Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 6.5
Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Human Factors; Procedure
I was working sector 29. Sector 90/98 was combined up and had both [Aircraft X] and [Aircraft Y] on frequency. 90/98 shipped [Aircraft X] to sector 84 and proceeded to hand [Aircraft Y] off to my sector. The two aircraft were going to hit in Rivers sector 84/94 about 4-6 mins into their sector. 84/94 called and requested control of [Aircraft Y]. [Aircraft Y] was clipping my corner and was only going to be in my airspace for 2 minutes. I immediately flashed [Aircraft Y] to 84/94 because of the traffic situation which they bought immediately. Since 90/98 was combined up; they were handing 84/94 the deal. 84/94 called 90/98 for control as well because of the deal they were being handed.[Controller X] released control to 84/94 and was well aware of the traffic situation he was giving Rivers. [Controller X] is notorious for not using the flash through [Automated Information Transfer (AIT)] procedure. Although it's not a requirement to use the AIT; he chooses not to use it to make it irritating for pilots. He chose to put [Aircraft Y] on my frequency instead of 84/94 (who actually had the handoff). 90/98 caused a potential for the aircraft to go NORDO or miss the frequency. Time was lost due to the extra frequency change and confusion. I called 90/98 for control to start something and [Controller X] responded that he already released control to 84/94. I said;'I know because I released control to them in my airspace as well but you put [Aircraft Y] on my frequency anyway'.Not knowing what 84/94's plan was with [Aircraft Y]; I shipped the aircraft to 84/94 and immediately checked to make sure the aircraft checked on. [Controller X] caused a safety situation just out of his own enjoyment which is a huge safety violation. After I ensured that [Aircraft Y] make it over to 84/94; I called [Controller X] at 90/98 to inquire what happened? I asked why he put [Aircraft Y] on my frequency when he knowingly had a traffic for that aircraft. He stated; 'You bought the handoff; didn't you?'. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. A few minutes later he was taking a break and missed/chose not to fix two more aircraft that were entering my airspace at FL360.The relieving controller had to call me to say '90/98; new controller here and we are handing you a deal. What would you like us to do?' [Controller X] is allowing aircraft to be pointed at each other for shear enjoyment. Upon turning the information into the Front Line Manager; they started the Falcon and saw that during this period he had in fact handed another deal to 84/94 at FL400. I do believe he is doing this deliberately to cause a safety issue.Recommend an amendment to the AIT that states; 'In a traffic situation or event; the sector that has the Hand-off shall receive communication of the aircraft'. This would prevent controllers from 'playing' with the aircraft by doing multiple frequency changes. Less frequency changes will reduce the likeliness of the aircraft to go NORDO or mess up a frequency; a huge safety benefit.
Kansas City Center Controller reported of an operational error that was caused by another Controller. Reporter stated this Controller does not follow procedures and does this often.