Narrative:

I was working sector 21/22 when I received a call from socal TRACON laker sector on an aircraft X that would be operating VFR; circling in the vicinity of sli. I approved the point out and questioned if newport sector would be working aircraft X. Laker told me yes; that newport would be working aircraft X. I took the point out on the code of aircraft X; so I started a track on the code and added in VFR/145 and the aircraft type in the fourth line; but did not create a full vp flight plan because eram will then assign a new code and I would lose the track I has on the code laker gave me in the point out; plus I was too busy to mess with this flight plan any further. As background; the newport sector owns airspace 130 and below but climbs 4;000 feet in sector 21/22's airspace; to 170; upon our acceptance of their handoff. This was my concern when I took the point out from laker; because all the handoffs from newport climb to 170 and would be in potential conflict with aircraft X in the vicinity of sli. The accepted practice when we have traffic at 170 or below; transitioning the area where handoffs from newport climb to 170 is to call newport and show them the traffic and we either decide to stop the departure below the traffic or they observe the traffic. This situation was different because the aircraft X was not just transitioning the airspace; he was going to be circling in the vicinity of sli for an undetermined amount of time. A minute or two after I took the point out from laker; newport called me with a manual hand off on aircraft X. I told them that I had already received a point out from laker and said something about; 'weren't they going to work him; or shouldn't they be working him.' I can't remember exactly what I said; but it was something to that effect. The newport controller's response to me not saying radar contact was; 'then I'll terminate him.' I got back on the shout line; said; 'that's not the safe choice; aircraft X; radar contact.' I had no objection whatsoever to the workload of taking another aircraft; my sole concern was safety. There is no other traffic in the area aircraft X was operating other than the aircraft being handed off to me from newport. In my opinion; the safest situation would be for newport sector to talk to aircraft X because they were working the traffic for the aircraft. I informed my flm of the situation and he called the newport supervisor to discuss the matter. While they were on the phone; I was continuing to accept handoffs from the newport controller; climbing into my airspace; but had several aircraft communications transferred to me; while still below 130 (in newport's airspace; and I do not have control for turns in their airspace); in direct conflict with aircraft X. Previous events where sector 21/22 has limited all handoffs from newport to 130 have resulted in tmu getting involved and accusations (as best I understand) of 'shutting off' lax because we disallow them to climb into our airspace. I hesitated right off the bat to limit the newport hand off to 130; a safe altitude that would separate from aircraft X because of this history. As I was leaving the sector on a break; the flm had the relieving controller verify that aircraft X was indeed on an active mission. With that mission confirmed; the flm was taking action to stop all departures from newport at 130.if newport does indeed need to climb into our airspace in order to prevent delays at lax; then they should have been working this traffic without question. I don't understand why this controller refused to work the aircraft X; it was the safest course of action for the NAS. If events like this occur in the future; then newport should no longer be allowed to climb into ZLA airspace.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLA Controller received a point out on an aircraft from SCT over SLI VOR. Then later another controller advised ZLA that they weren't going to work the aircraft. ZLA advised that wasn't good so he took radar on the aircraft. The aircraft was located in an area where SCT climbs aircraft through; eventually handing off to ZLA. ZLA Controller was concerned about the aircraft climbing through the VFR; but shipping them before they had passed the aircraft.

Narrative: I was working Sector 21/22 when I received a call from Socal TRACON Laker sector on an Aircraft X that would be operating VFR; circling in the vicinity of SLI. I approved the point out and questioned if Newport Sector would be working Aircraft X. Laker told me yes; that Newport would be working Aircraft X. I took the point out on the code of Aircraft X; so I started a track on the code and added in VFR/145 and the aircraft type in the fourth line; but did not create a full VP flight plan because ERAM will then assign a new code and I would lose the track I has on the code Laker gave me in the point out; plus I was too busy to mess with this flight plan any further. As background; the Newport Sector owns airspace 130 and below but climbs 4;000 feet in Sector 21/22's airspace; to 170; upon our acceptance of their handoff. This was my concern when I took the point out from Laker; because all the handoffs from Newport climb to 170 and would be in potential conflict with Aircraft X in the vicinity of SLI. The accepted practice when we have traffic at 170 or below; transitioning the area where handoffs from Newport climb to 170 is to call Newport and show them the traffic and we either decide to stop the departure below the traffic or they observe the traffic. This situation was different because the Aircraft X was not just transitioning the airspace; he was going to be circling in the vicinity of SLI for an undetermined amount of time. A minute or two after I took the point out from Laker; Newport called me with a manual hand off on Aircraft X. I told them that I had already received a point out from Laker and said something about; 'Weren't they going to work him; or shouldn't they be working him.' I can't remember exactly what I said; but it was something to that effect. The Newport Controller's response to me not saying radar contact was; 'Then I'll terminate him.' I got back on the shout line; said; 'That's not the safe choice; Aircraft X; radar contact.' I had no objection whatsoever to the workload of taking another aircraft; my sole concern was SAFETY. There is no other traffic in the area Aircraft X was operating other than the aircraft being handed off to me from Newport. In my opinion; the safest situation would be for Newport Sector to talk to Aircraft X because they were working the traffic for the aircraft. I informed my FLM of the situation and he called the Newport Supervisor to discuss the matter. While they were on the phone; I was continuing to accept handoffs from the Newport Controller; climbing into my airspace; but had several aircraft communications transferred to me; while still below 130 (in Newport's airspace; and I do not have control for turns in their airspace); in direct conflict with Aircraft X. Previous events where Sector 21/22 has limited all handoffs from Newport to 130 have resulted in TMU getting involved and accusations (as best I understand) of 'shutting off' LAX because we disallow them to climb into our airspace. I hesitated right off the bat to limit the Newport hand off to 130; a safe altitude that would separate from Aircraft X because of this history. As I was leaving the sector on a break; the FLM had the relieving Controller verify that Aircraft X was indeed on an active mission. With that mission confirmed; the FLM was taking action to stop all departures from Newport at 130.If Newport does indeed need to climb into our airspace in order to prevent delays at LAX; then they should have been working this traffic without question. I don't understand why this Controller refused to work the Aircraft X; it was the SAFEST course of action for the NAS. If events like this occur in the future; then Newport should no longer be allowed to climb into ZLA airspace.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.