Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Last night; I was informed that Aircraft X was involved in a NMAC.Last night; I was working the radar position. At some point during the session; another sector initiated a handoff to me of Aircraft X at 37;000 feet. Prior to taking the handoff I examined its route. I realized that route put the aircraft in conflict with a Warning Area.I figured that Aircraft X was too heavy for 39;000 feet at the time; and rather than inconvenience the overseas flight; I decided to see if I could get the controlling agency for the Warning Area to approve the aircraft on its filed route through the Warning Area.  From experience; I know that sometimes they assume separation responsibility (via pointout or handoff) for flights through active warning areas on specific routes or at specific altitudes. I was thinking that if they were able to take a pointout or handoff of Aircraft X through the Warning Area I would not create an additional conflict within my airspace for Aircraft X and the aircraft could remain on the most direct routing.I then initiated coordination to determine whether or not they could approve a pointout on Aircraft X. They could not initially answer; they said they would call me back. I continued working and approximately a minute later they called me and told me they could assume separation responsibility (via pointout) for Aircraft X through the Warning Area. My plan was to affect a handoff of the aircraft to a ZDC Sector; as it transited a portion of their airspace prior to entering [the warning area]; and let them know that Aircraft X was approved on his route.The Warning Area controlling Agency agreed to take communications with Aircraft X (accepting a handoff) and I switched Aircraft X to them.I finished that session and went on break. I then worked another session and when I was relieved; my manager asked me if I knew what had happened with the Aircraft X debacle. I remembered the flight and the details of the situation; but wasn't aware of an issue until he informed me that Aircraft X had been involved in a NMAC. I was not able to see what happened on the Falcon; but I am told Aircraft X received an RA while in the Warning Area.I take my duty as a controller very seriously; and I was very disheartened to know that Aircraft X was placed in any potential danger as a consequence of my decision to allow the Warning Area controllers to assume separation responsibility for the flight. Though it is my understanding that they have the capability to provide separation for aircraft transiting airspace under their control; I will not trust them to do so in the future. It is probably much safer to simply route aircraft around their airspace to the extent practicable.




Synopsis: A ZDC Controller received approval for an aircraft to fly through a Warning Area. While in the Warning Area the aircraft was involved in a NMAC and responded to an RA.