Narrative:

I was working the d-side and there was a VFR aircraft we were giving flight following to. The right side had already shown me a few minutes ago how uninterested he was in actually calling or being concerned about the potential for a collision with a different VFR aircraft. So I didn't have much hope for this situation. Aircraft X was talking to us at 075 there was a target at about 10 oclock and 1 or 2 miles at 070 converging. Although we weren't talking to the other aircraft at 070; it was most likely aircraft Y. This was in a charted alert area. These aircraft do rapid maneuvers so it is hard to call traffic sometimes. The aircraft Y target at 070 climbed in 1 hit from 070 to around 085 right in front of aircraft X within maybe a mile. That means that aircraft Y crossed through the altitude of aircraft X and about a mile and the right -side wasn't interested in calling the traffic. You should watch the tapes; in my opinion it would be pretty scary to be in that aircraft expecting some level of service from ATC and getting none in that situation. Yes; the aircraft Y have TCAS and are pretty good at avoiding other non participating traffic but mistakes still happen and in my opinion the r-side carries a hazardous attitude towards calling traffic to VFR aircraft.change the culture in the FAA so that supervisors do their job; and when they are aware of a situation like that; they are backed by upper management to insure that employees who have hazardous attitudes aren't allowed to work traffic or get paid for that matter until their hazardous attitude changes. There are no amount of briefings about the importance of calling traffic to VFR's that will alone fix these types of attitudes.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Jacksonville Center (ZJX) Controller describes a loss of separation when an aircraft climbs into the path of and very close to an aircraft that the R Side was controlling.

Narrative: I was working the D-side and there was a VFR aircraft we were giving flight following to. The R side had already shown me a few minutes ago how uninterested he was in actually calling or being concerned about the potential for a collision with a different VFR aircraft. So I didn't have much hope for this situation. Aircraft X was talking to us at 075 there was a target at about 10 oclock and 1 or 2 miles at 070 converging. Although we weren't talking to the other aircraft at 070; it was most likely Aircraft Y. This was in a charted alert area. These aircraft do rapid maneuvers so it is hard to call traffic sometimes. The Aircraft Y target at 070 climbed in 1 hit from 070 to around 085 right in front of Aircraft X within maybe a mile. That means that Aircraft Y crossed through the altitude of Aircraft X and about a mile and the R -side wasn't interested in calling the traffic. You should watch the tapes; in my opinion it would be pretty scary to be in that aircraft expecting some level of service from ATC and getting none in that situation. Yes; the Aircraft Y have TCAS and are pretty good at avoiding other non participating traffic but mistakes still happen and in my opinion the R-side carries a hazardous attitude towards calling traffic to VFR aircraft.Change the culture in the FAA so that supervisors do their job; and when they are aware of a situation like that; they are backed by upper management to insure that employees who have hazardous attitudes aren't allowed to work traffic or get paid for that matter until their hazardous attitude changes. There are no amount of briefings about the importance of calling traffic to VFR's that will alone fix these types of attitudes.

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.