ACFT UNDER SEPARATE ATC JURISDICTION HAD LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION; POOR INTERFAC COORD ON OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC; ACFT AT SAME ALT.

Narrative

LGT X AT FL350 HDOF TO ATL INITIATED 40 NM N OF COMMON BOUNDARY. LGT X ALSO SLIGHTLY E OF CENTERLINE (1-2 NM). LGT Y AT FL350 FLASHING HDOF S OF TYS AND W OF CENTERLINE (1-2 NM). I (INDY) ACCEPTED HDOF LGT Y APPROX 15 S OF TYS AND MADE MENTAL NOTE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT. ATL ACCEPTED LGT X 5 N OF BOUNDARY. I THEN RESOLVED POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH J89 AND J6 TFC NOW FLASHING CONFLICT. I TURNED LGT X 30 DEGS L; PUNCHED ON HDOF LINE; ADVISED ATL SUPER HIGH (BUU) WHAT I HAD DONE. ATL RADAR CTLR YELLED; 'NO TURN LGT X W.' I IMMEDIATELY ISSUED LGT X A TURN BACK TOWARDS THE W HDG 220 DEGS FROM A 145 DEG HDG. AT THE SAME TIME; LGT X COMMENTED; 'WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?' I BEGAN SEEING LGT Y TRACK COME BACK W. ATL HAD TURNED LGT Y E AND THEN W. I ADVISED INDY SUPVR THAT; 'I DON'T KNOW WHAT ATL IS TRYING TO DO; HE KEEPS MIRRORING WHAT I DO. I'M GOING TO DROP LGT X FL340 OR THEY'LL HIT.' AT 3-4 NM NO MODE C CHANGE WAS OBSERVED ON LGT Y. I GAVE LGT X AN IMMEDIATE DSCNT TO FL340 AND TOLD ATL AT WHICH TIME ANOTHER 'NO; NO.' I GAVE LGT Y FL340. LGT X WAS TOLD TO CLB IMMEDIATELY; AND THAT AN EXPLANATION WOULD FOLLOW ON THE GND IN ATL. MY OPINION IS THAT THE ATL CTLR SHOULD NEVER HAVE TURNED E WITH LGT Y REDUCING SEP THAT ALREADY EXISTED. MISREAD OR WAS CONFUSED BY ALL OF RADAR DATA. ALSO BEING PROPOSED IS THAT CVG INBND TFC BE AT OR BELOW FL310; ELIMINATING THE HEAD ON SITUATION AND OTHER PROBS THE EECP CREATES FOR IND.