Narrative:

I was appleton high controller over central ohio working FL240-FL310. Air carrier X was a cleveland inbound eventually needing clearance to 15,000' per LOA with cleveland ARTCC. Cleveland inbnds travel over tvt V525 ritzs cle. A problem occurs because pittsburgh departures climb to FL310 over tvt. Procedurally this is a serious problem, especially in summer as climb rates deteriorate. Air carrier X had been cleared to FL240 and direct to tvt on course. Air carrier X previously had been on a 320 degree heading for intrail spacing. I saw that air carrier X was in conflict with 2 pittsburgh departures and called the columbus low altitude controller for a lower altitude. They approved FL190 with respect to air carrier Y. At the time of the request air carrier Y was tracking eastbound in a holding pattern for dtw (dtw impacted by thunderstorms). Columbus low controller did not tell me that air carrier Y was in hold, and I descended air carrier X to FL190. To complicate matters, air carrier X was still in the turn to tvt, and for unknown reasons, the columbus controller thought that air carrier X was on an assigned heading to stay west of air carrier Y. Action was taken to maintain 5 mi, but all we got was 4 mi. To me there were 3 causative factors: 1) first and foremost, the failure of the columbus low controller to precisely indicate to me air carrier Y's flight path. 2) the dangerous procedure of running inbound and outbnd traffic over the same fix (in this case tvt VOR). 3) when the error occurred, I had been plugged in for 1 hour 59 mins. Traffic was extremely heavy, as all routes north of my area had been closed due to thunderstorm activity. Ind ARTCC has lousy, unconscionable staffing. Gao says ind ARTCC should have 300+ fpl controllers. We have no more than 170. My area actually has less fpl's than in 1982. Had I been more fresh, this error might not have occurred.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X HAD LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION FROM ACR Y DURING DESCENT. SYSTEM ERROR.

Narrative: I WAS APPLETON HIGH CTLR OVER CENTRAL OHIO WORKING FL240-FL310. ACR X WAS A CLEVELAND INBND EVENTUALLY NEEDING CLRNC TO 15,000' PER LOA WITH CLEVELAND ARTCC. CLEVELAND INBNDS TRAVEL OVER TVT V525 RITZS CLE. A PROBLEM OCCURS BECAUSE PITTSBURGH DEPS CLIMB TO FL310 OVER TVT. PROCEDURALLY THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY IN SUMMER AS CLIMB RATES DETERIORATE. ACR X HAD BEEN CLRED TO FL240 AND DIRECT TO TVT ON COURSE. ACR X PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN ON A 320 DEG HDG FOR INTRAIL SPACING. I SAW THAT ACR X WAS IN CONFLICT WITH 2 PITTSBURGH DEPS AND CALLED THE COLUMBUS LOW ALT CTLR FOR A LOWER ALT. THEY APPROVED FL190 WITH RESPECT TO ACR Y. AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST ACR Y WAS TRACKING EBND IN A HOLDING PATTERN FOR DTW (DTW IMPACTED BY TSTMS). COLUMBUS LOW CTLR DID NOT TELL ME THAT ACR Y WAS IN HOLD, AND I DESCENDED ACR X TO FL190. TO COMPLICATE MATTERS, ACR X WAS STILL IN THE TURN TO TVT, AND FOR UNKNOWN REASONS, THE COLUMBUS CTLR THOUGHT THAT ACR X WAS ON AN ASSIGNED HDG TO STAY WEST OF ACR Y. ACTION WAS TAKEN TO MAINTAIN 5 MI, BUT ALL WE GOT WAS 4 MI. TO ME THERE WERE 3 CAUSATIVE FACTORS: 1) FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE FAILURE OF THE COLUMBUS LOW CTLR TO PRECISELY INDICATE TO ME ACR Y'S FLT PATH. 2) THE DANGEROUS PROC OF RUNNING INBND AND OUTBND TFC OVER THE SAME FIX (IN THIS CASE TVT VOR). 3) WHEN THE ERROR OCCURRED, I HAD BEEN PLUGGED IN FOR 1 HR 59 MINS. TFC WAS EXTREMELY HEAVY, AS ALL ROUTES NORTH OF MY AREA HAD BEEN CLOSED DUE TO TSTM ACTIVITY. IND ARTCC HAS LOUSY, UNCONSCIONABLE STAFFING. GAO SAYS IND ARTCC SHOULD HAVE 300+ FPL CTLRS. WE HAVE NO MORE THAN 170. MY AREA ACTUALLY HAS LESS FPL'S THAN IN 1982. HAD I BEEN MORE FRESH, THIS ERROR MIGHT NOT HAVE OCCURRED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.