Narrative:

I was working the iah (86) radar position. At XA43 UTC, I told the pilot of aircraft #2, an aircraft E120 departing hou at XA33 UTC via hou. (AH2.giffa.CQY5.dfw, to climb and maintain FL180.) at XA45 UTC, the pilot of aircraft #1 checked onto my frequency saying that he was out at 12200 ft, climbing to 15000 ft. At this time, aircraft #1 was approximately 3.5 NM southeast of aircraft #2 on diverging courses. Aircraft #2 was leaving 14300 ft at XA46 UTC, I told the pilot of aircraft #1 to amend his altitude and maintain 14000 ft. At this time, aircraft #1 was leaving 12600 ft. At XA47 UTC, when aircraft #1 was laterally separated from aircraft #2, by more than 5 NM. I told the pilot of aircraft #1 to climb and maintain FL270. Prior to the point at which aircraft #1 was 5 NM separated from aircraft #2, aircraft #1 leveled at 14000 ft. At this point in time, aircraft #2 was leaving 15200 ft in his climb. It is my belief that houston approach had, at all times, met their requirements for radar separation (ie, 3 NM and diverging courses), which, by the way, are different from my requirements as a center controller for radar separation. I did not become concerned about the situation as it developed until the pilot of aircraft #1 checked onto my frequency. At that time, my requirements for separation were not met. I felt that I had to operate under the assumption that houston approach had erred in maintaining separation between the aircraft and felt that it was incumbent upon me to take action to establish separation based on my requirements as a center controller in a radar environment.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A ZHU ARTCC CTLR IS CONCERNED THAT RADAR SEPARATION STANDARDS USED BY CTR CTLRS IS DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF APCH CTL FACS.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE IAH (86) RADAR POS. AT XA43 UTC, I TOLD THE PLT OF ACFT #2, AN ACFT E120 DEPARTING HOU AT XA33 UTC VIA HOU. (AH2.GIFFA.CQY5.DFW, TO CLB AND MAINTAIN FL180.) AT XA45 UTC, THE PLT OF ACFT #1 CHKED ONTO MY FREQ SAYING THAT HE WAS OUT AT 12200 FT, CLBING TO 15000 FT. AT THIS TIME, ACFT #1 WAS APPROX 3.5 NM SE OF ACFT #2 ON DIVERGING COURSES. ACFT #2 WAS LEAVING 14300 FT AT XA46 UTC, I TOLD THE PLT OF ACFT #1 TO AMEND HIS ALT AND MAINTAIN 14000 FT. AT THIS TIME, ACFT #1 WAS LEAVING 12600 FT. AT XA47 UTC, WHEN ACFT #1 WAS LATERALLY SEPARATED FROM ACFT #2, BY MORE THAN 5 NM. I TOLD THE PLT OF ACFT #1 TO CLB AND MAINTAIN FL270. PRIOR TO THE POINT AT WHICH ACFT #1 WAS 5 NM SEPARATED FROM ACFT #2, ACFT #1 LEVELED AT 14000 FT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ACFT #2 WAS LEAVING 15200 FT IN HIS CLB. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT HOUSTON APCH HAD, AT ALL TIMES, MET THEIR REQUIREMENTS FOR RADAR SEPARATION (IE, 3 NM AND DIVERGING COURSES), WHICH, BY THE WAY, ARE DIFFERENT FROM MY REQUIREMENTS AS A CTR CTLR FOR RADAR SEPARATION. I DID NOT BECOME CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIT AS IT DEVELOPED UNTIL THE PLT OF ACFT #1 CHKED ONTO MY FREQ. AT THAT TIME, MY REQUIREMENTS FOR SEPARATION WERE NOT MET. I FELT THAT I HAD TO OPERATE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT HOUSTON APCH HAD ERRED IN MAINTAINING SEPARATION BTWN THE ACFT AND FELT THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON ME TO TAKE ACTION TO ESTABLISH SEPARATION BASED ON MY REQUIREMENTS AS A CTR CTLR IN A RADAR ENVIRONMENT.

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.