Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A large portion of what happened was because of weather around the sector and through out the state of Florida.  It caused for 'not normal' procedures to be used; re-routes; and added traffic coming from additional sectors.  We also had the airspace and procedures in our airspace recently change with Metroplex; and their is still a learning curve.For this specific incident; Aircraft Y was on the VIICE arrival descending out of FL340 for FL240.  Then FLL was being rerouted and Aircraft X was on a south heading to get spacing.  Both aircraft were handed off to our sector Y).  Then coordination went on between the 2 R-sides; and the sector X R-side offered a point out on the Aircraft X turning on course.  I think experience of X R-side vs sector Y R-side was a factor in sector Y R-side accepting the point out on an aircraft he probably should of called radar on and worked.  Aircraft Y was also on a weather reroute; and I think his heading vs his route; gave both controllers the feeling they had more time to resolve the conflict.  I brought the potential conflict to the attention of my R-side.  Aircraft Y had never checked on; so sector Y R-side  leaned over to sector X R-side and told him to be careful of the situation.  That's when sector X R-side told sector Y R-side that sector Y R-side should already be in communications with Aircraft Y.  At that point sector Y R-side reached out to Aircraft Y and told him to fly a heading of 180 and maintain FL280.  Sector X R-side then told the Aircraft  X to turn to a heading of 270.  Although the turn was issued late; the reaction time of the Aircraft Y pilot and the response/performance of the plane was also not anticipated.  The turn was a lot wider and longer than what was expected.  Now the sector Y R-side also told the Aircraft Y pilot to stop his descent and maintain FL280 when the data block reflected FL281.  Meaning the aircraft had already descended through; had to level off; and then climb back up.  I honestly don't know [what to do about the situation].I think experience was a factor with the sector Y R-side as  a newly checked out CPC.  I think they learned a lot today; and looking back would of done things differently.  As for a procedural change or how to keep it from happening in the future I don't have an answer.


Second narrative: Weather in the South Florida Area. Miami Approach was temporarily holding Miami Arrivals then opened. Next Fort Lauderdale arrivals were being held. Miami was accepting Arrivals descending to 080 and were being vectored west. Sector X was receiving the Atlantic Miami Arrivals due to weather effecting there arrival gates. The Miami Arrivals were routed ZFP PTOON VIICE1 MIA. I descended the aircraft to FL240 and handed off to Sector Y (VIICE ) which is physically located at the Radar position to my immediate right. Aircraft Y was one of these aircraft. I had 2 FLL aircraft descending for the OLAHS1 arrival. FLL was holding but then I received information from the Area supervisor that FLL was open; but OLAHS was closed and that we were re-routing aircraft to PEAKY for the BHHIA1 arrival. Initially I was not aware the location or spelling of PEAKY or the BHHIA1 arrival. I placed my first FLL aircraft on a heading 270 and advised to expect revised clearance. I placed the second aircraft Aircraft X on a heading of 180 to gain the necessary 15 miles in trail spacing that was being requested. Both my FLL aircraft were PVD up onto sector Y which is the adjacent sector to X on the south side. There was difficulty attempting to locate the new arrival and input into the system. It was not an item in the drop down routes. Aircraft X currently heading 180 for the initial requested in-trail spacing was then given the revised re-route PEAKY BHHIA BHHIA1 FLL. At the same time now flashing with Aircraft Y; another aircraft; EGLL ZFP PTOON VIICE1 MIA. I had worked Aircraft Y; descended to FL240 and handed off to Sector Y. I could hear next to me the sector Y R-side controller attempting to turn Aircraft Y to a heading of 180 and I turned Aircraft X to a 270 heading; then 290 heading and then a 360 heading attempting to maintain positive separation. Separation was lost. We are currently in the initial weeks of the revised Metroplex. Sector X; Y; and Z have been recently altered; adjusted both in design; altitude stratum and procedures; new fixes; airways and descend/climb VIA clearances. Initially Aircraft Y was direct PTOON descending to FL240; handed off to Sector Y. At this time I thought all was well and was involved in Issuing clearance to the FLL arrivals. Hind site; leaving Aircraft X on the westward heading and advised to expect the reroute would have resolved this conflict.


Synopsis: ZMA Center Controllers reported a loss of separation attributed to weather and new Metroplex procedures.