A80 controller described a loss of separation event claiming the local point out procedures are less...

Narrative:

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 (north). North has control for climb after accepting the radar handoff. North 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(south) that I hand off too doesn't own airspace for 20 miles and we are not required to point out the aircraft to the (north) 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.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 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.

Narrative: 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.

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	1092292
Time
Date	201306
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ATL.Airport
State Reference	GA
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Falcon 900
Flight Phase	Climb
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Learjet 60
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Climb
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Departure Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types

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.