Multiple reports from controllers chronicling the absence of correct Flight Plan information; i.e. RVSM qualified; resulting in potential non standard separation event.
Synopsis
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.
Second reporter narrative
A GLEX filed a flight plan using ARINC via phone. The flight information given to the ARINC operator was correct and accurate and included remarks of 'NON RVSM'. The ARINC person receiving the information and entering the information into their system inadvertently left the 'W box' in the default position as being checked which apparently processed the flight plan as a '/Q' rather than as a '/R'. The GLEX originally requested to climb to FL430 above RVSM airspace. While climbing to FL430 and experiencing weight limitations with ZOB; the GLEX asked for and received clearance to maintain FL400 which is not authorized as a NON-RVSM aircraft. The aircraft reported onto ZID frequencies level at FL400 but did not use the required phraseology as noted in the AIM for NON-RVSM aircraft and the data block did not display a coral box designating the flight as NON-RVSM because of the coding mistake made earlier by the ARINC operator. Additionally; the remarks of 'NON-RVSM' were not detected/observed by the ZOB Controller that initially assigned the aircraft FL400; nor by the 3 ZID sector controllers as the aircraft flew across ZID. As a result; the GLEX traversed ZID airspace unknown as a NON-RVSM aircraft and came in proximity to three separate aircraft in ZID airspace with less than the required separation. Recommendation; General Aviation pilots do not have a sufficient awareness of the requirements in RVSM airspace. Further training is required to heighten their knowledge level. Controllers do not generally look at the remarks as required by FAAO7110.65 13-1-5c because their importance is viewed as minimal. The remarks in URET are annotated by a yellow asterisk until opened and then are displayed as a white asterisk. A better visual cue should be used. Also; the information in the AIM for the required phraseology the pilot should state as 'NON-RVSM' should be made regulatory.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.