis
ZHU Controller voiced concern regarding the non-adherence to LOA directives concerning the operation of W228C and W228B.
Narrative
I was briefed that W228C and W228B were active from FL190-210. I called Victoria Low Controller and he said he had no knowledge of them being active and that they hadn't been active since he sat down. I only called him because my D-Side happened to look at the active airspace on URET's GPD and we saw it wasn't activated there. I have been reporting problems with the coordination of W228 directly to Management for several years. I would estimate that 80% of the time when I work either Ocean West or Offshore West; something to do with that airspace will be wrong. For example; showing [that] the airspace [is] active when it is not; showing no airspace activation when in fact airspace is active; showing the airspace active at altitudes other than what my data block shows. 1) I have already identified a gap in procedures where no one is required to communicate altitudes released from Offshore for W228A to Victoria Low. This gap in procedure has not been resolved by the facility. 2) Coordination between all involved parties is failing and I think controllers and FLMs need to be held accountable to ensure the status of all SAAs are accurate.
Second reporter narrative
Seagull called me to ask for release of my sector altitudes (8;000-10;000 FT) in W228D; in violation of ZHU & Naval Air Training Command LOA. I advised Seagull that I was unable to release the altitudes to him and that he needed to call Victoria Low per LOA. He responded with confusion and I advised him that the LOA only allowed him to call Offshore West directly for release of W228A. All other W228 coordination goes through Victoria Low. We hung up and a few minutes later he called me again questioning my interpretation of the LOA. I pulled up the LOA and read to him the exact wording and then we ended the call. I then called Victoria Low and advised him that Seagull would be calling him for W228D and that he (Victoria Low) should call me back once he had coordinated with Seagull. He indicated that he didn't understand why Seagull was calling him for my sector altitudes. I believe the LOA and/or SOP procedures for W228 airspace are regularly ignored/violated which leads to confusion; unnecessary distraction; and diminished safety. I believe Victoria Low controllers are resistant to having to call another ZHU sector to obtain release of that sector's altitudes for SAA activation. I suspect Seagull has been told to call Offshore West often enough that they think it's part of the LOA to call them for all W228 areas. And I suspect many Offshore West controllers either don't know the LOA and/or SOP or don't care because of the lack of IFR traffic in the area. Recommendation; 1) Simplify the LOA by requiring Seagull to only have to coordinate with one Center sector for all of W228 (Victoria Low). As it is now; neither Seagull nor Offshore West are required to coordinate with Victoria Low those altitudes released by Offshore West to Seagull in W228A. If Seagull is calling Offshore West directly for other W228 areas; how can Victoria know what is active and what is cold? While this would require Victoria Low to call Offshore for release; Victoria Low would then always know the exact status of all of all W228 areas and could also enter correct altitudes into URET/EDST.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.