Narrative:

I was working the radar associate position for ZLA, sector 8. We were asked by our supervisor to keep our departures at or below FL230 to keep out of sector 35's airspace. We had a large number of arrs to sequence landing las vegas. Aircraft X was issued a heading of 010 degrees to take him away from the arrs because we couldn't climb above them. We got a late handoff on aircraft Y near pgs VORTAC at FL240. He was heading north, but we thought he was going to intercept the arrival. On initial call, the radar controller descended aircraft Y to FL200 and then noticed that he wasn't turning, and issued direct kaddy intersection and asked him to expedite the descent through FL210. He then issued a turn to 340 degrees to air carrier X who was at FL220. He asked aircraft Y to be at or below FL210 in 3 mins or less, and the pilot acknowledged it. Separation was lost 3.9 NM and 300 ft. With 6 center sectors feeding sector 35, we need better flow than what we had. We also need to push ahead with the sector 35 split to give us a chance. Supplemental information from acn 618386: additional verbal coordination (by me) was attempted to turn aircraft Y direct kaddy and I believed the sector 35 controller had done so. I issued an expedited descent clearance. As I was doing so, it became apparent that aircraft Y was indeed not direct kaddy, so I ended the clearance by reiterating direct kaddy. It became apparent this action would be insufficient to resolve the conflict, so I turned air carrier X and attempted to get aircraft Y to report verbally at or below FL210 -- which report was received 10 seconds later -- but 4 seconds too late to prevent loss of approved separation. It is my opinion that had actions implementing the necessary traffic management restrs for sector 35 been taken when requested previously (and denied) neither sector would have been as busy or complex as they became during this period. This uncooperative approach to providing traffic restrs to avoid this type scenario has been a factor in previous near losses of approved separation in the past. Central as well as local traffic management seem to think (project the attitude) that las vegas arrival traffic does not warrant issuance of those restrs. I feel the above scenario reveals otherwise.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLA RADAR ASSOCIATE AND ZLA RADAR CTLR RELAYED INFO ON AN OPERROR AT FL220 DURING VECTORING MANEUVERS BTWN A B737 AND W60. REQUEST FOR SECTOR 35 FLOW MGMNT REQUEST DENIED BY ZLA AND CENTRAL FLOW CTLRS.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE RADAR ASSOCIATE POS FOR ZLA, SECTOR 8. WE WERE ASKED BY OUR SUPVR TO KEEP OUR DEPS AT OR BELOW FL230 TO KEEP OUT OF SECTOR 35'S AIRSPACE. WE HAD A LARGE NUMBER OF ARRS TO SEQUENCE LNDG LAS VEGAS. ACFT X WAS ISSUED A HDG OF 010 DEGS TO TAKE HIM AWAY FROM THE ARRS BECAUSE WE COULDN'T CLB ABOVE THEM. WE GOT A LATE HDOF ON ACFT Y NEAR PGS VORTAC AT FL240. HE WAS HDG N, BUT WE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO INTERCEPT THE ARR. ON INITIAL CALL, THE RADAR CTLR DSNDED ACFT Y TO FL200 AND THEN NOTICED THAT HE WASN'T TURNING, AND ISSUED DIRECT KADDY INTXN AND ASKED HIM TO EXPEDITE THE DSCNT THROUGH FL210. HE THEN ISSUED A TURN TO 340 DEGS TO ACR X WHO WAS AT FL220. HE ASKED ACFT Y TO BE AT OR BELOW FL210 IN 3 MINS OR LESS, AND THE PLT ACKNOWLEDGED IT. SEPARATION WAS LOST 3.9 NM AND 300 FT. WITH 6 CTR SECTORS FEEDING SECTOR 35, WE NEED BETTER FLOW THAN WHAT WE HAD. WE ALSO NEED TO PUSH AHEAD WITH THE SECTOR 35 SPLIT TO GIVE US A CHANCE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 618386: ADDITIONAL VERBAL COORD (BY ME) WAS ATTEMPTED TO TURN ACFT Y DIRECT KADDY AND I BELIEVED THE SECTOR 35 CTLR HAD DONE SO. I ISSUED AN EXPEDITED DSCNT CLRNC. AS I WAS DOING SO, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT ACFT Y WAS INDEED NOT DIRECT KADDY, SO I ENDED THE CLRNC BY REITERATING DIRECT KADDY. IT BECAME APPARENT THIS ACTION WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT, SO I TURNED ACR X AND ATTEMPTED TO GET ACFT Y TO RPT VERBALLY AT OR BELOW FL210 -- WHICH RPT WAS RECEIVED 10 SECONDS LATER -- BUT 4 SECONDS TOO LATE TO PREVENT LOSS OF APPROVED SEPARATION. IT IS MY OPINION THAT HAD ACTIONS IMPLEMENTING THE NECESSARY TFC MGMNT RESTRS FOR SECTOR 35 BEEN TAKEN WHEN REQUESTED PREVIOUSLY (AND DENIED) NEITHER SECTOR WOULD HAVE BEEN AS BUSY OR COMPLEX AS THEY BECAME DURING THIS PERIOD. THIS UNCOOPERATIVE APCH TO PROVIDING TFC RESTRS TO AVOID THIS TYPE SCENARIO HAS BEEN A FACTOR IN PREVIOUS NEAR LOSSES OF APPROVED SEPARATION IN THE PAST. CENTRAL AS WELL AS LCL TFC MGMNT SEEM TO THINK (PROJECT THE ATTITUDE) THAT LAS VEGAS ARR TFC DOES NOT WARRANT ISSUANCE OF THOSE RESTRS. I FEEL THE ABOVE SCENARIO REVEALS OTHERWISE.

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.