ZDV ARTCC sector controllers were handed off two aircraft on converging routes at the same altitude....

Narrative:

I was conducting on the job training (OJT) instruction on the radar associate position at the time. Sector initiated a handoff on aircraft X; departing and climbing to 26;000 feet to the northeast. The radar controller acknowledged aircraft X and climbed the aircraft to 27;000 feet; then shortly after issued a climb to 33;000 feet. During this time; the adjacent sector had started a handoff on aircraft Y; departing westbound. The data block on aircraft x showed temporary 26;000 feet. Once the radar controller decided these two aircraft were in potential conflict; he advised aircraft X that he 'needed them through 27;000 feet in 30 seconds.' during this entire scenario; not once did the adjacent sector call us regarding either of the two aircraft. Aircraft X indicated 26;800 feet when the radar controller asked the aircraft to 'say altitude leaving.' aircraft X responded '27;200 feet' just as separation appeared to have been lost.unfortunately; this is a common occurrence when working this sector. The adjacent sector has a habit of climbing two aircraft to 26;000 feet and handing them off to this sector with no positive separation ensured. Many times they take it a step further and actually switch both aircraft to our frequency. I assume they are expecting that most 'ski country' departures are high enough performing to 'get above' the departure.this is not an uncommon scenario. I have personally tried to address this by bringing it to my front line manager's attention when it happens. This has been the subject of 'crew breakouts' more than once. I have not noticed a decrease in the frequency of this behavior. It is always a challenge to work with the adjacent sector when any kind of significant volume or complexity exists. It is very common to receive aircraft on headings and assigned speeds with nothing being coordinated. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that this sector deals with low volume and low complexity for much of the year. Then during ski season; they are behind the curve.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZDV ARTCC Sector controllers were handed off two aircraft on converging routes at the same altitude. The reporters state this is a common occurrence of aircraft received from a particular sector.

Narrative: I was conducting On the Job Training (OJT) instruction on the radar associate position at the time. Sector initiated a handoff on Aircraft X; departing and climbing to 26;000 feet to the northeast. The radar controller acknowledged Aircraft X and climbed the aircraft to 27;000 feet; then shortly after issued a climb to 33;000 feet. During this time; the adjacent sector had started a handoff on Aircraft Y; departing westbound. The data block on aircraft x showed temporary 26;000 feet. Once the radar controller decided these two aircraft were in potential conflict; he advised Aircraft X that he 'needed them through 27;000 feet in 30 seconds.' during this entire scenario; not once did the adjacent sector call us regarding either of the two aircraft. Aircraft X indicated 26;800 feet when the radar controller asked the aircraft to 'say altitude leaving.' Aircraft X responded '27;200 feet' just as separation appeared to have been lost.Unfortunately; this is a common occurrence when working this sector. The adjacent sector has a habit of climbing two aircraft to 26;000 feet and handing them off to this sector with no positive separation ensured. Many times they take it a step further and actually switch both aircraft to our frequency. I assume they are expecting that most 'ski country' departures are high enough performing to 'get above' the departure.This is not an uncommon scenario. I have personally tried to address this by bringing it to my front line manager's attention when it happens. This has been the subject of 'crew breakouts' more than once. I have not noticed a decrease in the frequency of this behavior. It is always a challenge to work with the adjacent sector when any kind of significant volume or complexity exists. It is very common to receive aircraft on headings and assigned speeds with nothing being coordinated. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that this sector deals with low volume and low complexity for much of the year. Then during ski season; they are behind the curve.

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	1339023
Time
Date	201603
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	ZDV.ARTCC
State Reference	CO
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Embraer Phenom 300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Climb Initial Climb
Route In Use	Direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Cruise
Route In Use	Direct None
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 7.5
Person 2
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 4.5
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Miss Distance	Vertical 800

ZDV ARTCC sector controllers were handed off two aircraft on converging routes at the same altitude. The reporters state this is a common occurrence of aircraft received from a particular sector.