Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ICT.TRACON, KS
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ICT
ATC / advisory: TRACON ICT
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had just taken the RE position. I released Aircraft Z off of IAB going back to END via MAKES requesting 130 feet. I radar identified him and climbed him to 70 feet for crossing traffic to the north. I also issued him a left turn direct to MAKES. KABT was requesting another IFR RLS for Aircraft X via the automated STARS procedures. However it wasn't showing up on my display and for some reason was showing up on the Radar West (RW) display. When KABT called I informed them that Aircraft X was released and we were trying to figure out why the automated request was flashing on the wrong scope. Also I did not have a departure strip on Aircraft X. I asked the Flight Data position to get one for me. I think before I was talking to Aircraft X KABT requested a RLS on Aircraft Y IFR. This request was made via the automated procedures and flashed on my display. I released Aircraft Y via the automated procedures. When Aircraft X came over to me he was already in a left turn to the south (standard release is runway heading to 40 feet). I caught it and issued him a right turn back to the north due to the proximity he was in to the ICT departure corridor and departing traffic just off of ICT. I asked the pilot if he had been issued instructions from KABT and he said affirmative and that he was issued 40 feet and runway heading. I believe it was at that point that he realized what he had done. However; I still had no strip and was getting confused on where his IFR routing was. He confirmed he was going back to END via MAKES and so I turned him Right to a 190 heading. At this Aircraft Y tagged up off of IAB and I immediately issued a climb to 130 feet to Aircraft X . When I reviewed the tapes I found out it was Aircraft Y that had took the instruction and not Aircraft X; (Aircraft Y read back 130 feet however it is possible that Aircraft X also read back 130 feet but was stepped on by Aircraft Y). I immediately issued 30 feet to Aircraft Y and he read back the 30 feet instruction. I issued a traffic alert to Aircraft X and he reported the aircraft in sight. I issued the Visual Separation Phraseology. Without pointing out traffic to him; Aircraft Y immediately called the aircraft insight and I issued the same Visual Separation phraseology to him. Both aircraft passed without incident but I had to reissue the climb to 130 feet to Aircraft X because he stayed at 40 feet. Once separation was regained I was able to get the Aircraft X on course and pointed out and then put the Aircraft Y on course and climbing. Both aircraft thanked me for my patience! HA! Don't suppose they are going to buy me a new pair of underwear!A couple of out of the ordinary things happened here. 1) The automated release is supposed to flash at the display responsible for the east airspace. We checked the configuration and everything as far as we could tell was correct on our end. So we are not sure why the automated release request for Aircraft X flashed on the Radar West display. Also; KABT obviously had a strip and the clearance for Aircraft X in order to issue it to him so why didn't we have a strip on him. That's confusing to me. This needs to be figured out to avoid confusion in the future and to make sure everyone has the information they need.2) KABT needs to hang on to their departures just long enough to make sure they are doing what they are suppose to be doing. In this situation had KABT held on to their communications with Aircraft X just a little longer they would have seen him make a turn to the left and could have corrected it back to runway heading. This would have solved the whole situation. Since the aircraft turned intermediately off departure end I have to assume that they shipped him as soon as they got the verbal release since the aircraft was already 3 in trail of Aircraft Z.3) When I turned Aircraft X back to the south on the 190 heading I should have simultaneously issued a climb. Because I didn't issue that climb it left him at 40 feet long enough to become a factor for Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: ICT Approach Controller reports of problem with aircraft taking another aircrafts instructions causing confusion and impacting workload on controller. Controller also states he did not have a strip on one of the aircraft and not having the route of said aircraft in front of him.