Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Procedure
I was working an F900. I pointed out the aircraft to adjacent satellite Sector (P) on an eastbound heading at 90. Sat (P) had LJ60 traffic at 70 and handed him off to the Departure Sector (N). N has control for climb after accepting the radar handoff. N climbed the LR60 on a northeasterly heading. Sat P failed to point out his accepted point out to the departure sector. I noticed the LJ60 climbing into my traffic; I immediately issued a turn to 180 heading on my F900. I determined this turn was not sufficient and turned the aircraft more to the southwest and descended the aircraft to 80. I have no idea the proximity; but it looked close. These procedures seem a little misleading to me. The departure sector(S) that I hand off too doesn't own airspace for 20 miles and we are not required to point out the aircraft to the (N) Sector. The P Sector is required to do the point out but that sector is very often extremely busy running all departures and arrivals for both LZU and PDK. So as it often happens; P is responsible for separation of 2 aircraft when he is talking to neither one. I understand it was an error on the P controller but it seems we could maybe standardize the procedure as it is done differently by numerous controllers.
A80 Controller described a loss of separation event claiming the local point out procedures are less than positive with regard to controller actions and responsibilities.