Narrative:

Aircraft X was on southeast vectors over ZZZ in a descent from 067 to 030 for traffic (aircraft Z) 10 southeast of ZZZ; who was northwest bound for a midfield crossing at 040.aircraft Y was inbound for ZZZ1 from the northwest; in an abnormal position for the feed from arrival (B) to [ZZZZZ1] (D) level at 090.this actually occupied a bit more of my attention than I expected. I don't think I've ever seen anyone fed to D that stayed on the ZZZZZ2 arrival as long as aircraft Y did; and especially not when ZZZ1 is on a xx flow.maybe 2 minutes go by and aircraft X is barely out of 060 and I tell him to expedite his descent when he's 19.26 NM northwest of ZZZ and I explain the aircraft Z traffic at 040. He says he will expedite. By the time he's leaving 5; I realize we have about 10 NM to get him down the other 2;000 feet and that's just not going to happen; so I issue I think a 160/150 heading. He takes the heading; that's when aircraft Y comes into play.aircraft Y is handed off after passing aircraft X and a deal has been worked out with B for him to be descending to 030; again; he was in an uncommon placement for a handoff. I give aircraft Y a 210 heading to sequence behind aircraft a traffic IFR into ZZZ1. Aircraft Z and aircraft X are not a factor at this time; due to the diverging headings; but in my mind; it sure felt like they were. I looked at arrivals ZZZ traffic and saw one at something like 1;800 feet; so that gave me the impression they probably had more traffic and I didn't want this guy cruising another 10 NM southeast bound into a position he may interfere with ZZZ arrivals. I didn't do a quick-look of B traffic because I was fixated on this aircraft X dogging it to 030; so I decided that a turn west bound might for sure give me the separation with aircraft Z that I needed. Well; after I do that B yells out 'you good with those two'? I look and see that the aircraft Y is now leveling at 030 and aircraft X sure looked less than 3 NM away in his turn to heading 270. Now when I viewed the replay I did some measurements and a lot of the time they were 15+ degrees and diverging; but I think there had to be a split second where they weren't. And yeah; if I had let aircraft X stay on the 160/150 heading; I wouldn't be typing up this report.my only real recommendation is to maybe have a quick run through of the traffic flow at ZZZ [TRACON] during one of our briefing days. Nothing big; but we have maps back in the classroom info packet that has arrows that shows the preferred routings through our jacked-up airspace. I blame myself for the loss (except that funky feed got me!); but refreshers like that have kinda gone to the wayside in the past few years. Should I revisit the SOP and traffic flow through ZZZ [TRACON]? Absolutely. Will xx of xx controllers 100% not do that? Absolutely. During covid a lot of positions have been combined for months on end due to staffing and lower traffic load. Reopening the room is kinda like going back into training; or at least like it feels like coming back after a long vacation. Dealing with headings we haven't used in a while; procedures; and frequencies. Refresher briefings would be nice. That's not a dig at our management I just think the FAA would be wise to allot the time for it.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict.

Narrative: Aircraft X was on SE vectors over ZZZ in a descent from 067 to 030 for traffic (Aircraft Z) 10 SE of ZZZ; who was NW bound for a midfield crossing at 040.Aircraft Y was inbound for ZZZ1 from the northwest; in an abnormal position for the feed from Arrival (B) to [ZZZZZ1] (D) level at 090.This actually occupied a bit more of my attention than I expected. I don't think I've ever seen anyone fed to D that stayed on the ZZZZZ2 arrival as long as Aircraft Y did; and especially not when ZZZ1 is on a XX flow.Maybe 2 minutes go by and Aircraft X is barely out of 060 and I tell him to expedite his descent when he's 19.26 NM NW of ZZZ and I explain the Aircraft Z traffic at 040. He says he will expedite. By the time he's leaving 5; I realize we have about 10 NM to get him down the other 2;000 feet and that's just not going to happen; so I issue I think a 160/150 heading. He takes the heading; that's when Aircraft Y comes into play.Aircraft Y is handed off after passing Aircraft X and a deal has been worked out with B for him to be descending to 030; again; he was in an uncommon placement for a handoff. I give Aircraft Y a 210 heading to sequence behind Aircraft A traffic IFR into ZZZ1. Aircraft Z and Aircraft X are not a factor at this time; due to the diverging headings; but in my mind; it sure felt like they were. I looked at arrivals ZZZ traffic and saw one at something like 1;800 feet; so that gave me the impression they probably had more traffic and I didn't want this guy cruising another 10 NM SE bound into a position he may interfere with ZZZ arrivals. I didn't do a quick-look of B traffic because I was fixated on this Aircraft X dogging it to 030; so I decided that a turn W bound might for sure give me the separation with Aircraft Z that I needed. Well; after I do that B yells out 'You good with those two'? I look and see that the Aircraft Y is now leveling at 030 and Aircraft X sure looked less than 3 NM away in his turn to heading 270. Now when I viewed the replay I did some measurements and a lot of the time they were 15+ degrees and diverging; but I think there had to be a split second where they weren't. And yeah; if I had let Aircraft X stay on the 160/150 heading; I wouldn't be typing up this report.My only real recommendation is to maybe have a quick run through of the traffic flow at ZZZ [TRACON] during one of our briefing days. Nothing big; but we have maps back in the classroom info packet that has arrows that shows the preferred routings through our jacked-up airspace. I blame myself for the loss (except that funky feed got me!); but refreshers like that have kinda gone to the wayside in the past few years. Should I revisit the SOP and traffic flow through ZZZ [TRACON]? Absolutely. Will XX of XX controllers 100% not do that? Absolutely. During COVID a lot of positions have been combined for months on end due to staffing and lower traffic load. Reopening the room is kinda like going back into training; or at least like it feels like coming back after a long vacation. Dealing with headings we haven't used in a while; procedures; and frequencies. Refresher briefings would be nice. That's not a dig at our management I just think the FAA would be wise to allot the time for it.

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.