Narrative:

Air carrier X on swf arrival is rted via bdr V91 stuby V205 tresa swf. These aircraft have to be descended into N90's airspace in order to meet a crossing restriction at 60 for another N90 sector. But the first N90 sector (liberty east) will not work the aircraft but will accept pointouts on the aircraft descending up to 1000 ft into their airspace. We get the aircraft from ZNY at the lowest visible fl (FL190 in this instance). Liberty east approved a pointout on air carrier X descend to 140 only. They then called back issuing traffic for air carrier X which was directly in front of air carrier X climbing to 17000. We agreed to turn our traffic to the northwest and descend air carrier X underneath their traffic which they stopped at 160. I stopped air carrier X at 17000 and turned to a 310 degree heading. When I had achieved lateral separation, issued a descent to air carrier X to 14000. Liberty east then called us and said we could go to 12000 with air carrier X. I issued descent to 120 on air carrier X and shortly thereafter, observed a conflict alert with air carrier Y who showed an altitude of V128 in data block. I assumed air carrier Y was VFR and that air carrier X would be safely in front of traffic before their altitudes were close. We then found out air carrier Y was IFR even though our computer had no flight plan. I could not stop the descent of air carrier X in time and separation was lost (3.6 NM). Since both aircraft were in N90's airspace, I was told that no operational error existed since they only need 3 NM separation. But N90 had no idea what heading I had issued air carrier X, as I only told them that I would go northwest (which was toward air carrier Y) to go under the traffic they had issued to us on the pointout. In my opinion, it was only blind luck that prevented air carrier X from coming within 3 NM of air carrier Y and the whole practice of N90 not working this traffic is an unsafe procedure. This sector and specifically this procedure was ucr'ed over 6 months ago. So far, nothing has changed and this example illustrates how unsafe it is. We, the controllers of area east, however, who are stuck working this procedure, make it work because we have to. ZNY and N90 have all but refused to even discuss any plausible solutions. It is very frustrating as N90 refuses to work climbing and descending traffic in their sectors, even though their separation minima is smaller than ours. And we worked the same airspace with more traffic than they do now. Hopefully, this letter will lead to improve the procedures in this sector and the workability/flexibility/relationship with N90. In my opinion, a midair collision will result in this sector if the current procedures are not changed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X DSCNT THROUGH OCCUPIED ALT IN APCH CTL AIRSPACE CONFLICT ALERT ACTIVATED WITH ACR Y.

Narrative: ACR X ON SWF ARR IS RTED VIA BDR V91 STUBY V205 TRESA SWF. THESE ACFT HAVE TO BE DSNDED INTO N90'S AIRSPACE IN ORDER TO MEET A XING RESTRICTION AT 60 FOR ANOTHER N90 SECTOR. BUT THE FIRST N90 SECTOR (LIBERTY E) WILL NOT WORK THE ACFT BUT WILL ACCEPT POINTOUTS ON THE ACFT DSNDING UP TO 1000 FT INTO THEIR AIRSPACE. WE GET THE ACFT FROM ZNY AT THE LOWEST VISIBLE FL (FL190 IN THIS INSTANCE). LIBERTY E APPROVED A POINTOUT ON ACR X DSND TO 140 ONLY. THEY THEN CALLED BACK ISSUING TFC FOR ACR X WHICH WAS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ACR X CLBING TO 17000. WE AGREED TO TURN OUR TFC TO THE NW AND DSND ACR X UNDERNEATH THEIR TFC WHICH THEY STOPPED AT 160. I STOPPED ACR X AT 17000 AND TURNED TO A 310 DEG HDG. WHEN I HAD ACHIEVED LATERAL SEPARATION, ISSUED A DSCNT TO ACR X TO 14000. LIBERTY E THEN CALLED US AND SAID WE COULD GO TO 12000 WITH ACR X. I ISSUED DSCNT TO 120 ON ACR X AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, OBSERVED A CONFLICT ALERT WITH ACR Y WHO SHOWED AN ALT OF V128 IN DATA BLOCK. I ASSUMED ACR Y WAS VFR AND THAT ACR X WOULD BE SAFELY IN FRONT OF TFC BEFORE THEIR ALTS WERE CLOSE. WE THEN FOUND OUT ACR Y WAS IFR EVEN THOUGH OUR COMPUTER HAD NO FLT PLAN. I COULD NOT STOP THE DSCNT OF ACR X IN TIME AND SEPARATION WAS LOST (3.6 NM). SINCE BOTH ACFT WERE IN N90'S AIRSPACE, I WAS TOLD THAT NO OPERROR EXISTED SINCE THEY ONLY NEED 3 NM SEPARATION. BUT N90 HAD NO IDEA WHAT HDG I HAD ISSUED ACR X, AS I ONLY TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD GO NW (WHICH WAS TOWARD ACR Y) TO GO UNDER THE TFC THEY HAD ISSUED TO US ON THE POINTOUT. IN MY OPINION, IT WAS ONLY BLIND LUCK THAT PREVENTED ACR X FROM COMING WITHIN 3 NM OF ACR Y AND THE WHOLE PRACTICE OF N90 NOT WORKING THIS TFC IS AN UNSAFE PROC. THIS SECTOR AND SPECIFICALLY THIS PROC WAS UCR'ED OVER 6 MONTHS AGO. SO FAR, NOTHING HAS CHANGED AND THIS EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATES HOW UNSAFE IT IS. WE, THE CTLRS OF AREA E, HOWEVER, WHO ARE STUCK WORKING THIS PROC, MAKE IT WORK BECAUSE WE HAVE TO. ZNY AND N90 HAVE ALL BUT REFUSED TO EVEN DISCUSS ANY PLAUSIBLE SOLUTIONS. IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING AS N90 REFUSES TO WORK CLBING AND DSNDING TFC IN THEIR SECTORS, EVEN THOUGH THEIR SEPARATION MINIMA IS SMALLER THAN OURS. AND WE WORKED THE SAME AIRSPACE WITH MORE TFC THAN THEY DO NOW. HOPEFULLY, THIS LETTER WILL LEAD TO IMPROVE THE PROCS IN THIS SECTOR AND THE WORKABILITY/FLEXIBILITY/RELATIONSHIP WITH N90. IN MY OPINION, A MIDAIR COLLISION WILL RESULT IN THIS SECTOR IF THE CURRENT PROCS ARE NOT CHANGED.

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.