A los angeles center (ZLA) controller reports of receiving a LOOP7 departure off of lax that did not...

Narrative:

I was working sectors 17 & 18 combined with no d-side. This event occurred with sector 18 traffic. I took a radar handoff from socal approach manhattan departure sector on aircraft X climbing on the Loop7 departure. These aircraft are supposed to be 'climbing via' to 15;000 feet; or otherwise coordinated with altitude restrictions. No coordination was completed on this handoff. It was 'as normal' except that the aircraft did not meet the Loop7 crossing restriction at lax of at or above 10;000 feet. The socal controller shipped the aircraft to me when he was approximately 8;800 feet climbing about two miles east of lax (two miles beyond where the aircraft was supposed to be at or above 10;000 feet). I immediately noticed an aircraft within socal's airspace; aircraft Y; a southbound [type removed]; just a few miles in front of aircraft X because the conflict alert was flashing. Now aircraft X was going to pass behind aircraft Y; but not by five miles or even three. This is legal separation for socal approach; but this doesn't look right for los angeles center (ZLA). I told aircraft X to expedite his climb through 12;000 feet just because that seemed like a 'safer' situation. At this time aircraft X informed me that he was not going to be able to meet his keggs restriction on the Loop7 departure; which was not a surprise because he had already missed the lax restriction. At this time I called socal manhattan sector and he asked me to turn aircraft X north to avoid aircraft Y and that aircraft X was my control. I told aircraft X to turn left heading 360 and I continued to climb him. The two aircraft missed by about three miles and about 500 feet vertically at their closest proximity. I don't think there was any separation error for socal. All of this happened below my airspace and within socal's airspace.there was also a B737 (I don't have the call sign) also climbing via the Loop7; that was not given to me with 'constant or increasing' separation (which is required by LOA) and I had to vector him to maintain positive separation with aircraft X. This is a common problem with socal approach at this sector. The socal approach controller should have verbally coordinated that aircraft X wasn't 'climbing via' or he should have recognized that the aircraft wasn't meeting the climb via restrictions. Either way it requires verbal coordination that did not happen. The socal controller should not have shipped the aircraft so soon; especially with the aircraft Y in front of him. I'm not convinced that the socal controller was positively separating the two aircraft because he asked me to turn aircraft X. The impression that I have is that he was surprised by the situation. I think that it was happenstance that aircraft X was passing behind the course of aircraft Y. All conflicts must be resolved prior to frequency change; and in my opinion that didn't happen here.as far as the overtake situation with the B737 behind aircraft X (which is a common situation); a simple fix for that would be to put a 250 knot speed restriction on all Loop7 departing aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Los Angeles Center (ZLA) Controller reports of receiving a LOOP7 departure off of LAX that did not make its crossing restriction of 10;000 feet over the LAX VOR. C182 traffic that was en-route near the LAX VOR was a conflict and the LOOP7 departure had to be vectored to miss the traffic.

Narrative: I was working sectors 17 & 18 combined with no D-Side. This event occurred with sector 18 traffic. I took a radar handoff from SoCal approach Manhattan departure sector on Aircraft X climbing on the Loop7 departure. These aircraft are supposed to be 'climbing via' to 15;000 feet; or otherwise coordinated with altitude restrictions. No coordination was completed on this handoff. It was 'as normal' except that the aircraft did not meet the Loop7 crossing restriction at LAX of at or above 10;000 feet. The SoCal controller shipped the aircraft to me when he was approximately 8;800 feet climbing about two miles east of LAX (two miles beyond where the aircraft was supposed to be at or above 10;000 feet). I immediately noticed an aircraft within SoCal's airspace; Aircraft Y; a southbound [type removed]; just a few miles in front of Aircraft X because the conflict alert was flashing. Now Aircraft X was going to pass behind Aircraft Y; but not by five miles or even three. This is legal separation for SoCal approach; but this doesn't look right for Los Angeles Center (ZLA). I told Aircraft X to expedite his climb through 12;000 feet just because that seemed like a 'safer' situation. At this time Aircraft X informed me that he was not going to be able to meet his KEGGS restriction on the Loop7 departure; which was not a surprise because he had already missed the LAX restriction. At this time I called SoCal Manhattan sector and he asked me to turn Aircraft X north to avoid Aircraft Y and that Aircraft X was my control. I told Aircraft X to turn left heading 360 and I continued to climb him. The two aircraft missed by about three miles and about 500 feet vertically at their closest proximity. I don't think there was any separation error for SoCal. All of this happened below my airspace and within SoCal's airspace.There was also a B737 (I don't have the call sign) also climbing via the Loop7; that was not given to me with 'constant or increasing' separation (which is required by LOA) and I had to vector him to maintain positive separation with Aircraft X. This is a common problem with SoCal approach at this sector. The SoCal approach controller should have verbally coordinated that Aircraft X wasn't 'climbing via' or he should have recognized that the aircraft wasn't meeting the climb via restrictions. Either way it requires verbal coordination that did not happen. The SoCal controller should not have shipped the aircraft so soon; especially with the Aircraft Y in front of him. I'm not convinced that the SoCal controller was positively separating the two aircraft because he asked me to turn Aircraft X. The impression that I have is that he was surprised by the situation. I think that it was happenstance that Aircraft X was passing behind the course of Aircraft Y. All conflicts must be resolved prior to frequency change; and in my opinion that didn't happen here.As far as the overtake situation with the B737 behind Aircraft X (which is a common situation); a simple fix for that would be to put a 250 knot speed restriction on all Loop7 departing aircraft.

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	1271689
Time
Date	201506
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZLA.ARTCC
State Reference	CA
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Large Transport
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Climb
Route In Use	SID LOOP7
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft High Wing 1 Eng Fixed Gear
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Cruise
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 1.7
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Airspace Violation All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

A los angeles center (ZLA) controller reports of receiving a LOOP7 departure off of lax that did not make its crossing restriction of 10;000 feet over the lax VOR. C182 traffic that was en-route near the lax VOR was a conflict and the LOOP7 departure had to be vectored to miss the traffic.