Narrative:

During performing duties as radar associate on sector 63 and 69 stratified FL290 and above (combined) I have received a call from sector 13 controller; whose sector is stratified FL280 and below; with point out on air carrier X heading eastbound and climbing to FL350. After searching for potential traffic conflicts that would be a factor for that air carrier X; I identified that I did have traffic at FL300 and advised the sector 13 controller that I was unable his/her request due to traffic. I have advised the sector 13 controller to keep the air carrier X at FL290. The controller of sector 13 found that it would be operational advantageous to hand off air carrier X to our sector 63 and 69 which is normal procedure. I pointed out to the r-side that air carrier X was flashing with a hand off to us. Radar controller of sector 63 and 69 had identified that the air carrier Y could be a potential traffic that was heading west on pacot routes R220 at FL300. The work load was high because of traffic requesting to be rerouted through the russian airspace due to volcanic ash. After completion with coordination with russian ARTCC; I heard that the right side issued a vector for the air carrier X to turn 20 degrees left for traffic. Then air carrier Y inquired about a traffic that was displayed on TCAS. The r-side had responded to inquiring air carrier Y with information about that aircraft/traffic (air carrier X). Later I learned that air carrier Y and air carrier X had passed each other with 5.85 miles of separation. My recommendation would be for better development of traffic pattern design for departing and climbing aircraft through nopac routes; it could be done via lateral or vertical restrictions procedures. Simplify the approval for entry into russian airspace; the local magadan; russia ARTCC authorities need to delegate more authority; so they do not have to wait for moscow command center to issue the permit; it is takes long time; and often urgency exists where quicker process will help in situations like we had on the day of event.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Distracted by the cumbersome coordination requirements with Russian Controllers; a ZAN Controller experienced a near loss of separation event during multiple re-routes required to avoid volcanic ash areas.

Narrative: During performing duties as RADAR Associate on Sector 63 and 69 stratified FL290 and above (combined) I have received a call from Sector 13 Controller; whose sector is stratified FL280 and below; with point out on Air Carrier X heading eastbound and climbing to FL350. After searching for potential traffic conflicts that would be a factor for that Air Carrier X; I identified that I did have traffic at FL300 and advised the Sector 13 Controller that I was unable his/her request due to traffic. I have advised the Sector 13 Controller to keep the Air Carrier X at FL290. The Controller of Sector 13 found that it would be operational advantageous to hand off Air Carrier X to our Sector 63 and 69 which is normal procedure. I pointed out to the R-Side that Air Carrier X was flashing with a hand off to us. RADAR Controller of Sector 63 and 69 had identified that the Air Carrier Y could be a potential traffic that was heading west on PACOT routes R220 at FL300. The work load was high because of traffic requesting to be rerouted through the Russian airspace due to volcanic ash. After completion with coordination with Russian ARTCC; I heard that the R Side issued a vector for the Air Carrier X to turn 20 degrees left for traffic. Then Air Carrier Y inquired about a traffic that was displayed on TCAS. The R-Side had responded to inquiring Air Carrier Y with information about that aircraft/traffic (Air Carrier X). Later I learned that Air Carrier Y and Air Carrier X had passed each other with 5.85 miles of separation. My recommendation would be for better development of traffic pattern design for departing and climbing aircraft through NOPAC routes; it could be done via lateral or vertical restrictions procedures. Simplify the approval for entry into Russian airspace; the local Magadan; Russia ARTCC authorities need to delegate more authority; so they do not have to wait for Moscow Command Center to issue the permit; it is takes long time; and often urgency exists where quicker process will help in situations like we had on the day of event.

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.