Narrative:

This was a very unusual situation. The winds were very strong out of the east due to a nor'easter. As a result; the ground speeds of jfk arrivals were in excess of 470 knots; or at least 50 knots greater than is customary. Air carrier X; as a result; was hung up at FL200; above a northbound aircraft; slow-moving; at FL190; also a very unusual occurrence. The workload in the sector; which had been minimal; increased suddenly with 5 almost simultaneous departures from 4 different airports. By the time a d-side controller was assigned to help; the pe (proximity error) was bound to happen. The final complicating factor is a 'cone of silence issue'. Most of the clipper sector is single-site adapted; 3NM separation below FL180. The radar sort box directly over the radar site is like a square island of airspace which is not eligible for the 3NM separation; and the old standard of 5 miles is in use. The other aircraft involved a type JS31; was one of these departures from bdr. I was able to climb this aircraft to 16;000 and turn him southbound while he was still west of CCC. In the meantime; air carrier X was too high (FL200) to make a normal hand off to jfk approach (@12;000). A decision was made to issue a 360 degree left turn to air carrier X to accommodate his descent. This was accomplished; but as he descended through 16;000; the aircraft; still pushed by the strong easterly winds; got to within 4.59 NM of the JS31; who was not yet at 16;000. He was at 15;500 when air carrier X was at 15;100 at their closest proximity. I was too busy at the time to ascertain whether one aircraft was out of 'the square' or not and did not have time to measure the difference between 4.59 and 5 NM. I was informed the next day of the pe; and was told that it was a 'controlled event' since both aircraft were firmly established as moving away from each other at the time of the pe. Obviously; the inability to use 3 mile separation is the overriding issue here. It is; coincidentally; the spot in this sector where 3 mile separation would be the most beneficial. I am told that changing the adaptation from the riverhead radar site to the islip site would present other problems; and that a fix probably would not be attempted until after the implementation of eram (en route automation modernization).

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZBW Controller experienced a conflict event when unusually strong East wind conditions required the issuance of a circle to a JFK arrival to lose altitude that resulted in the proximity event.

Narrative: This was a very unusual situation. The winds were very strong out of the East due to a nor'easter. As a result; the ground speeds of JFK arrivals were in excess of 470 knots; or at least 50 knots greater than is customary. Air Carrier X; as a result; was hung up at FL200; above a northbound aircraft; slow-moving; at FL190; also a very unusual occurrence. The workload in the sector; which had been minimal; increased suddenly with 5 almost simultaneous departures from 4 different airports. By the time a D-Side controller was assigned to help; the PE (proximity error) was bound to happen. The final complicating factor is a 'cone of silence issue'. Most of the Clipper Sector is single-site adapted; 3NM separation below FL180. The RADAR sort box directly over the RADAR site is like a square island of airspace which is not eligible for the 3NM separation; and the old standard of 5 miles is in use. The other aircraft involved a type JS31; was one of these departures from BDR. I was able to climb this aircraft to 16;000 and turn him southbound while he was still west of CCC. In the meantime; Air Carrier X was too high (FL200) to make a normal hand off to JFK approach (@12;000). A decision was made to issue a 360 degree left turn to Air Carrier X to accommodate his descent. This was accomplished; but as he descended through 16;000; the aircraft; still pushed by the strong easterly winds; got to within 4.59 NM of the JS31; who was not yet at 16;000. He was at 15;500 when Air Carrier X was at 15;100 at their closest proximity. I was too busy at the time to ascertain whether one aircraft was out of 'the square' or not and did not have time to measure the difference between 4.59 and 5 NM. I was informed the next day of the PE; and was told that it was a 'controlled event' since both aircraft were firmly established as moving away from each other at the time of the PE. Obviously; the inability to use 3 mile separation is the overriding issue here. It is; coincidentally; the spot in this sector where 3 mile separation would be the most beneficial. I am told that changing the adaptation from the Riverhead RADAR site to the Islip site would present other problems; and that a fix probably would not be attempted until after the implementation of ERAM (En Route Automation Modernization).

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.