Narrative:

Small aircraft X checked on frequency. The flight progress strip indicated the aircraft had departed runway 18 and wanted spi dupon huskk spi and that the aircraft was on a heading of 180 degrees. On initial contact I radar idented the aircraft and instructed it to join V69. Air carrier Y checked on heading 150 degrees. I radar idented X. I then observed X track had taken it on a track towards Y I then issued traffic to X and obtained visual separation. I instructed X to maintain visual separation with Y. I issued traffic to Y and informed them that the cessna was maintaining visual separation. I then climbed Y to 1000 ft then turned Y on course. I was not aware at the time an operational error had occurred. Supplemental information from acn 270065: the developmental reissued ATC clearance to the cessna to fly runway heading, cleared for takeoff. The remarks in the flight progress strip indicated the cessna wanted training. I thought they would be vectored for an ILS runway 22 or VOR runway 22 approach first. I felt the difference between runway heading and a 110 degree (the left limit of the temporary departure area) would not delay the aircraft. Since the 2 aircraft involved were being worked by another controller in a different operating quarters I was not aware their courses crossed. When I later observed the cessna sbound, I thought they were being vectored for a NDB approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP INTERSECTING RWYS SMA X HAD LTSS FROM ACR Y. SYS ERROR.

Narrative: SMA X CHKED ON FREQ. THE FLT PROGRESS STRIP INDICATED THE ACFT HAD DEPARTED RWY 18 AND WANTED SPI DUPON HUSKK SPI AND THAT THE ACFT WAS ON A HDG OF 180 DEGS. ON INITIAL CONTACT I RADAR IDENTED THE ACFT AND INSTRUCTED IT TO JOIN V69. ACR Y CHKED ON HDG 150 DEGS. I RADAR IDENTED X. I THEN OBSERVED X TRACK HAD TAKEN IT ON A TRACK TOWARDS Y I THEN ISSUED TFC TO X AND OBTAINED VISUAL SEPARATION. I INSTRUCTED X TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH Y. I ISSUED TFC TO Y AND INFORMED THEM THAT THE CESSNA WAS MAINTAINING VISUAL SEPARATION. I THEN CLBED Y TO 1000 FT THEN TURNED Y ON COURSE. I WAS NOT AWARE AT THE TIME AN OPERATIONAL ERROR HAD OCCURRED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 270065: THE DEVELOPMENTAL REISSUED ATC CLRNC TO THE CESSNA TO FLY RWY HDG, CLRED FOR TKOF. THE REMARKS IN THE FLT PROGRESS STRIP INDICATED THE CESSNA WANTED TRAINING. I THOUGHT THEY WOULD BE VECTORED FOR AN ILS RWY 22 OR VOR RWY 22 APCH FIRST. I FELT THE DIFFERENCE BTWN RWY HDG AND A 110 DEG (THE L LIMIT OF THE TEMPORARY DEP AREA) WOULD NOT DELAY THE ACFT. SINCE THE 2 ACFT INVOLVED WERE BEING WORKED BY ANOTHER CTLR IN A DIFFERENT OPERATING QUARTERS I WAS NOT AWARE THEIR COURSES CROSSED. WHEN I LATER OBSERVED THE CESSNA SBOUND, I THOUGHT THEY WERE BEING VECTORED FOR A NDB APCH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.