Narrative:

Was in the process of taking over sector mlc-left; which had been combined with mlc-H and klb-uh. Sector became too complex to work as one sector due to volume and frequency congestion. While receiving the briefing from a trainee d-side; I noticed a traffic situation which appeared to be unresolved. When I asked the trainee about the situation she said she did not know about it. It appeared an aircraft was climbing out of 2500 ft for 10000 ft with traffic at 4000 ft. I told the trainee to standby and I called the approach control and instructed the rzc approach controller to stop the aircraft at 3000 ft for traffic and called radar contact. After finishing the briefing the aircraft entered the sector IFR climbing to 3000 ft in an area where the minimum altitude is 3000 ft. For approximated 5 miles the aircraft entered an area where the minimum altitude is 3900 ft; before returning to an area where the minimum altitude is 3000 feet. I climbed the aircraft to 10;000 feet as soon as traffic allowed. Due to myself taking over the sector and the traffic situation developing quickly; I made an error by not checking the minimum IFR altitude in that area; which is oddly shaped. Sectors should be split at a time of less complexity to allow for a complete briefing whenever possible. I also suspect the map of mlc-left is not up to date; as the minimum IFR altitudes inside rzc approach are different than what the controllers in rzc approach have (eg near fsm ZFW map shows 4000 ft is unusable however rzc approach uses 4000 ft and can verbally verify their maps allow the altitude.)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Fort Worth Center Controller reported an airborne conflict which was remedied; but later developed into one of the aircraft entering a Minimum IFR Altitude that was higher than the aircraft's assigned altitude.

Narrative: Was in the process of taking over sector MLC-L; which had been combined with MLC-H and KLB-UH. Sector became too complex to work as one sector due to volume and frequency congestion. While receiving the briefing from a trainee D-side; I noticed a traffic situation which appeared to be unresolved. When I asked the trainee about the situation she said she did not know about it. It appeared an aircraft was climbing out of 2500 ft for 10000 ft with traffic at 4000 ft. I told the trainee to standby and I called the Approach Control and instructed the RZC Approach Controller to stop the aircraft at 3000 ft for traffic and called RADAR contact. After finishing the briefing the aircraft entered the sector IFR climbing to 3000 ft in an area where the minimum altitude is 3000 ft. For approximated 5 miles the aircraft entered an area where the minimum altitude is 3900 ft; before returning to an area where the minimum altitude is 3000 feet. I climbed the aircraft to 10;000 feet as soon as traffic allowed. Due to myself taking over the sector and the traffic situation developing quickly; I made an error by not checking the minimum IFR altitude in that area; which is oddly shaped. Sectors should be split at a time of less complexity to allow for a complete briefing whenever possible. I also suspect the map of MLC-L is not up to date; as the minimum IFR altitudes inside RZC Approach are different than what the controllers in RZC Approach have (EG near FSM ZFW map shows 4000 ft is unusable however RZC Approach uses 4000 ft and can verbally verify their maps allow the altitude.)

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.