Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Workload; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The following occurred while I was working the North Departure/North High positions (E & H).  Aircraft X was descending on the JAIKE3 arrival.  As the aircraft was approaching the boundary with N90; I noticed that N90 Metro sector had not accepted the handoff.  I called Metro on the line for a handoff.  The Metro controller answered the line and stated that they were on the JFK radar site and couldn't see my traffic.  He stated that I should have already gotten the word on that.  I had not been advised of this; or any short-term procedure for dealing with it.  Anyway; since my aircraft was now entering N90's airspace; I requested permission from the Metro controller to enter his airspace.  The N90 Metro controller approved that request and I allowed Aircraft X to continue on the route into N90's airspace.  A few miles into N90 airspace; the controller accepted the automated handoff and I transferred communications.A few minutes later Aircraft Y was descending on the JAIKE3 arrival.  I called METRO when the aircraft was 15 miles from the boundary and requested permission to enter N90 airspace with Aircraft X.  The controller said okay.  I entered N90 airspace with Aircraft X and a few miles into their airspace the N90 controller accepted the automated handoff.  I transferred communications at that time.There is no procedure in the PHL/N90 LOA that deals with this issue between these 2 sectors.  We do have a 'Late Handoff Procedure' that deals with other sectors; for traffic transiting via RBV; but it does not address traffic between the PHL North High and Yardley sectors and the N90 METRO and Yardley sectors.  In other words; there is no late handoff procedure for JAIKE or V3 traffic.I spoke to the supervisor and the OM about how we should be handling the JAIKE and V3 traffic today; since N90 cannot see the traffic until it is in their airspace.  OM advised that we will use non-radar procedures with traffic on these routes.  I made a request of my OM and PHL TMU for 20 miles-in-trail from ZDC on traffic entering my airspace on the JAIKE3 arrival.  My request was denied; with no reason given.1.  'Late Handoff Procedures' do not currently exist for the sectors/routes described above (V3/JAIKE3/MAZIE2/V214 traffic).  There seems to be some confusion among N90 and PHL controllers regarding this fact.  Since we do have 'Late Handoff Procedures' for RBV traffic; I think that many controllers; FLMs; and OMs at both facilities assume that we also have them for other sectors/routes.  We do not.  This needs to be re-briefed to the workforce; including management.2.  'Late Handoff Procedures' should be developed jointly between N90 and PHL to address the sectors/routes above; to deal with instances when N90 is using backup radar.3.  N90 should adopt fused mode to provide them with adequate radar coverage of their entire airspace.4.  In the absence of #3 and #2 above; PHL airspace should be extended 5 miles to the east along the boundary with Metro.  PHL currently uses fused mode which provides much better radar coverage in this area than N90 currently has.  In the event that PHL loses fused mode for some reason; the PHL and the NXX radar sites still provide very good radar coverage in this location.5.  In the absence of #2; #3; and #4 above:  A 'Turn out area' should be developed and depicted on the radar map.  It could be conditional airspace; used for reversing course when N90 doesn't accept the hand off.  The LOA could be amended to say something like: 'PHL shall have control to take JAIKE traffic all the way to REGAL waypoint. If a hand off cannot be accomplished by REGAL; PHL shall be authorized to enter N90 airspace; in a left turn to a 240 heading (course reversal); at 7000.'6.  When PHL is using non-radar procedures on a major arrival route like the JAIKE3 arrival; a controller's request for modest miles-in-trail should not be denied.  The denial of my request for miles-in-trail will undoubtedly put the north high sector at risk for an operational error or worse.  I requested 20 miles so that we would be able to provide the appropriate non-radar separation to N90 (10 minutes) without having to vector all over our airspace prior to re-establishing the aircraft on the route in order to transition into non-radar.  Because the request was denied; the north high controller must now vector excessively for spacing; in a very small space; while also working PHL departure traffic; and then get the aircraft back on the route; pass the estimates; and terminate radar.  This denial of miles-in-trail leads me to believe that management and TMU do not understand non-radar separation and the workload increase it will cause.




Synopsis: PHL TRACON Controller described a situation where the receiving sector is using a different radar feed which the PHL Controller is not aware of. Airspace is violated by the receiving controller and when he calls the other sector; he finds out about the radar use. Controller implements plan for future handoffs and requests Miles In-Trail [MIT]; which are denied by management.