Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E S56
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Second aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working the TRACON sectors. Aircraft Y had departed southbound. He was shipped slightly later than usual and I had to ask them to ship him again. When I got the aircraft I turned him southbound to get him on course. I saw a release of Aircraft X a military flight of two. I was listening closely to ensure they stopped them lower; knowing that Aircraft Y was still in the way out to the west as I wasn't able to turn him south quicker. I heard the controller issue Aircraft X 8;000 feet so I moved on. I could tell that Aircraft X was going to pass behind Aircraft Y; so I hadn't issued traffic. When I realized that Aircraft X was violating their altitude; I heard the controller tell them to maintain visual separation and by the time I could have issued traffic or a traffic alert they were already passing behind Aircraft Y.I think the military really needs to come see what we do at this facility so they know how they impact the other traffic out in the practice area. It would be good training for them. I also think there needs to be more responsibility on them to pay attention to their restrictions. We are constantly having military aircraft violate their instructions and get too close to other aircraft. At the current trend it's just a matter of time before something very bad happens with the squadron.


Second narrative: Aircraft Y had departed and was climbing to 12;000 feet. The controller turned Aircraft Y south as I released Aircraft X on a published departure procedure. I RADAR identified aircraft X and verified his Mode C. I assigned Aircraft X 8;000 feet and issued traffic on Aircraft Y and told him to expect higher passing. Aircraft x replied 'RADAR contact' and read back 8;000 feet. Aircraft X then reported the traffic in sight; during which time he was above 8;000 feet; and I instructed him to maintain visual separation and believe I received a good readback. Aircraft X passed behind Aircraft Y and continued to climb through 9;000 feet at which point I asked him what altitude he was climbing to. Aircraft X replied 10;000 feet and I said 'roger'. I observed Aircraft X climb to 10;500 feet before eventually leveling at 100 feet. The Departure procedure only climbs to 9;000 feet; so I had to coordinate approval for 10;000 feet. I called the Front Line Manager over and notified them of the incident. A brasher was not issued to Aircraft X before I shipped him.I am unsure whether standard IFR separation was lost prior to the use of visual separation. In my opinion this is an obvious pilot deviation. After the incident there was discussion around the TRACON about how military pilots aren't held to the same standard as normal pilots and that Aircraft X will probably not receive a pilot deviation as a result. Military pilots need to be held to the same standard as everyone else and should be counseled as such. This situation could have been much worse if Aircraft Y was not southbound when aircraft X climbed above 8;000 feet.


Synopsis: A military flight of two aircraft climbed above the altitude of their assigned departure procedure into confliction with enroute traffic.