Air carrier Y overtake air carrier X possible less than standard separation. Possible system error.

Attributes
ACN	284519
Time
Date	199409
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : mia
State Reference	FL
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zma tracon : mia tower : mdw
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller military : 4 controller radar : 4
ASRS Report	284519
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : departure
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 12000 vertical : 1000
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Inter Facility Coordination Failure other

Narrative:

The mia approach departure sector took 2 airplanes off the same runway, 2 mins in trail, and let the back air carrier Y catch the front air carrier X (both jets, like types). The back Y, much higher and faster due to altitude (leaving 10000 ft sooner) was 2 mi behind front X. Mia approach is required to provide 5 mi in trail and increasing. The mia approach called to get higher on second Y and was denied the request because second Y had to descend back through first X in 50 mi landing mco while first X was a departure to the northeast area. Mia approach controller stated that it wasn't his 'problem,' and was going to take second Y out adjoining departure area. That was also denied by center controller but the approach controller did it anyway. The adjoining departure area had traffic climbing to the same altitude and subsequently his handoff was not taken (aircraft would have converged in center airspace). Mia approach continues not to adhere to LOA's, (controller's handbook), and receiving controller instructions.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR Y OVERTAKE ACR X POSSIBLE LTSS. POSSIBLE SYS ERROR.

Narrative: THE MIA APCH DEP SECTOR TOOK 2 AIRPLANES OFF THE SAME RWY, 2 MINS IN TRAIL, AND LET THE BACK ACR Y CATCH THE FRONT ACR X (BOTH JETS, LIKE TYPES). THE BACK Y, MUCH HIGHER AND FASTER DUE TO ALT (LEAVING 10000 FT SOONER) WAS 2 MI BEHIND FRONT X. MIA APCH IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 5 MI IN TRAIL AND INCREASING. THE MIA APCH CALLED TO GET HIGHER ON SECOND Y AND WAS DENIED THE REQUEST BECAUSE SECOND Y HAD TO DSND BACK THROUGH FIRST X IN 50 MI LNDG MCO WHILE FIRST X WAS A DEP TO THE NE AREA. MIA APCH CTLR STATED THAT IT WASN'T HIS 'PROB,' AND WAS GOING TO TAKE SECOND Y OUT ADJOINING DEP AREA. THAT WAS ALSO DENIED BY CTR CTLR BUT THE APCH CTLR DID IT ANYWAY. THE ADJOINING DEP AREA HAD TFC CLBING TO THE SAME ALT AND SUBSEQUENTLY HIS HDOF WAS NOT TAKEN (ACFT WOULD HAVE CONVERGED IN CTR AIRSPACE). MIA APCH CONTINUES NOT TO ADHERE TO LOA'S, (CTLR'S HANDBOOK), AND RECEIVING CTLR INSTRUCTIONS.

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.