ACR X POSSIBLE LTSS FROM ACFT Y. POSSIBLE SYS ERROR.

Narrative

BFL APCH WAS OPERATING UNDER NON-RADAR PROCS DUE TO A SCHEDULED RADAR OUTAGE. THE PROCS BEING USED WERE CONTRARY TO PROCS SPECIFIED IN THE 7110.65H MANUAL; AND WERE CONSIDERED TO BE UNSAFE BY MOST OF THE CTR CTLRS IN AREA B AND MANY OF THE FIRST LINE SUPVRS. THE PROCS WERE AGREED TO BY AREA B MGR; THE AREA B SPECIALIST; AND THE QTP COMMITTEE OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE CTLRS IN THE AREA. I WAS WORKING THE HDOF POS AND HAD PASSED SEVERAL INBOUND ESTIMATES TO APCH; WHEN I RECEIVED A CALL FROM BFL WITH AN ESTIMATE FOR WRING INTXN ON AN MLG DEPARTING BFL; CLBING TO 6000 FT. I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED AT THIS SINCE I HAD NOT RECEIVED DEP COORD FROM APCH OR TWR AS IS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 4-36 OF THE 7110.65H. APCH ASKED FOR A HIGHER ALT ON THE MLG. I INFORMED THEM THAT I WAS UNABLE TO APPROVE HIGHER DUE TO THE ACFT Y THAT I HAD JUST GIVEN THEM ESTIMATES ON. THE CTLR INFORMED ME THAT THEY WOULD PUT THE ACFT IN A HOLD AT WRING AND HUNG UP. SINCE THE PROCS CALLED FOR APCH TO KEEP THE DEP ON THE FREQ UNTIL CTR APPROVES HIGHER; I DID NOT QUESTION HOW THEY WERE GOING TO HOLD AT WRING WHERE THERE IS NO PUBLISHED HOLDING PATTERN. THE RADAR CTLR AND I WERE BOTH AT A LOSS AS TO WHAT TO DO WITH THE ACFT WHEN IT RPTED ON OUR FREQ; ENTERING HOLDING AT 6000 FT. WE HAD ALREADY TERMINATED RADAR ON THE INBOUND ACFT THAT WAS DSNDING TO 7000 FT AND WE ASSUMED THAT IT WOULD BE ENTERING HOLDING AT ARVIN AT 7000 FT. I WAS ABOUT TO CALL APCH TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO TO SEPARATE THE 2 ACFT WHEN WE SAW THE ARR ACFT DSNDING OUT OF 7000 FT. AN AREA SUPVR; WHO WAS STANDING BEHIND THE SECTOR SAW THE SIT AND CALLED BFL TO FIND OUT WHAT KIND OF SEPARATION THEY WERE USING BTWN THE 2 NON-RADAR ACFT. WHEN THE MLG ACFT TURNED TOWARDS THE N IN HIS HOLDING PATTERN; AND WAS CLR OF THE ARR RTE; THE RADAR CTLR CLBED THE ACFT CLR OF APCH CTL AIRSPACE. WHEN WE WERE RELIEVED FROM THE SECTOR; WE WROTE STATEMENTS ON THE SIT. I WAS VERY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT LATER THAT THIS INCIDENT WAS BEING TREATED AS A NON- OCCURRENCE. I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST A WARNING OF POSSIBLY MORE SERIOUS INCIDENTS TO COME IN THE FUTURE IF SOMETHING IS NOT DONE ABOUT THIS DANGEROUS PROC.