Air traffic controller and air taxi captain reported another aircraft had to respond to an RA and to...

Attributes
ACN	1408753
Time
Date	201612
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	ZBW.ARTCC
State Reference	NH
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Cruise
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Bombardier Learjet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
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) 6.0
Person 2
Function	Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 40 Flight Crew Total 4500 Flight Crew Type 800
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Clearance

Narrative:

Aircraft X was a departure level at 16000 feet on a westbound route. Aircraft Y was on a southwest bound route. I initially climbed aircraft Y to 15000 feet and issued traffic to both aircraft. Aircraft Y reported aircraft X in sight and since they were the only two aircraft in the vicinity and it appeared aircraft Y would be crossing behind the path of aircraft X. I instructed aircraft Y to maintain visual separation and climb to 23000 feet. I did not clearly understand aircraft Y 's read back the first time so I restated and asked for clarification that he would maintain visual separation. He responded that he would. I then told aircraft X that the other traffic had him in sight and would be climbing visually behind him. At the point that I made the decision to apply visual separation rules. The speed and climb rate of aircraft Y led me to think that he would be passing behind aircraft X and targets would not merge. Aircraft X then reported that he was responding to an resolution advisory (RA) and was climbing. I then verified again that aircraft Y still had the aircraft in sight. Aircraft Y responded that he did and I told him that aircraft X was responding to an RA and climbing now. Aircraft X then stated his concern for an aircraft getting that close to him and aircraft Y stated that they weren't that close. I don't think I would leave separation decisions to a general aviation pilot when an airline carrying hundreds of passengers are involved. Although visual separation is a tool to expedite traffic flow in this situation it would have only been a minute delay before the aircraft could continue his climb.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Traffic Controller and Air Taxi Captain reported another aircraft had to respond to an RA and told the controller the climbing aircraft was too close.

Narrative: Aircraft X was a departure level at 16000 feet on a westbound route. Aircraft Y was on a southwest bound route. I initially climbed Aircraft Y to 15000 feet and issued traffic to both aircraft. Aircraft Y reported Aircraft X in sight and since they were the only two aircraft in the vicinity and it appeared Aircraft Y would be crossing behind the path of Aircraft X. I instructed Aircraft Y to maintain visual separation and climb to 23000 feet. I did not clearly understand Aircraft Y 's read back the first time so I restated and asked for clarification that he would maintain visual separation. He responded that he would. I then told Aircraft X that the other traffic had him in sight and would be climbing visually behind him. At the point that I made the decision to apply visual separation rules. The speed and climb rate of Aircraft Y led me to think that he would be passing behind Aircraft X and targets would not merge. Aircraft X then reported that he was responding to an Resolution Advisory (RA) and was climbing. I then verified again that Aircraft Y still had the aircraft in sight. Aircraft Y responded that he did and I told him that Aircraft X was responding to an RA and climbing now. Aircraft X then stated his concern for an aircraft getting that close to him and Aircraft Y stated that they weren't that close. I don't think I would leave separation decisions to a general aviation pilot when an airline carrying hundreds of passengers are involved. Although visual separation is a tool to expedite traffic flow in this situation it would have only been a minute delay before the aircraft could continue his climb.

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.

Air traffic controller and air taxi captain reported another aircraft had to respond to an RA and told the controller the climbing aircraft was too close.