Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (mon) 6
Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Three aircraft departed Aspen consecutively; initially on the same course. Aircraft X departed first and was climbed to FL 180 per his flight plan and after meeting MVA requirements was given a turn direct HBU per his flight plan. Then the Aircraft Y departed and during his climb out; unknown VFR traffic became a factor. Traffic was given: '12 o clock; 9 miles; opposite direction; altitude indicates 13;700. Aircraft Y acknowledged. Then Aircraft Z departed behind Aircraft Y with a faster airspeed and faster rate of climb. At this point; I should have turned Aircraft Y; or perhaps increased his speed to ensure positive control between him and Aircraft Z; all while updating Aircraft Y on the VFR traffic. However; I didn't see that Aircraft Z could be a factor with Aircraft Y; because my attention was drawn by Aircraft X. I was unable to perform an automated handoff of Aircraft X due to an unknown system error; so I attempted a verbal handoff with Denver Center Sector 12 controller. Sector 12 controller advised he could see the aircraft but could not accept a handoff because the aircraft was not tagging up. Sector 12 controller inquired to the reason for this discrepancy; asked if I had sent a departure message via FDIO (Flight Data Input/Output); the SUPVR/CIC/Ground controller told me he had tried it. As this exchange was taking place; Aircraft X was too close to airspace boundary to turn back to Aspen airspace without crossing the boundary; so I requested and received a point out from Sector 12 instead of a handoff. After ensuring the point out of Aircraft X; I scanned my departures and called traffic to Aircraft Y again: '11 o clock; 1 mile; opposite direction.' Aircraft Y advised he had traffic in sight and was maintaining visual separation. During this exchange; an approval request was made from another sector for an arriving aircraft and a separate aircraft belonging to Denver was approved in Aspen airspace by my SUPVR/CIC/GC. These two approval requests were not dangerous factors other than the fact that they increased traffic complexity. At this point I observed Aircraft Z for the first time; out climbing Aircraft Y and moving faster. I told Aircraft Z 'radar contact.' I then turned Aircraft Y away from Aircraft Z; then turned Aircraft Z away from Aircraft Y. They never came within 3 miles or 1000 feet of each other. Separation was not lost but I thought it was lost and advised the supervisor that I thought it was lost. I continued to work for approximately 20 minutes. The traffic I worked thereafter was difficult in complexity because of the exchanges that had taken time away from other priorities. I feel the issues worth reporting here are that perhaps the tower was under staffed; and perhaps Denver sector 12 should have taken a handoff on Aircraft X; also if the local controller would have stopped the climb of Aircraft Z or waited to depart the aircraft; this would have helped. I feel nothing of note would have happened if Aircraft X had 'tagged up.'I don't have a recommendation. These circumstances could not have been expected by the supervisor or myself. Traffic was not such that a handoff controller would seem necessary until Aircraft X became an issue.
ASE TRACON Controller reports of ASE Tower sending three aircraft off the runway into his airspace that needed to be separated more. He tries to separate the aircraft and hand off to ZDV but has difficulties. He violates airspace and eventually hands off all three aircraft.