A TRACON placed two aircraft on parallel headings to resolve their conflicting routes to the center....

Narrative:

Aircraft Y was flashing to me from norcal (nct) climbing out of sjc eastbound to ntell. It was being worked by the toga sector at nct. They had started flashing aircraft Y to me at about 11;000 ft. They own up to FL190. The cedar sector at nct started flashing aircraft X to me. Its altitude was 15;800 ft climbing to FL190. It was about 1;000 feet higher than aircraft Y at the time (aircraft Y was about 14;300 ft climbing at the time). Took the handoff on aircraft X and pointed it out to ZOA-34 whose airspace he was underneath at the time. Shortly afterward; cedar sector call to coordinate that he had turned the aircraft X to a 100 heading (this was for aircraft Y). I told him that this would put the aircraft into ZOA-16's airspace. He asked what I wanted and said I wanted the aircraft on course as before so he turned the aircraft back to ave. I then had to point the aircraft out to ZOA-16 as he would now enter 16's airspace due to the east vector; even with going back on course now. When the aircraft came onto my frequency I climbed him to FL270.during this time; aircraft Y was still climbing to FL190. The nct toga sector was calling relentlessly for me to take a handoff on aircraft Y even though there was insufficient lateral separation for me to do anything with the aircraft. Both aircraft were at FL190 at the same time and they were more concerned with a handoff than ensuring separation.had I taken the handoff on both aircraft I am confident that I would have been talking to both aircraft climbing to FL190 without ensured separation. My past experience with them leads me to this conclusion. There have been many incidents where ZOA controllers have had to initiate evasive action to ensure separation on aircraft coming from nct.even though they run aircraft through other sectors internally; apparently they do not talk to each other about what is going to happen with these aircraft. I have been told they use a look-and-go procedure which has also been described many time as a no-look-and-go method.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A TRACON placed two aircraft on parallel headings to resolve their conflicting routes to the Center. The Center Controller told the TRACON to put the aircraft back on their routes. The two aircraft converged with less than required separation at 19000 feet.

Narrative: Aircraft Y was flashing to me from NorCal (NCT) climbing out of SJC eastbound to NTELL. It was being worked by the Toga sector at NCT. They had started flashing Aircraft Y to me at about 11;000 ft. They own up to FL190. The Cedar sector at NCT started flashing Aircraft X to me. Its altitude was 15;800 ft climbing to FL190. It was about 1;000 feet higher than Aircraft Y at the time (Aircraft Y was about 14;300 ft climbing at the time). Took the handoff on Aircraft X and pointed it out to ZOA-34 whose airspace he was underneath at the time. Shortly afterward; Cedar sector call to coordinate that he had turned the Aircraft X to a 100 heading (this was for Aircraft Y). I told him that this would put the aircraft into ZOA-16's airspace. He asked what I wanted and said I wanted the aircraft on course as before so he turned the aircraft back to AVE. I then had to point the aircraft out to ZOA-16 as he would now enter 16's airspace due to the east vector; even with going back on course now. When the aircraft came onto my frequency I climbed him to FL270.During this time; Aircraft Y was still climbing to FL190. The NCT Toga sector was calling relentlessly for me to take a handoff on Aircraft Y even though there was insufficient lateral separation for me to do anything with the aircraft. Both aircraft were at FL190 at the same time and they were more concerned with a handoff than ensuring separation.Had I taken the handoff on both aircraft I am confident that I would have been talking to both aircraft climbing to FL190 without ensured separation. My past experience with them leads me to this conclusion. There have been many incidents where ZOA controllers have had to initiate evasive action to ensure separation on aircraft coming from NCT.Even though they run aircraft through other sectors internally; apparently they do not talk to each other about what is going to happen with these aircraft. I have been told they use a look-and-go procedure which has also been described many time as a no-look-and-go method.

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	1373885
Time
Date	201607
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	ZOA.ARTCC
State Reference	CA
Environment
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Challenger 300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	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	Climb
Route In Use	Direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 3
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

A TRACON placed two aircraft on parallel headings to resolve their conflicting routes to the center. The center controller told the TRACON to put the aircraft back on their routes. The two aircraft converged with less than required separation at 19000 feet.