Narrative:

I was working DR4; a departure gate to the south. Land north at den IFR. Land south at apa. I had a flight of F16s arrive from the southeast requesting the sandbox. There were only a few arrivals to 34R; which could not come in on the approach with the sandbox hot; so I called final to see if they were willing to accommodate it. Final said they would only have to slightly delay the arrivals for the sandbox so it was approved. I said point out approved for the first downwind to vector around the sandbox to the west in my airspace. Coordination was complete and I cleared the fighters to the sandbox. Tm (traffic manager) began to question the operation and said I could not do the sandbox with aircraft on 34R; this got my immediate attention and I began to scan the airspace to see if I'd missed something; double checked that I was ok with final and explained to the tm what we had coordinated. In that moment I hear the SR4 controller saying I'm sorry and aircraft Y turns yellow on my scope; head on with aircraft X climbing out of 100. My aircraft Y was also climbing out of 100; I told him to stop his climb and turn to a 260 heading and issued traffic. He was slow to respond. I tried asking SR4 what he was doing several times; the only response I got was 'turning eastbound'. I stopped my aircraft Y from climbing because I knew that SR4 had to get his aircraft above or he'd run into several other aircraft on the departure and arrival. Turning eastbound would mean he was entering the sandbox; a protected area for the fighters. It was unclear what action he was taking. Turned out; SR4 also stopped the climb on aircraft X who leveled at 108 and had separation errors with two other aircraft. Aircraft Y reported an RA and while I was straightening all that out I realized final had another aircraft on the downwind they were vectoring wide around the sandbox; this aircraft was not yellow on my scope and no coordination was done for a point out. I realize that the aircraft had to go that way to miss the sandbox but with everything else I had going on; I did not stop my aircraft Z from climb via in time. When I saw the two aircraft in close proximity; they were on parallel headings; mine was already climbing above with the arrival descending so I did not take any further action. Additional assistance by the supervisor could've aided some of these situations. I would expect my supervisor to be able to coordinate or offer an extra set of eyes but he did not come over. I have seen that particular supervisor throw his hands up and imply there was nothing he could do to assist a departure controller in trouble. He is I believe uncomfortable and unfamiliar with the policies and procedures of the departure wall. Training on both familiarization and how to assist would be helpful.I noticed what seemed to be radar lag when I turned aircraft Y; there seemed to be a significant jump on his track after what felt like a long time after I'd turned him. A calibration check on the radar if that's possible. I would like to see a best practices study on how to accomplish what we call the up and over with efficient coordination. Our SOP does not detail how SR4 can efficiently climb an aircraft to go through DR4's airspace and heading out the north and east gates. It is currently being done by a point out but there is so much other coordination to be done that steps can get missed. Because the up and over is frowned upon by some controllers; there is peer pressure to either not do it or avoid coordination all together. In this situation; I was very busy and SR4 was trying to do me a favor by working the aircraft; as he became more busy the coordination was not completed. Working the aircraft below the final would have added complexity and additional traffic conflict situations; that often lead to RA climbs; not to mention a delay to the aircraft. There are times where the up and over is so much safer and more greatly efficient that it is a greattool and worth further evaluation. There are also times where poor judgment is made and errors occur; usually with a lack of policy and proficiency.coordinating the sandbox could have been a contributing factor but I stand by my decision to do so. Because SR4 was busy with aircraft under the final airspace; and because there were arrivals coming in the southeast; workload would have been higher and more complex if I'd decided to go under the final. It also would've caused several more traffic conflict situations. I'd like to see refresher training how to recover from an error. I was extremely frustrated that the SR4 controller was unable to tell me what he was doing with the aircraft. Logic would have told me that he had to continue climbing in order to miss the other aircraft but he didn't. Reinforcing right turns for head on conflicts along with vocalizing altitude would have been a help and a comfort.the final controller told me that the feeder controller was still working the downwind aircraft Z that was on a vector to miss the sandbox. Final was yelling for the aircraft as he saw the conflict with my departure. Final said that feeder would not switch the aircraft or respond. Final said he wanted to put the aircraft on a better heading to achieve divergence with my departure. Feeder controllers are much less familiar with departure traffic and are not accustomed to missing or even seeing departure aircraft. Refresher training for arrival controllers on departure procedures and traffic could benefit awareness.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Denver TRACON Controllers and air carrier First Officer reported multiple losses of separation and airspace violations.

Narrative: I was working DR4; a departure gate to the south. Land north at DEN IFR. Land south at APA. I had a flight of F16s arrive from the southeast requesting the Sandbox. There were only a few arrivals to 34R; which could not come in on the approach with the Sandbox hot; so I called final to see if they were willing to accommodate it. Final said they would only have to slightly delay the arrivals for the Sandbox so it was approved. I said point out approved for the first downwind to vector around the Sandbox to the west in my airspace. Coordination was complete and I cleared the fighters to the Sandbox. TM (Traffic Manager) began to question the operation and said I could not do the Sandbox with aircraft on 34R; this got my immediate attention and I began to scan the airspace to see if I'd missed something; double checked that I was ok with final and explained to the TM what we had coordinated. In that moment I hear the SR4 Controller saying I'm sorry and Aircraft Y turns yellow on my scope; head on with Aircraft X climbing out of 100. My Aircraft Y was also climbing out of 100; I told him to stop his climb and turn to a 260 heading and issued traffic. He was slow to respond. I tried asking SR4 what he was doing several times; the only response I got was 'turning eastbound'. I stopped my Aircraft Y from climbing because I knew that SR4 had to get his aircraft above or he'd run into several other aircraft on the departure and arrival. Turning eastbound would mean he was entering the Sandbox; a protected area for the fighters. It was unclear what action he was taking. Turned out; SR4 also stopped the climb on Aircraft X who leveled at 108 and had separation errors with two other aircraft. Aircraft Y reported an RA and while I was straightening all that out I realized final had another aircraft on the downwind they were vectoring wide around the sandbox; this aircraft was not yellow on my scope and no coordination was done for a point out. I realize that the aircraft had to go that way to miss the Sandbox but with everything else I had going on; I did not stop my Aircraft Z from climb via in time. When I saw the two aircraft in close proximity; they were on parallel headings; mine was already climbing above with the arrival descending so I did not take any further action. Additional assistance by the Supervisor could've aided some of these situations. I would expect my Supervisor to be able to coordinate or offer an extra set of eyes but he did not come over. I have seen that particular Supervisor throw his hands up and imply there was nothing he could do to assist a Departure Controller in trouble. He is I believe uncomfortable and unfamiliar with the policies and procedures of the departure wall. Training on both familiarization and how to assist would be helpful.I noticed what seemed to be radar lag when I turned Aircraft Y; there seemed to be a significant jump on his track after what felt like a long time after I'd turned him. A calibration check on the radar if that's possible. I would like to see a best practices study on how to accomplish what we call the up and over with efficient coordination. Our SOP does not detail how SR4 can efficiently climb an aircraft to go through DR4's airspace and heading out the north and east gates. It is currently being done by a point out but there is so much other coordination to be done that steps can get missed. Because the up and over is frowned upon by some controllers; there is peer pressure to either not do it or avoid coordination all together. In this situation; I was very busy and SR4 was trying to do me a favor by working the aircraft; as he became more busy the coordination was not completed. Working the aircraft below the final would have added complexity and additional traffic conflict situations; that often lead to RA climbs; not to mention a delay to the aircraft. There are times where the up and over is so much safer and more greatly efficient that it is a greattool and worth further evaluation. There are also times where poor judgment is made and errors occur; usually with a lack of policy and proficiency.Coordinating the Sandbox could have been a contributing factor but I stand by my decision to do so. Because SR4 was busy with aircraft under the final airspace; and because there were arrivals coming in the SE; workload would have been higher and more complex if I'd decided to go under the final. It also would've caused several more traffic conflict situations. I'd like to see refresher training how to recover from an error. I was extremely frustrated that the SR4 controller was unable to tell me what he was doing with the aircraft. Logic would have told me that he had to continue climbing in order to miss the other aircraft but he didn't. Reinforcing right turns for head on conflicts along with vocalizing altitude would have been a help and a comfort.The Final Controller told me that the Feeder Controller was still working the downwind Aircraft Z that was on a vector to miss the Sandbox. Final was yelling for the aircraft as he saw the conflict with my departure. Final said that feeder would not switch the aircraft or respond. Final said he wanted to put the aircraft on a better heading to achieve divergence with my departure. Feeder controllers are much less familiar with departure traffic and are not accustomed to missing or even seeing departure aircraft. Refresher training for arrival controllers on departure procedures and traffic could benefit awareness.

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.