Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Enroute; Trainee
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; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Staffing; Weather; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The shift started with weather in the ZKC32 and ZKC92 with numerous deviations. The Flow Control Board read 12 miles in trail to ORD; and did not specify what routes were in use due to the weather. I brought this to the attention of the supervisor and they said they would check on it. I observed a deviating stream on the KEOKK fix; and a stream over SPI going into ORD. The Supervisor came back about 5 minutes later and said that the only two streams in use were the ones I had just observed. The flow board did not change indicating we could not use VINCA. I also asked the supervisor what the weather was going to do that night and he said it wouldn't be a problem and would either dissipate slowly or move north. Neither of these happened.  After coming back from break; the weather had moved into the northern half of Sector 84. There were numerous ORD arrivals being routed through our airspace due to a flow implementation by TMU at ZAU and ZKC. The aircraft were coming to us at varying altitudes between 26000 feet and 35000 feet. Three streams were converging on STL and routed STL TRTLL3. This route was not working and all of the aircraft had to be re-routed once entering our airspace to PNT TRTLL3. This could only be accomplished with the drop down list in URET; and Gateway (sector 12) put a further restriction on us to have the ORD landers at or below 27000 feet prior to their boundary. I also tried to route an aircraft from my stream to the KEOKK stream to alleviate congestion (at the supervisor's request) and the pilot refused due to weather. On three separate occasions I told the Supervisor that this route was not working; and not only were they increasing my work load but they were unnecessarily making the aircraft fly west to STL and then be turned back to the East for sequencing back through Gateway's airspace (ZKC12). On all three occasions the Supervisor left and came back and said 'that's the way they want them'.  I was essentially taking ZID ORD landing traffic from the east direct STL and turning them back to the northeast through ZKC12. There was never a route established and I had to use PNT TRTLL3 on my own. The sector was becoming oversaturated with ORD arrivals and eventually I had to shut off everyone to fix the mess that was around STL. I had 40 - 50 miles of airspace to blend three streams of ORD arrivals that were deviating and having to be descended for ZKC12. We also had a limited amount of MDW arrivals in the mix that apparently needed to be at or below 23000 feet. This was also not on the flow board.  Aircraft X came on frequency and I acknowledged him. I told him to fly present heading but it was blocked. I did not hear that it was blocked and moved on. Aircraft X commenced to make a hard right turn at STL as the arrival dictates and I missed it thinking he was flying present heading as the data block indicated. I turned Aircraft Y twenty degrees to the left to avoid; and turned Aircraft X thirty degrees to the left immediately with a descent to 33000 feet. I did not hear; or moved on too quickly from the response of Aircraft X to present heading. I should have double checked the clearance and then moved on. There were numerous factors that contributed to this event. Very poor coordination between ZKC TMU and the RI controllers; very poor supervisor involvement in what was happening at the sectors; weather and an unusable routing to ORD led to increased difficulty and sector saturation.


Second narrative: I had been training on 50/59 immediately before the event. Sector 84/94 was already pretty busy due to the volume of traffic; complexity; and weather. I was pulled from training to work the Radar Assist 84 position. The R84 controller was too busy to give me a briefing; so I did the best I could to get the picture and help him out. I was busy trying to put deviations in the fourth line that had already been issued and to answer landlines.R84 was in communication with Aircraft Z and I believe had control of the data block of Aircraft X; but was not in communication with the aircraft. For some reason the R94 controller decided to keep Aircraft X on his frequency and descend the aircraft into R84 airspace. The R94 controller saw the traffic (Aircraft Z) and told the R84 controller that he would keep him separated (not communicated over the landline positions are next to each other). Instead of stepping the aircraft down; the R94 decided to descend Aircraft X to 29000 feet while Aircraft Z was descending to 27000 feet. Aircraft X was also issued a right turn to about a 070 heading which in my opinion reduced the amount of time before loss of separation. I also felt I was told to assume the RA84 position at a time when I could not really assist the R84 controller. Things were already too hectic. With the amount of coordination that was being accomplished; I was on the landlines the majority of the time; not able to assist as needed or hear pilot/controller communications.With the complexity of the traffic the supervisors in Gateway; Rivers; and Ozark needed to be more proactive. On numerous occasions the R84; R94 controllers asked for help and told the supervisors in the areas mentioned that the plan put in place was not working. I am not sure why the supervisors did not try to come up with a different plan and decrease the workload on the two sectors; so a better service could be provided to the pilots and give the controllers and chance to succeed in their jobs. Assign Radar Assist Controllers before things get to busy. Supervisors need to be more engaged. The controllers asked for help and they were not given any.


Synopsis: Due to weather deviations; sectors at ZKC ARTCC became saturated with traffic. Controllers stated the supervisors were not doing enough to relieve the congestion. A Controller issued an instruction to an aircraft which the aircraft did not respond to causing conflict with another aircraft at the same altitude.