Narrative:

Aircraft X was an oak arrival direct grove descending to 4;000 ft. Aircraft Y was on a vector to stay clear of aircraft X and another oak arrival behind aircraft X. Aircraft X was assigned 4;000 ft to ensure descent would go below an oak downwind aircraft Z who was level at 5;000 ft opposite direction of aircraft X. Traffic was exchanged between aircraft X and aircraft Y. Aircraft X around 5;800 ft and about 1.5 to 2 miles from aircraft Y said they were responding to an RA. I evaluated the situation and concluded that if aircraft X descending after the RA climb they would be in direct conflict with aircraft Z - you can even see on the falcon replay they would have been at the same point in space. I issued aircraft X a 300 heading (away from traffic) and 6;000 ft above aircraft Z and above the terrain; they were now pointed at. The issue isn't the RA although the traffic was going to be separated. The issue is the OM (operating manager) looked at the replay and said there was no issue but today the [quality control] OM looked at it and said I was in violation of the 7110.65. According to the OM I was not allowed to issue any control instruction to aircraft X until they were at 4;000 ft. So according to him aircraft X was ok to descend through aircraft Z until aircraft X was at 4;000 ft I was not responsible for separation.the local qc (quality control) office needs to be informed of the correct application of the 7110.65 which states I cannot issue a contrary control instruction. It does not state I cannot issue any control instruction. Contrary instruction would be telling the aircraft to descend instead of climb or stay level. The office also thinks I would not have been responsible for the loss that would have occurred if I let aircraft X descend to 4;000 ft through aircraft Z altitude. The section in the 7110.65 that refers to the aircraft returning the assigned altitude is in reference to a loss from what was a level altitude not climbing or descending. The office telling controllers to apply a major safety rule incorrectly is not safe. Please review the replay and see for yourself that it would be absurd to think aircraft X was responsible to descend from the altitude to 4;000 ft. Telling controllers you are not allowed to issue any instruction with the 7110.65 clearly stating a 'contrary' control instruction is not safe and sad that the OM does not understand both this and our first responsibility of preventing a collision between (which is what the 300 heading and 6;000 ft did) I refused to let two aircraft collide and I refuse to let an OM tell me or other controllers they are not responsible for separation until the aircraft reaches the assigned altitude. Just to drive the point home on how ridiculous this interpretation is; with that understanding an aircraft on a descend via would never be allowed to be assigned a control instruction if they responded to an RA until that aircraft reached the bottom altitude; or if the RA was to turn and went into a higher terrain I would have to wait until the aircraft reached the lower assigned altitude before I could issue a new altitude. I think it is obvious but not to our [quality control] OM.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NCT Approach Controller reported a conflict in application of JO 7110.65X with the facility Quality Control Office after vectoring an aircraft away from traffic.

Narrative: Aircraft X was an OAK arrival direct GROVE descending to 4;000 ft. Aircraft Y was on a vector to stay clear of Aircraft X and another OAK arrival behind Aircraft X. Aircraft X was assigned 4;000 ft to ensure descent would go below an OAK downwind Aircraft Z who was level at 5;000 ft opposite direction of Aircraft X. Traffic was exchanged between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. Aircraft X around 5;800 ft and about 1.5 to 2 miles from Aircraft Y said they were responding to an RA. I evaluated the situation and concluded that if Aircraft X descending after the RA climb they would be in direct conflict with Aircraft Z - you can even see on the FALCON replay they would have been at the same point in space. I issued Aircraft X a 300 heading (away from traffic) and 6;000 ft above Aircraft Z and above the terrain; they were now pointed at. The issue isn't the RA although the traffic was going to be separated. The issue is the OM (Operating Manager) looked at the replay and said there was no issue but today the [Quality Control] OM looked at it and said I was in violation of the 7110.65. According to the OM I was not allowed to issue any control instruction to Aircraft X until they were at 4;000 ft. So according to him Aircraft X was ok to descend through Aircraft Z until Aircraft X was at 4;000 ft I was not responsible for separation.The local QC (Quality Control) office needs to be informed of the correct application of the 7110.65 which states I cannot issue a contrary control instruction. It does not state I cannot issue ANY control instruction. Contrary instruction would be telling the aircraft to descend instead of climb or stay level. The office also thinks I would not have been responsible for the LOSS that would have occurred if I let Aircraft X descend to 4;000 ft through Aircraft Z altitude. The section in the 7110.65 that refers to the aircraft returning the assigned altitude is in reference to a LOSS from what was a level altitude not climbing or descending. The office telling controllers to apply a major safety rule incorrectly is not safe. Please review the replay and see for yourself that it would be absurd to think Aircraft X was responsible to descend from the altitude to 4;000 ft. Telling controllers you are not allowed to issue any instruction with the 7110.65 clearly stating a 'contrary' control instruction is not safe and sad that the OM does not understand both this and our first responsibility of preventing a collision between (which is what the 300 heading and 6;000 ft did) I refused to let two aircraft collide and I refuse to let an OM tell me or other controllers they are not responsible for separation until the aircraft reaches the assigned altitude. Just to drive the point home on how ridiculous this interpretation is; with that understanding an aircraft on a descend via would never be allowed to be assigned a control instruction if they responded to an RA until that aircraft reached the bottom altitude; or if the RA was to turn and went into a higher terrain I would have to wait until the aircraft reached the lower assigned altitude before I could issue a new altitude. I think it is obvious but not to our [Quality Control] OM.

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.