Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was working R30. We received a call from Traffic Management Unit (TMU) stating that Mazatlan Center lost radar and communications and we had to reroute aircraft that were originally routed via TIJ; ASUTA; MXL; to be routed via J2.GBN.TUS.J92.HMO and tie it back into their previous route of flight. There was nothing to be done for the aircraft already in; or in close proximity to our airspace; however; I have a couple of issues with the way things happened for subsequent aircraft.First of all; this reroute was a minimum of 300 additional flight miles for all these aircraft. Some of them would have been extra; and even a few could have been potentially less. Additionally; our TMU put a ground stop on all Mexican bound departures; but as far as I could tell that was for LA Center airports only. It was left to Sectors 30 and 31 to assign the reroutes. I do not have a problem shouldering the extra work; but when so much additional flight time was necessary; I feel it was the duty of TMU to issue those reroutes as soon as possible to airborne aircraft prior to them reaching Area E's airspace for the purposes of fuel conservation calculations. Additionally; aircraft were still being permitted to launch from airports [farther north] with no reroute. This is willful to gross negligence. We had the ability and power to tell the aircraft already on the ground that they were going to be flying at least an additional 300 flight miles; which would have allowed them to calculate fuel on the ground so that they could either return to their line for additional fuel; cancel the flight until further notice; or takeoff with their reroute to allow for as minimal additional flight miles as would have been possible. If for some reason there is a miscalculation by the pilots and dispatchers on airborne aircraft; and/or they catch an unexpected headwind after the reroutes; and they have to divert; or are operating under the impression that they can make it to their destination only to run out of fuel and crash; that would be on us because we had the chance to prevent it; which is why I characterize it as gross or willful negligence. I initially informed the CIC that aircraft were concerned about not having enough fuel and he called TMU; I am unsure what became of that conversation; but since they were still launching aircraft; I assume nothing. I asked my supervisor when he came back and replaced the CIC if they were still launching aircraft [from the north] and he rather hotly insisted that it was just a reroute and implied that we were going to do nothing to ensure safety of flight; also indicating that I was being insolent or insubordinate where I was expressing genuine concerns for the safety of the aircraft involved.Fix the route of the aircraft while they were still on the ground to allow for additional fuel; or fix the routes of flight as soon as possible to airborne aircraft to allow for a minimum of increased flight miles.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported being required to issue lengthy reroutes to aircraft around Mazatlan Center due to equipment outage.