Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Distraction; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airport; Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
After being handed off by IAH Departure to Center we were given direct to our destination as we climbed through 11;000 FT. Around 13;000 FT and near Lake Jackson TCAS alerted us of traffic and a few seconds later an RA was received to descend. We complied with the descent to around 12;000 FT and; after traffic was gone; continued our climb to FL280. I informed ATC we were complying with a RA. After the RA I saw and told ATC type plane (it look like a Short 360). After RA we climb we were handed off to next sector and continued to the airport and landed.While sitting on ground operations informed us to contact Tower. We called Tower who said TRACON wanted to talk to us. The person I spoke to asked me if I saw any skydivers. I said no; all I saw was the plane. He explained that the direct clearance was given too early to us. He said they have a Letter of Agreement with a skydiving [operation] up to 14;000 FT. ATC never informed us of any traffic.
At the time of my briefing there were three aircraft departing the Houston terminal area; bound for south Texas and Mexico. During the briefing; I was told the incident flight was on frequency; climbing to FL280 and direct to its destination which is normal procedure for that flight. I signed into the sector as I heard the crew say they were responding to an RA. I immediately looked at the aircraft on my scope and saw a limited data block at 12 o'clock; 5 miles; same altitude. I called traffic to the pilot whose answer was; 'affirmative; we are in a descent.' I then called Houston Approach on the shout line to inform them of the flight's intentions. The controller at approach said; 'OK; but why isn't he on the SID.' I replied; 'We have control on departures out of 110 for turns; so we turned him to his destination.' We [later] learned the other aircraft involved was being worked by Houston Approach and was conducting parachute jumping operations in the area. The aircraft had been climbing to approximately 14;000 FT before releasing their jumpers. The Controller at Houston Approach; as well as his Manager were both unaware that Center had control to turn aircraft climbing out of their airspace. Therefore; the Controller was under the impression that the flight would continue on their assigned departure procedure and remain clear of the jump aircraft.Recently; Houston airspace was completely changed with the implementation of Metroplex. It was at that time numerous changes to LOAs and airspace design took effect. One of these changes was releasing control of aircraft when they departed 11;000 FT. It's my opinion and the opinion of numerous other controllers that training on these changes were inadequate. Every arrival and departure to Houston was changed and we received a day and a half of training. Controllers have done a remarkable job adjusting to the change but it has not been without incident. This is one of them. Clearly the controller and Management at Houston Approach missed or overlooked the change [as to] when Center had control.
Inadequate Controller training in the revised ZHU airspace was cited as a contributing factor when an EMB-145 was cleared direct to its destination through an active jump zone contrary to a revised Letter of Agreement specifying which ATC entity was responsible for the airspace under those conditions.