D01 controller describes a situation where an aircraft is displayed on his scope by another controll...

Attributes
ACN	1240648
Time
Date	201502
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	D01.TRACON
State Reference	CO
Environment
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Medium Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Light Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	Cruise
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 6
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types

Narrative:

I was working all four arrival gates at AR3. I had aircraft X descending on the LDORA2 RNAV arrival out of about FL190. Aircraft Y is made yellow on my scope and DR4 gets on the landline and says 'aircraft Y I forced on your scope is direct mtj at 170; can you force your aircraft X down?' I responded 'wilco'. I then told aircraft X to expedite his descent through 160 to help the controller out. The two aircraft were on converging courses about 14 miles apart. I put a *T line on aircraft Y to mtj to find out that direct was not close to my arrival; but directly head on. I had to vector aircraft X off the arrival to a 090 heading to avoid a loss of separation. I then heard the DR4 controller issue a heading of 260 to aircraft Y; but had I not taken immediate action they would not have remained separated.the D01 SOP pre-arranged coordination procedures 'look and go' language is way too vague and gives departure controllers too much leeway. I feel this causes problems and events like this far too often. The old language was far more restrictive in that it only allowed 'look and go' on denver departures I believe. This is not adequate either; but I believe a happy medium could and should be reached.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: D01 controller describes a situation where an aircraft is displayed on his scope by another controller. Displaying controller asks other controller if he can miss his displayed aircraft. Separation is ensured by the controller turning his traffic 90 degrees away from the displayed traffic.

Narrative: I was working all four arrival gates at AR3. I had Aircraft X descending on the LDORA2 RNAV arrival out of about FL190. Aircraft Y is made yellow on my scope and DR4 gets on the landline and says 'Aircraft Y I forced on your scope is direct MTJ at 170; can you force your Aircraft X down?' I responded 'Wilco'. I then told Aircraft X to expedite his descent through 160 to help the controller out. The two aircraft were on converging courses about 14 miles apart. I put a *T line on Aircraft Y to MTJ to find out that direct was not close to my arrival; but directly head on. I had to vector Aircraft X off the arrival to a 090 heading to avoid a loss of separation. I then heard the DR4 controller issue a heading of 260 to Aircraft Y; but had I not taken immediate action they would not have remained separated.The D01 SOP Pre-Arranged Coordination Procedures 'Look and Go' language is way too vague and gives departure controllers too much leeway. I feel this causes problems and events like this far too often. The old language was far more restrictive in that it only allowed 'Look and Go' on Denver departures I believe. This is not adequate either; but I believe a happy medium could and should be reached.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.