ZAU controller described a loss of separation event involving a number of sectors; the reporter clai...

Narrative:

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.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAU Controller described a loss of separation event involving a number of sectors; the reporter claiming the 'flash through' procedure was a contributing factor.

Narrative: 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.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1031251
Time
Date	201208
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZAU.ARTCC
State Reference	IL
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Climb
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Cruise
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Person 2
Function	Supervisor / CIC
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Airspace Violation All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

ZAU controller described a loss of separation event involving a number of sectors; the reporter claiming the 'flash through' procedure was a contributing factor.