Narrative:

I have been checked out on ground control and flight data for approximately 7 months. At the time of the event I was working both positions combined and it was very busy. I requested from ZKC release on an IFR small aircraft X, departing south to ewk. ZKC advised small aircraft X was release with tower providing visibility sep between small aircraft X and a fgt inbound from the south opp direction. Small aircraft X departed at approximately XA28 climbing to 5000' turning left on course, ssebound. At XA30 I advised ZKC that the fgt was missed approach as planned. At the same time I requested release on cga Y departing south destination ft collins county. I told the ZKC controller tower would provide visibility sep between the fgt and cga Y. The ZKC controller advised that cga Y was released with a left turn heading 060 degrees (vectors to avoid the restr area R3601 a&B) climbing to 4000'. Visibility sep applied between the fgt and cga Y. My thoughts were that cga Y was restr to 4000' because small aircraft X was out of 4000' climbing to 5000'. To my knowledge I was not instructed to provide visibility sep between these 2 aircraft. Cga Y departed at approximately XA32. A few mins later I called ZKC for a position report on another IFR aircraft inbound. The ZKC controller asked me what kind of sep I was using between cga Y and small aircraft X. I told him none, that he never advised. I had to use visibility or any other type of sep between the 2 aircraft. The situation was not resolved that day due to shift change and traffic vol. I do not know how close the 2 aircraft came together. I do not think the ZKC controller was familiar with the sector he was working, nor was he familiar with the sln-ZKC facility, LOA's and traffic vol was very high. If sln had an approach control, problems like this I believe would be few and far between.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BREAKDOWN IN COM BETWEEN ARTCC AND TWR ON RELEASE OF IFR ACFT AND SEPARATION RESPONSIBILITY.

Narrative: I HAVE BEEN CHKED OUT ON GND CTL AND FLT DATA FOR APPROX 7 MONTHS. AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT I WAS WORKING BOTH POSITIONS COMBINED AND IT WAS VERY BUSY. I REQUESTED FROM ZKC RELEASE ON AN IFR SMA X, DEPARTING S TO EWK. ZKC ADVISED SMA X WAS RELEASE WITH TWR PROVIDING VIS SEP BTWN SMA X AND A FGT INBND FROM THE S OPP DIRECTION. SMA X DEPARTED AT APPROX XA28 CLBING TO 5000' TURNING LEFT ON COURSE, SSEBOUND. AT XA30 I ADVISED ZKC THAT THE FGT WAS MISSED APCH AS PLANNED. AT THE SAME TIME I REQUESTED RELEASE ON CGA Y DEPARTING S DEST FT COLLINS COUNTY. I TOLD THE ZKC CTLR TWR WOULD PROVIDE VIS SEP BTWN THE FGT AND CGA Y. THE ZKC CTLR ADVISED THAT CGA Y WAS RELEASED WITH A LEFT TURN HDG 060 DEGS (VECTORS TO AVOID THE RESTR AREA R3601 A&B) CLBING TO 4000'. VIS SEP APPLIED BTWN THE FGT AND CGA Y. MY THOUGHTS WERE THAT CGA Y WAS RESTR TO 4000' BECAUSE SMA X WAS OUT OF 4000' CLBING TO 5000'. TO MY KNOWLEDGE I WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO PROVIDE VIS SEP BTWN THESE 2 ACFT. CGA Y DEPARTED AT APPROX XA32. A FEW MINS LATER I CALLED ZKC FOR A POS RPT ON ANOTHER IFR ACFT INBND. THE ZKC CTLR ASKED ME WHAT KIND OF SEP I WAS USING BTWN CGA Y AND SMA X. I TOLD HIM NONE, THAT HE NEVER ADVISED. I HAD TO USE VIS OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF SEP BTWN THE 2 ACFT. THE SITUATION WAS NOT RESOLVED THAT DAY DUE TO SHIFT CHANGE AND TFC VOL. I DO NOT KNOW HOW CLOSE THE 2 ACFT CAME TOGETHER. I DO NOT THINK THE ZKC CTLR WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE SECTOR HE WAS WORKING, NOR WAS HE FAMILIAR WITH THE SLN-ZKC FAC, LOA'S AND TFC VOL WAS VERY HIGH. IF SLN HAD AN APCH CTL, PROBS LIKE THIS I BELIEVE WOULD BE FEW AND FAR BTWN.

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.