Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I received a Risk Analysis Event for a situation that I was unaware of regarding Aircraft X that had filed an Equipment suffux /L indicating that the aircraft was RVSM capable. Apparently in the Remarks was something stating that they were Non-RVSM. I was working R86 for approx 3-5 minutes; Miami Center called me and informed me that Aircraft X (northbound aircraft) requesting FL430; wanted to level off at FL400 for a few minutes and that he was my control reference Aircraft Y southbound at FL410. Their was no mention of RVSM capability and no coral box around the call sign visually indicating that the aircraft was Negative RVSM. ZMA had the handoff on Aircraft Y. ZMA (R64) switched Aircraft X to me a few minutes later when the aircraft were a few miles apart near the boundary. After the aircraft had passed I asked Aircraft X if he was ready for higher; he said something about the rides being good and that he would stay at FL400 if able. There was no mention of RVSM at all; neither by the pilot or ZMA.  He was filed as a [aircraft type]/L. I had several aircraft at FL400; I gave shortcuts to a couple to keep them route seperated; Aircraft X asked if he could get direct ATL as well. I made that happen using Mach numbers with him and a like type ahead. It is my understanding that at some point a ZTL controller discoved the discrepancy between the remarks and equipment suffix that was filed. Perhaps the person responsible at the flight data position where this flight originated or whoever filed this flight plan at Flight Service in the NAS make sure that the equipement suffix and remarks section are accurate and clear. This aircraft made it all the way through ZMA and ZJX without anyone noticing. I to this day; do not know how it was written or desribed in the remarks section that the aircraft was Negative RVSM. It has been my experience that when a pilot checks on that is Negative RVSM; they usually state that even though it is know by the equipment suffix and the visual indicator (coral box); and prior coordination between controllers or supervisors.  I cant think of a single instance that I have discovered that an aircraft was Neg-RVSM by reading the remarks section of a flight plan. The information that is usually found there might be Sat phone # or Cuban overfly info; or a dog on board. Had I been sitting at the sector longer perhaps I would have discoved it but after a couple of minutes after sitting down I was answering land lines and working traffic. Im not a professonal pilot but I have encoutered enough situations where pilots have no idea as to what equipment suffix they are when they have a malfuntion of a piece of equipment. With the amount of times it has changed for controllers as well; it comes as no suprise that something like this has happened. On a daily basis I'm dealing with the RNP values and suffix's in order to issue an aircraft the advanced RNAV arrival into airports we serve. That goes for Air carriers and GA aircraft.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller reports of finding out later that an aircraft he worked in RVSM airspace was non-RVSM equipped leading to an operational error of not using 2;000 feet separation.