Narrative:

I was given a point out by the rw controller of aircraft Y at 6000 ft; 15 southwest of ict northwest bound; not expected to be any conflict at the time of the point out. I was later given control via handoff of aircraft X; a [business jet] descending out of 10;000 ft 25 miles southwest of ict. Aircraft X was descended on initial contact; to 4000. At that time the aircraft Y was clearly not a factor. There were other priorities I had to address after the communication with aircraft X. Aircraft X reported the field in sight roughly 10nm southwest of ict; and aircraft Y was about 6nm southeast of ict northwest bound; still level at 6000.I cleared aircraft X anticipating his current rate of descent would not ever be a factor for aircraft Y. I subsequently shipped aircraft X to the tower and continued to address other priorities. I looked again at aircraft X and Y as part of my scan; and noticed aircraft X very slowly descending out of 6000 on a possible conflict course with aircraft Y; who was being pushed by the wind further south than his initial heading appeared. I called the tower controller who was giving traffic information to aircraft X on aircraft Y; as aircraft X descended what appeared within minimums south of aircraft Y. The computer generated 'ca' did not go off; nor were either aircraft given any evasive instructions. It appeared not to be a conflict. The 'snitch' computer thought otherwise.no recommendations. In my judgement; aircraft X should have kept up his initial descent rate. Conflict avoided if he had.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ICT Approach Controller reported a loss of separation that he attributed to an aircraft not descending like he thought it would. Aircraft in question started out with a higher rate of descent; but must have changed when the aircraft got closer to the airport.

Narrative: I was given a point out by the RW Controller of Aircraft Y at 6000 ft; 15 SW of ICT NW bound; not expected to be any conflict at the time of the point out. I was later given control via handoff of Aircraft X; a [business jet] descending out of 10;000 ft 25 miles SW of ICT. Aircraft X was descended on initial contact; to 4000. At that time the Aircraft Y was clearly not a factor. There were other priorities I had to address after the communication with Aircraft X. Aircraft X reported the field in sight roughly 10nm SW of ICT; and Aircraft Y was about 6nm SE of ICT NW bound; still level at 6000.I cleared Aircraft X anticipating his current rate of descent would not ever be a factor for Aircraft Y. I subsequently shipped Aircraft X to the tower and continued to address other priorities. I looked again at Aircraft X and Y as part of my scan; and noticed Aircraft X very slowly descending out of 6000 on a possible conflict course with Aircraft Y; who was being pushed by the wind further south than his initial heading appeared. I called the tower controller who was giving traffic information to Aircraft X on Aircraft Y; as Aircraft X descended what appeared within minimums south of Aircraft Y. The computer generated 'ca' did not go off; nor were either aircraft given any evasive instructions. It appeared not to be a conflict. The 'snitch' computer thought otherwise.No recommendations. In my judgement; Aircraft X should have kept up his initial descent rate. Conflict avoided if he had.

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.