A320
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Human Factors; Procedure
I was working another position when my Supervisor instructed me to go to the Badger D-Side. Upon plugging in my headset and glancing at the RADAR scope; I noticed that the sector was fairly busy. I decided to forgo the briefing; and simply ask if anything needed immediate action. A few point outs and coordination items were completed by me. Eventually a few minutes passed; and we received an aircraft from Sector 27 that was climbing westbound; roughly out of FL240. At the same time; we had an A320 routed Petty and points eastbound; climbing to FL230. At the time the aircraft were approximately 20 miles apart and my RADAR Controller decided not to climb the A320. The A320 was still out of FL180; so I estimated that there would be no need to call the lower sectors to inform them that we were not climbing the A320. A few moments passed; and now the A320 was approaching FL230; roughly out of FL220. At that time; the Conflict Alert started going off with an aircraft at Badger which we had no knowledge about; a McDonnell Douglas also climbing to FL230; roughly 5 miles ahead of the A320. I then told the RADAR to climb the A320; the Controller did; to FL240. In my opinion; there was very little to no delay of the A320 being level at FL230. After my personal review of the Falcon replay; there was already a loss of separation with the A320 at FL229 and the McDonnell Douglas at FL223. Squib had 'flashed through' the A320 with an AIT function. This is a sign to me that they had accepted responsibility for separation for the two aircraft that they had both received from the Harly Sector. The Harly and Squib Sectors need to learn how to separate their own traffic. Harly needed to use speed control between the A320 and the McDonnell Douglas; their own traffic. Badger had no knowledge whatsoever in the DTW arrival; the McDonnell Douglas. Also; Squib should not have turned the McDonnell Douglas who was on a vector towards the SUDDS Intersection however drastically they did to make the A320 and the McDonnell Douglas traffic for each other. Since the loss of separation occurred before Badger could do anything to resolve the situation and separate traffic; I do not feel that calling the lower sectors (Harly and Squib) would have achieved anything.
I was working BAE R-Side and an A320 checked on from low Sector 62 climbing to FL230. This aircraft was a flash through procedure with low altitude Sectors 62 flashing to Sector 27 and then to high altitude Sector 60. Conflict Alert went off shortly after as the A320 aircraft was over taking a McDonnell Douglas also climbing to FL230. Separation was lost between Sectors 62 and 27 airspace in low altitude stratum below my sector. I expedited a climb to FL240 for the A320. FL240 was only available due to traffic opposite direction. Stop the flash through procedure. Separation was lost due to confusion as to whose responsibility it was to separate the aircraft involved. Was it 62 or 27? Sector 27 took action by giving a control instruction to the McDonnell Douglas while being aware of the A320 aircraft because he executed a flash through. However; said Controller believes it was 62 Sector's responsibility to separate the two aircraft by using altitude because in the flash through procedure Sector 27 has control for turns on aircraft therefore Sector 62 should ensure or protect for such turns. Take away the flash through procedure; Sector 27 takes RADAR on all aircraft climbing through their sector. Or perhaps take away the ability for Sector 27's control for turns.
ZAU Controller described a loss of separation event involving a number of sectors; the reporter claiming the 'flash through' procedure was a contributing factor.