Loss of separation occurred between aircraft while being radar vectored.

Attributes
ACN	129302
Time
Date	198911
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : rno
State Reference	NV
Altitude	msl bound lower : 8000 msl bound upper : 9000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : rno
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Fighter
Flight Phase	climbout : initial
Route In Use	departure other
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Fighter
Flight Phase	climbout : initial
Route In Use	departure other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : departure
Qualification	controller : radar
ASRS Report	129302
Person 2
Affiliation	government : military
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : military
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : required legal separation
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	faa : investigated
Miss Distance	horizontal : 12000 vertical : 0
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Error

Narrative:

Supervisor believes there was a loss of sep between 2 aircraft (one being a flight of 2 fgt's, the other was just 1 fgt). However I was using the rule on diverging courses for my sep. About 45 mins after the 'error' took place I was informed that that was the wrong application of diverging courses. The flight of 2 was idented on radar and given a 250 degree heading and a climb to 10000'. If the flight had started the turn when issued, there would have been approximately 5 mi between the flight and the other fgt. When I observed he didn't start the turn right away, I turned the flight to a 280 degree heading. The other fgt was already on a 250 degree heading, which I then changed to a 190 degree heading. At the point where there was less than 1000' vertical sep, they were established on diverging courses. Not knowing that sep may have been lost, I continued to work the traffic for 39 mins until relieved from the position. It was at that time the supervisor, who was working the handoff position at the time the 'error' took place, informed me that sep may have been lost. I disagreed with him and said I was using diverging courses. I feel that if in fact I had misunderstood the application of diverging courses that the FAA look into the way it is written in the air traffic handbook, 7110.65F.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LOSS OF SEPARATION OCCURRED BETWEEN ACFT WHILE BEING RADAR VECTORED.

Narrative: SUPVR BELIEVES THERE WAS A LOSS OF SEP BTWN 2 ACFT (ONE BEING A FLT OF 2 FGT'S, THE OTHER WAS JUST 1 FGT). HOWEVER I WAS USING THE RULE ON DIVERGING COURSES FOR MY SEP. ABOUT 45 MINS AFTER THE 'ERROR' TOOK PLACE I WAS INFORMED THAT THAT WAS THE WRONG APPLICATION OF DIVERGING COURSES. THE FLT OF 2 WAS IDENTED ON RADAR AND GIVEN A 250 DEG HDG AND A CLB TO 10000'. IF THE FLT HAD STARTED THE TURN WHEN ISSUED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROX 5 MI BTWN THE FLT AND THE OTHER FGT. WHEN I OBSERVED HE DIDN'T START THE TURN RIGHT AWAY, I TURNED THE FLT TO A 280 DEG HDG. THE OTHER FGT WAS ALREADY ON A 250 DEG HDG, WHICH I THEN CHANGED TO A 190 DEG HDG. AT THE POINT WHERE THERE WAS LESS THAN 1000' VERT SEP, THEY WERE ESTABLISHED ON DIVERGING COURSES. NOT KNOWING THAT SEP MAY HAVE BEEN LOST, I CONTINUED TO WORK THE TFC FOR 39 MINS UNTIL RELIEVED FROM THE POS. IT WAS AT THAT TIME THE SUPVR, WHO WAS WORKING THE HDOF POS AT THE TIME THE 'ERROR' TOOK PLACE, INFORMED ME THAT SEP MAY HAVE BEEN LOST. I DISAGREED WITH HIM AND SAID I WAS USING DIVERGING COURSES. I FEEL THAT IF IN FACT I HAD MISUNDERSTOOD THE APPLICATION OF DIVERGING COURSES THAT THE FAA LOOK INTO THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN IN THE AIR TFC HANDBOOK, 7110.65F.

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.