Narrative:

Small transport X was en route dnv irq rbw at FL230. Air carrier Y was climbing off of clt wbound. His route of flight was clt spa spa 270R tys 125R tys phx. Sector 49 is the atlanta inbound sector from the northeast. We were just coming out of a holding situation and were extremely busy. Small transport X checked in at approximately XXXX, level at FL230. At approximately XXX4, my d-side took a pointout on air carrier Y, climbing through FL190 wbound. At approximately XXX8, I had to turn small transport Y to a 090 heading 'immediately' to avoid air carrier Y, who was climbing through FL228. Small transport X was in coast track, and according to the ZTL computer, had been for approximately 6 min. I issued traffic at '1 O'clock and 4 mi' to small transport X. I guess the closest proximity was 1 mi laterally. If small transport X had been properly tracked and the conflict alert function had activated, I feel that this incident never would have occurred. The computer tracking system at atlanta center should be thoroughly checked. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter's experience: 5 yrs radar, 2 yrs non radar. Handoff controllers experience: 20 yrs radar. Miss distance was 0 vertical, 1 mi horizontal. The reporter stated the handoff controller failed to point out small transport X and air carrier Y to the radar controllers after he had approved a pointout through sector 49 airspace. Reporter also stated small transport X was displayed on his scope but had been in coast mode for 45 seconds. Air carrier Y was displayed on his scope. A recent patch installed in the computer disables the conflict alert between tracked targets and coasting intruder targets. This patch was installed because of a union grievance at ZBW. Supplemental information from acn 134045: I noted a limited data block at FL230, then received a intruder conflict alert on the FL230 with the aircraft under my control, who was climbing from approximately FL220 on up to FL260 or 280. I turned air carrier Y twice to avoid the intruder traffic which I believed to be a VFR or low altitude aircraft with an erroneous mode C readout. I thought I was turning air carrier Y for insurance since I was not sure if the 230 traffic was real. The computer patch that allows the data block to drop off a handoff from another center if the code is not changed caused the FL230 traffic to not be tracked caused this situation to occur.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT X HAD LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION FROM ACR Y. SYSTEM ERROR. SITUATION: RECENT PATCH DISARMS CONFLICT ALERT ACTIVATION BETWEEN TRACKED TARGETS AND INTRUDER COASTING TARGETS.

Narrative: SMT X WAS ENRTE DNV IRQ RBW AT FL230. ACR Y WAS CLIMBING OFF OF CLT WBOUND. HIS ROUTE OF FLT WAS CLT SPA SPA 270R TYS 125R TYS PHX. SECTOR 49 IS THE ATLANTA INBND SECTOR FROM THE NE. WE WERE JUST COMING OUT OF A HOLDING SITUATION AND WERE EXTREMELY BUSY. SMT X CHECKED IN AT APPROX XXXX, LEVEL AT FL230. AT APPROX XXX4, MY D-SIDE TOOK A POINTOUT ON ACR Y, CLIMBING THROUGH FL190 WBOUND. AT APPROX XXX8, I HAD TO TURN SMT Y TO A 090 HDG 'IMMEDIATELY' TO AVOID ACR Y, WHO WAS CLIMBING THROUGH FL228. SMT X WAS IN COAST TRACK, AND ACCORDING TO THE ZTL COMPUTER, HAD BEEN FOR APPROX 6 MIN. I ISSUED TFC AT '1 O'CLOCK AND 4 MI' TO SMT X. I GUESS THE CLOSEST PROX WAS 1 MI LATERALLY. IF SMT X HAD BEEN PROPERLY TRACKED AND THE CONFLICT ALERT FUNCTION HAD ACTIVATED, I FEEL THAT THIS INCIDENT NEVER WOULD HAVE OCCURRED. THE COMPUTER TRACKING SYSTEM AT ATLANTA CENTER SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY CHECKED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER'S EXPERIENCE: 5 YRS RADAR, 2 YRS NON RADAR. HANDOFF CTLRS EXPERIENCE: 20 YRS RADAR. MISS DISTANCE WAS 0 VERT, 1 MI HORIZ. THE REPORTER STATED THE HANDOFF CTLR FAILED TO POINT OUT SMT X AND ACR Y TO THE RADAR CTLRS AFTER HE HAD APPROVED A POINTOUT THROUGH SECTOR 49 AIRSPACE. REPORTER ALSO STATED SMT X WAS DISPLAYED ON HIS SCOPE BUT HAD BEEN IN COAST MODE FOR 45 SECONDS. ACR Y WAS DISPLAYED ON HIS SCOPE. A RECENT PATCH INSTALLED IN THE COMPUTER DISABLES THE CONFLICT ALERT BETWEEN TRACKED TARGETS AND COASTING INTRUDER TARGETS. THIS PATCH WAS INSTALLED BECAUSE OF A UNION GRIEVANCE AT ZBW. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 134045: I NOTED A LIMITED DATA BLOCK AT FL230, THEN RECEIVED A INTRUDER CONFLICT ALERT ON THE FL230 WITH THE ACFT UNDER MY CONTROL, WHO WAS CLIMBING FROM APPROX FL220 ON UP TO FL260 OR 280. I TURNED ACR Y TWICE TO AVOID THE INTRUDER TFC WHICH I BELIEVED TO BE A VFR OR LOW ALT ACFT WITH AN ERRONEOUS MODE C READOUT. I THOUGHT I WAS TURNING ACR Y FOR INSURANCE SINCE I WAS NOT SURE IF THE 230 TFC WAS REAL. THE COMPUTER PATCH THAT ALLOWS THE DATA BLOCK TO DROP OFF A HANDOFF FROM ANOTHER CENTER IF THE CODE IS NOT CHANGED CAUSED THE FL230 TFC TO NOT BE TRACKED CAUSED THIS SITUATION TO OCCUR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.