Narrative:

I was working all the lows combined at sector 24. Most of the traffic was in sector 30 and sector 23 encompassing day departures; cvg arrivals; and pit departures. Sectors 69 and 24 were not very busy and/or complex. The sector 31 controller called to make two point outs to sector 23 and had asked about cvg arrivals. I approved the two point outs and told them that I had a cvg stream starting. He quick-looked my sector at the same time and acknowledged the cvg arrivals and kept his departure traffic out of the way on headings. Shortly thereafter; sector 31 had two day departures that were filed over ape VOR. Sector 31 climbed those aircraft to FL230; assigned headings of 10L with ape VOR next in the flight plans and flashed them to me at sector 24. I ran the vector lines and judged the traffic based on the information provided. I took the hand offs on the day departures and begun to watch the climb rates of the day departures. Traffic was my cvg arrival; at FL220 on the CINCE5 arrival. During my scan; I noticed both day departures; began to turn eastbound into my cvg arrival traffic. I full routed the flight plans and observed that the sector 31 controller had taken 10L out of the 4th line of the data block and both flight plans showed the aircraft short cut direct air VOR (straight eastbound). I immediately locked my aircraft on present heading and called sector 31. I told them that they had changed the conditions of the flights after executing the hand off and instructed the controller to turn one aircraft twenty degrees left. The response was garbled. There was never a turn observed. One aircraft had a climb rate great enough to keep him clear of the cvg arrival; but this was not positive separation. Recommendation; control by the book. It was illegal for sector 31 to change the conditions of either flight prior to or without coordination since the automated hand off was already complete. At the very least; the controller should have quick looked my sector and he would have seen that changing the flight path of either aircraft was dangerous or hazardous to flight safety.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZID Controller described near loss of separation event between two air carriers when agreed upon course assignments were discontinued by an adjacent sector.

Narrative: I was working all the lows combined at Sector 24. Most of the traffic was in Sector 30 and Sector 23 encompassing DAY departures; CVG arrivals; and PIT departures. Sectors 69 and 24 were not very busy and/or complex. The Sector 31 Controller called to make two point outs to Sector 23 and had asked about CVG arrivals. I approved the two point outs and told them that I had a CVG stream starting. He quick-looked my sector at the same time and acknowledged the CVG arrivals and kept his departure traffic out of the way on headings. Shortly thereafter; Sector 31 had two DAY departures that were filed over APE VOR. Sector 31 climbed those aircraft to FL230; assigned headings of 10L with APE VOR next in the flight plans and flashed them to me at Sector 24. I ran the vector lines and judged the traffic based on the information provided. I took the hand offs on the DAY departures and begun to watch the climb rates of the DAY departures. Traffic was my CVG arrival; at FL220 on the CINCE5 arrival. During my scan; I noticed both DAY departures; began to turn eastbound into my CVG arrival traffic. I full routed the flight plans and observed that the Sector 31 Controller had taken 10L out of the 4th line of the data block and both flight plans showed the aircraft short cut direct AIR VOR (straight eastbound). I immediately locked my aircraft on present heading and called Sector 31. I told them that they had changed the conditions of the flights after executing the hand off and instructed the controller to turn one aircraft twenty degrees left. The response was garbled. There was never a turn observed. One aircraft had a climb rate great enough to keep him clear of the CVG arrival; but this was not positive separation. Recommendation; control by the book. It was illegal for Sector 31 to change the conditions of either flight prior to or without coordination since the automated hand off was already complete. At the very least; the Controller should have quick looked my sector and he would have seen that changing the flight path of either aircraft was dangerous or hazardous to flight safety.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.