Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Aircraft: B737-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During performing duties as RADAR Associate on Sector 63 and 69 stratified FL290 and above (combined) I have received a call from Sector 13 Controller; whose sector is stratified FL280 and below; with point out on Air Carrier X heading eastbound and climbing to FL350. After searching for potential traffic conflicts that would be a factor for that Air Carrier X; I identified that I did have traffic at FL300 and advised the Sector 13 Controller that I was unable his/her request due to traffic. I have advised the Sector 13 Controller to keep the Air Carrier X at FL290. The Controller of Sector 13 found that it would be operational advantageous to hand off Air Carrier X to our Sector 63 and 69 which is normal procedure. I pointed out to the R-Side that Air Carrier X was flashing with a hand off to us. RADAR Controller of Sector 63 and 69 had identified that the Air Carrier Y could be a potential traffic that was heading west on PACOT routes R220 at FL300. The work load was high because of traffic requesting to be rerouted through the Russian airspace due to volcanic ash. After completion with coordination with Russian ARTCC; I heard that the R Side issued a vector for the Air Carrier X to turn 20 degrees left for traffic. Then Air Carrier Y inquired about a traffic that was displayed on TCAS. The R-Side had responded to inquiring Air Carrier Y with information about that aircraft/traffic (Air Carrier X). Later I learned that Air Carrier Y and Air Carrier X had passed each other with 5.85 miles of separation. My recommendation would be for better development of traffic pattern design for departing and climbing aircraft through NOPAC routes; it could be done via lateral or vertical restrictions procedures. Simplify the approval for entry into Russian airspace; the local Magadan; Russia ARTCC authorities need to delegate more authority; so they do not have to wait for Moscow Command Center to issue the permit; it is takes long time; and often urgency exists where quicker process will help in situations like we had on the day of event.


Second narrative: I was working busy traffic on Sector 63R combined with 69R. Due to a volcanic eruption in Russia; many aircraft in my airspace were re-routing to fixes on the Russian FIR. This requires a lot of coordination because Russia will not take aircraft into their airspace without approval from Moscow. This takes a lot of attention away from normal operations. I did have a D-Side helping; but the work load was still high. The D-Side accepted a point out from Sector 13 for Air Carrier X. Sector 13 is the low sector below Sector 63 and 69. I then immediately got a hand off from Sector 13 for Air Carrier X. I accepted the hand off of Air Carrier X going eastbound to PANC. Air Carrier X was looking for a climb to FL350. I used the 10 minute vector lines to see where he would pass possible traffic. That traffic was Air Carrier Y going westbound on R220 at FL300. It appeared that Air Carrier X would pass behind Air Carrier Y but it would be close; so I issued the climb to Air Carrier X to FL350 and intended to return to the situation in a few minutes when it they got a little closer. I then received more requests from aircraft to re-route to Russian airspace and was distracted. I did eventually get back to Air Carrier X and Air Carrier Y. I noticed that Air Carrier X was in closer proximity to Air Carrier Y than I had anticipated. I used the DU function to determine the distance between the two aircraft. It showed just over 6 miles. I then issued a 20 degree left turn to Air Carrier X away from Air Carrier Y. Air Carrier X informed me that he had the traffic in sight about 5 mile away. Air Carrier Y then inquired about the traffic 100 FT above him and asked for the call sign and type of aircraft so that he could file paperwork for a TA. I later learned that I did not loose separation and that they in fact had no less than 5.85 miles separation. I did however; feel that this was an unsafe situation. Had my attention not been taken away due to heavy work load from re-routes I could have issued a short vector to Air Carrier X for traffic. We need an easier way to get faster and concrete approval from Russia for flights to enter their airspace for re-routes. We had situations where the controller from Russia would tell us that an aircraft had authorization and then a few minutes later one of their supervisors would call and say he doesn't have approval. Then a few minutes later the Russian Controller would again tell us that he does. The process takes far too long and creates a much higher work load on our controllers.


Synopsis: Distracted by the cumbersome coordination requirements with Russian Controllers; a ZAN Controller experienced a near loss of separation event during multiple re-routes required to avoid volcanic ash areas.