Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Military Trainer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had just relieved the controller from the R66/67 combined. Before the briefing; the controller issued a frequency change on Aircraft Y to TRACON. Aircraft Y was direct LAL at 14;000 feet descending to cross 15 miles south of LAL at 4;000 feet. This was a relatively late descent; but it was a very high performance aircraft. Southbound at 9;000 feet was Aircraft X. Aircraft X was direct QUNCY. The controller coordinated with Tampa that Aircraft X would be direct QUNCY which would put him on a path approximately 3.5 miles west of Aircraft Y's path (This is a 3 mile separation area). Had I been the controller at the sector previously; I would not have shipped Aircraft Y to Tampa Approach so I could have resolved the potential conflict first.However; when the aircraft were approximately 8 miles apart; with Aircraft Y 3000 feet above Aircraft X; Tampa Approach called and advised my Radar Assist that they were turning Aircraft Y to a 270 heading. This would cross the path of Aircraft X directly in front of him; placing him in direct conflict. TRACON apparently also issued an expeditious descent to Aircraft Y; as for several hits; his mode C went to '91X'. Just before being advised this; I had issued a heading of 170 (similar to his current heading) to Aircraft X and then another of 190. After seeing the turn and this being communicated to us; my Assist stated; 'TURN HIM TO A 090 HEADING; NOW!' I turned Aircraft X to a 090 heading; but it never took effect.This action; in my opinion; was completely unnecessary by Tampa Approach and was blatantly in disregard to safety. In addition; this is consistent with their NMAC they had [recently] with an inbound jet; and they turned a slower [aircraft] into his path. During the event; the Supervisor was standing over my shoulder watching. When I started yelling expletives and explaining what happened to him; he said 'oh; well; it's over now.' There's no reason to turn an aircraft 90 degrees abeam another aircraft; abruptly crossing his path; unless the action is prior coordinated. In addition; crossing one's path is also completely unnecessary and this whole situation could have been accomplished by two 10-degree turns; or one 20 degree turn. If more radical turns are needed; they should be away from the aircraft and to the right of them; not across them. Given that this is the second time in recent weeks that this has happened; I wonder if the controllers at TPA TRACON are being instructed to do this; or if there is a culture there to support this.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller reported observing TPA TRACON turn an aircraft directly into the path of another aircraft that the Center Controller was still in communication with.