GGG TRACON controller reports of a loss of separation due to a flight of aircraft that deviated due ...

Narrative:

I was on controller in charge and another cpc (certified professional controller) was conducting OJT with a trainee. The trainee had two aircraft on a STAR; the one in back climbing out of 065 for 080. Aircraft X; a [military] flight of 4 checked on inbound to GGG IFR. The developmental issued descent to 090 and told them about traffic. In my opinion; the altitude cap was unnecessary; but kept the flight above the aircraft climbing. Aircraft X was looking to enter the VFR pattern at GGG via the overhead/break. They didn't like being capped; so they cancelled IFR and were acknowledged; but still kept at or above 090. They asked for a vector to avoid buildups to the east and the developmental issued heading 050. They then said that they couldn't maintain VFR on that heading and said 'we're IFR at 090.' the developmental said roger; but never re-cleared them IFR. He then issued a heading 360 and a descent. This put aircraft X on a converging course with aircraft Y. Aircraft X and flight lost the 4NM IFR separation with the overflight; but there was some question as to whether they were still IFR or not since they'd never been re-cleared. The OJT instructor should have taken over sooner and put a less complicated plan into effect.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GGG TRACON Controller reports of a loss of separation due to a flight of aircraft that deviated due to weather. The flight had previously cancelled IFR; but could not maintain VFR due to the weather.

Narrative: I was on CIC and another CPC (Certified Professional Controller) was conducting OJT with a trainee. The trainee had two aircraft on a STAR; the one in back climbing out of 065 for 080. Aircraft X; a [military] flight of 4 checked on inbound to GGG IFR. The developmental issued descent to 090 and told them about traffic. In my opinion; the altitude cap was unnecessary; but kept the flight above the aircraft climbing. Aircraft X was looking to enter the VFR pattern at GGG via the overhead/break. They didn't like being capped; so they cancelled IFR and were acknowledged; but still kept at or above 090. They asked for a vector to avoid buildups to the East and the developmental issued HDG 050. They then said that they couldn't maintain VFR on that heading and said 'We're IFR at 090.' The developmental said roger; but never re-cleared them IFR. He then issued a heading 360 and a descent. This put Aircraft X on a converging course with Aircraft Y. Aircraft X and flight lost the 4NM IFR separation with the overflight; but there was some question as to whether they were still IFR or not since they'd never been re-cleared. The OJT Instructor should have taken over sooner and put a less complicated plan into effect.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1269794
Time
Date	201506
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	GGG.TRACON
State Reference	TX
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Military Trainer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft
Flight Phase	Climb
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Supervisor / CIC
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 12.5
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Clearance Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC

GGG TRACON controller reports of a loss of separation due to a flight of aircraft that deviated due to weather. The flight had previously cancelled IFR; but could not maintain VFR due to the weather.