Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE; Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had Aircraft X report that he had responded to a TCAS RA. He was in conflict with a VFR target heading south-southeast bound at 17500 feet and NOT talking to ATC. Below is the information I pulled from the situation.Aircraft X was issued a revised descent clearance to 18000 feet and issued a traffic call on a VFR target at 17500 feet by the controller I was relieving. I was already plugged into the sector and reviewing my SIAs/Notams to relieve the controller. Aircraft X responds that he is looking for the traffic. Position relief briefing begins recording. I reissue the VFR traffic to Aircraft X and gave him a pilot's discretion descent to 11000 feet. Aircraft X read back the altitude clearance. Aircraft X tells me that he is responding to a TCAS RA; in which I acknowledged him and asked him to report when he was done responding. I had observed Aircraft X descend down to 17700 feet and climb back to 18000 feet. Aircraft X reports done with RA. I notified the supervisor of the RA. I issued a descend via clearance to Aircraft X and further coordinated with Approach that the pilot stated he may be a bit high for the first few fixes on the arrival. Aircraft X was switched over to TRACON frequency. I was taken off sector to go to the supervisor's office and discuss the Performance Record of Conference I was given for not doing my job correctly. Below is a copy of the text that was contained in the PRC for this situation.Aircraft X responded to a TCAS RA after receiving a discretionary descent and a traffic call for a VFR aircraft at 17500 feet that we were not in communications with. Even though the pilot had accepted the discretionary descent; he did not acknowledge the traffic call. No traffic alert or avoidance maneuvers were offered to the pilot. While there is no set or specific guidance on separation of IFR to VFR aircraft; the 7110.65 2-1-1 states that the primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent the collision of aircraft in the system. In this specific situation; a traffic call was not sufficient enough for prevention; and the pilot had to take evasive maneuvers based off of their equipment. In the future; I expect you to utilize all tools available and the training you have received to enhance your judgment in predicting potential conflicts. When aircraft may come into unsafe proximity with each other; you must use positive means to separate aircraft. A few examples of positive means include but are not limited to using altitude separation; issuing vectors; ensuring the pilot has the other aircraft in sight; etc. Please use caution and positive; preventative control in future situations.'We start discussing the situation and I told him that I felt that I didn't do anything wrong in this situation. I issued a 2nd traffic call and a discretionary descent to the pilot. The supervisor stated that I should have done more to prevent this situation from happening. He also 'STRONGLY ADVISED' me to file an ATSAP report because this situation was going to go to the regional office; and possibly further for more review. I told him that at this point (in the meeting); we should just agree to disagree and complete all tasks required to close up the meeting because I felt that he was disciplining me for no reason.This is the 2nd time in a matter of about 4 weeks where I have been talked to by this particular supervisor about him thinking I am not doing my job correctly. I told him during the meeting yesterday that I didn't agree with his interpretation nor did I feel I did anything wrong in both situations and that at this point I feel that he is targeting me and singling me out. I've had an individual from Quality Assurance and another supervisor tell me that they felt I hadn't done anything wrong in this RA situation. I also told him I hadn't planned on filing an ATSAP as I didn't feel this was an issue; but now that he had talked to me about it and made it quite clear that this situation was going much further out of the building; I felt pressured into filing this report. I understand that some of the dynamics of this situation do not fall under the ATSAP umbrella; if you will; but this is where I chose to start. I am also discussing this with a few other people concerning some of the other things that are going on with this person and their perception of the product of my work. I would like to see the ASAP report that is filed by the pilot to understand his side of the story.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller issued VFR traffic to an aircraft and restricted the aircraft above the traffic. The Controller issued a pilot's discretion descent to the aircraft. The aircraft received an RA for the VFR traffic.