How do controllers coordinate clearances through sectors?

On 3/26/2007 9:28 PM, Newps wrote the following:

Mitty wrote:

If you are getting vectors, he may not have the vector though.

The previous controller is required to coordinate that.


My experience is limited to sitting with MSP and ZMP controllers but I am sure I
saw cases where the handoff was automated and there was no talk on the
telephone. Possibly these are standardized routes where everyone knows what the
vector is. Or is there a way this info would have been coded into the data tag
& I just didn't notice?


I don't
believe that the automated handoff has any facility for passing the
vector information, although part of the data tag in a handoff (from
Center to a TRACON for example) can indicate the runway that the
flight is being vectored for.

The center has no control over my data tag. The center does not vector
to a runway, that is an approach controls job.


Possibly it is different at MSP. When I was sitting at the north arrivals
position the data tags on the targets coming from Center were already marked for
the runway. "V3R" or something like that, indicating that the flight was headed
to 30 right. Possibly there is an LOA where Center picks the runway/approach
gate based on the direction the flight is coming from, then adds the tag. But
it was definitely there when the target began to flash, before Approach took the
handoff.


Another interesting thing I learned was that the TRACON radar doesn't
show the little vector that indicates direction of flight like the
Center radars do.

That's because center controllers are retarded and wouldn't know which
way the little airplanes are moving if the computer doesn't tell them.


So, you work at a TRACON, right?

I used to handle that by saying to the new controller "BuzzBomb 234X, 7000
feet, on a vector." A previous controller can't issue an instruction that
has any effect in a subsequent sector, to the best of my knowledge, and the
"new" controller can do whatever s/he needs to do without regard for what
the previous controller did or said.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 26, 2:02 pm, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
I don't pretend to be an expert, but my educated guess is that each
controller is interested only in his/her own airspace and doesn't really
care about what happens after you are handed off to the next sector.


But the question is, does he care about clearances through his
airspace issued by other controllers? And, does he know what
clearances aircraft have that enter his airspace?

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:



So, last night my updated direct clearance affected my route through 4
controller's airspace ( I have 4 handoffs since). Did the issuing
controller have to call all 4 of those controllers before giving me
the clearance?
-Robert


If a controller has to make a landline call because he isn't able to
update the computer he only calls the next sector. He wouldn't have any
idea what guy to call after that and probably isn't able to anyways.

Mitty wrote:



On 3/26/2007 9:28 PM, Newps wrote the following:


Mitty wrote:

If you are getting vectors, he may not have the vector though.


The previous controller is required to coordinate that.


My experience is limited to sitting with MSP and ZMP controllers but I
am sure I saw cases where the handoff was automated and there was no
talk on the telephone. Possibly these are standardized routes where
everyone knows what the vector is. Or is there a way this info would
have been coded into the data tag & I just didn't notice?

The center controller has no control over an approach controllers data
tag. Completely different systems. Many times a controller is only
required to send a plane thru a gate. Any heading that gets the plane
thru the opening is good and doesn't have to be coordinated.




So, you work at a TRACON, right?

Yessir.

On 3/27/2007 2:06 PM, Newps wrote the following:


Mitty wrote:



On 3/26/2007 9:28 PM, Newps wrote the following:


Mitty wrote:

If you are getting vectors, he may not have the vector though.


The previous controller is required to coordinate that.


My experience is limited to sitting with MSP and ZMP controllers but I
am sure I saw cases where the handoff was automated and there was no
talk on the telephone. Possibly these are standardized routes where
everyone knows what the vector is. Or is there a way this info would
have been coded into the data tag & I just didn't notice?

The center controller has no control over an approach controllers data
tag. Completely different systems. Many times a controller is only
required to send a plane thru a gate. Any heading that gets the plane
thru the opening is good and doesn't have to be coordinated.


Hmmm ... possibly the handoff with the runway data in the tag was coming from a
high altitude TRACON sector then. I assumed it was coming from Center because
the aircraft were on the edge of the 'scope, beyond the 30 mile ring. But the
runway tag was definitely there before the north arrivals sector clicked to
accept the handoff.

On Mar 27, 12:03 pm, Newps wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

So, last night my updated direct clearance affected my route through 4
controller's airspace ( I have 4 handoffs since). Did the issuing
controller have to call all 4 of those controllers before giving me
the clearance?
-Robert

If a controller has to make a landline call because he isn't able to
update the computer he only calls the next sector. He wouldn't have any
idea what guy to call after that and probably isn't able to anyways.

Sorry if I sound dumb but I really have no idea how this works. So,
when the controller working the San Jose arrivals issued me a direct
clearance, I know he spoke with the next controller (who was working
Stockton area), but the updated clearance also affected the controller
working south of Sacramento, etc. Since my updated clearance affected
this Sacramento controller too (since it affects my route through his
airspace), doesn't he need to be in on the updated clearance as well??

-Robert

On Mar 27, 11:50 am, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
I used to handle that by saying to the new controller "BuzzBomb 234X, 7000
feet, on a vector." A previous controller can't issue an instruction that
has any effect in a subsequent sector, to the best of my knowledge,

But that clearly isn't the case. My original clearance was to go out
to a VOR, then follow one airway, turn 90 degrees go up another airway
etc. A previous controller changed my clearance to be direct (a much
different route), which had great affect on not only the subsequent
controller but about 3 controllers after that as well.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 27, 11:50 am, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
I used to handle that by saying to the new controller "BuzzBomb 234X,
7000
feet, on a vector." A previous controller can't issue an instruction that
has any effect in a subsequent sector, to the best of my knowledge,

But that clearly isn't the case. My original clearance was to go out
to a VOR, then follow one airway, turn 90 degrees go up another airway
etc. A previous controller changed my clearance to be direct (a much
different route), which had great affect on not only the subsequent
controller but about 3 controllers after that as well.

-Robert

Something to keep in mind is an IFR clearance doesn't really have much of
anything to do with separation.

It's simply the route and altitude ATC has assigned to get the aircraft from
A to B. It's in the computer and there's enough of it on each sector's
strip so that controller knows where the aircraft is coming from and where
it needs to end up.

There may be (probably are) a dozen or more built-in conflicts with other
aircraft on the same or different routes and altitudes. Controllers
deconflict and ensure separation in real time. So long as the controller
gets the aircraft to the required fix and altitude at the edge of his
airspace without any conflicts he's done his job.

Another thing worth knowing is some controllers will "bet on the come" with
semi-routine route changes. They'll issue them to the aircraft *then*
effect the required coordination. Sometimes this doesn't work out exactly
right and they have to re-re-route or sometimes the ball gets dropped
completely :-/ As long as it doesn't create a "deal" there isn't usually
much of a fuss.

So all it really takes to change a route is to issue it. As long as each
subsequent controller accepts the aircraft nobody much cares what happens
three sectors down the road.

The new route should be entered into the ARTCC computer so the necessary new
info gets forwarded to each controller as the aircraft progresses along the
new route. That new route may (probably will) have its own set of a dozen
or more built-in conflicts but again, nobody really cares. Those conflicts
will be fixed when they need fixing.

Ideally, the first controller approving any route change will enter it into
the computer. But sometimes that doesn't happen. Maybe the first
controller is too busy, too far from the ARTCC computer keyboard, or some
other reason. In that case the first controller will call the next sector
on a landline to coordinate the change prior to handoff. If the next sector
accepts the handoff with the new route then the first controller has done
all he needs to do. Now that second controller is obligated to either enter
the change into the ARTCC computer or verbally coordinate with the next
sector before *he* does a handoff. It goes on that way until *somebody*
puts it in the computer or the aircraft reaches its destination.

As for issuing instructions that affect other sectors that's concerned with
real-time situations when a controller has an aircraft *in another
controller's airspace.* In these situations the controller either has to
coordinate what he wants to do (many LOAs allow limited control without
additional coordination after a handoff but before the aircraft crosses the
actual sector boundary), wait until the aircraft crosses into his own
airspace, or handoff the aircraft to the controller who's airspace the
aircraft is actually in (very common when an aircraft pops up on the wrong
freq).

On Mar 27, 2:31 pm, "KP" nospam@please wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Mar 27, 11:50 am, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
I used to handle that by saying to the new controller "BuzzBomb 234X,
7000
feet, on a vector." A previous controller can't issue an instruction that
has any effect in a subsequent sector, to the best of my knowledge,

But that clearly isn't the case. My original clearance was to go out
to a VOR, then follow one airway, turn 90 degrees go up another airway
etc. A previous controller changed my clearance to be direct (a much
different route), which had great affect on not only the subsequent
controller but about 3 controllers after that as well.

-Robert

Something to keep in mind is an IFR clearance doesn't really have much of
anything to do with separation.

It's simply the route and altitude ATC has assigned to get the aircraft from
A to B. It's in the computer and there's enough of it on each sector's
strip so that controller knows where the aircraft is coming from and where
it needs to end up.

There may be (probably are) a dozen or more built-in conflicts with other
aircraft on the same or different routes and altitudes. Controllers
deconflict and ensure separation in real time. So long as the controller
gets the aircraft to the required fix and altitude at the edge of his
airspace without any conflicts he's done his job.

Another thing worth knowing is some controllers will "bet on the come" with
semi-routine route changes. They'll issue them to the aircraft *then*
effect the required coordination. Sometimes this doesn't work out exactly
right and they have to re-re-route or sometimes the ball gets dropped
completely :-/ As long as it doesn't create a "deal" there isn't usually
much of a fuss.

So all it really takes to change a route is to issue it. As long as each
subsequent controller accepts the aircraft nobody much cares what happens
three sectors down the road.

The new route should be entered into the ARTCC computer so the necessary new
info gets forwarded to each controller as the aircraft progresses along the
new route. That new route may (probably will) have its own set of a dozen
or more built-in conflicts but again, nobody really cares. Those conflicts
will be fixed when they need fixing.

Ideally, the first controller approving any route change will enter it into
the computer. But sometimes that doesn't happen. Maybe the first
controller is too busy, too far from the ARTCC computer keyboard, or some
other reason. In that case the first controller will call the next sector
on a landline to coordinate the change prior to handoff. If the next sector
accepts the handoff with the new route then the first controller has done
all he needs to do. Now that second controller is obligated to either enter
the change into the ARTCC computer or verbally coordinate with the next
sector before *he* does a handoff. It goes on that way until *somebody*
puts it in the computer or the aircraft reaches its destination.

As for issuing instructions that affect other sectors that's concerned with
real-time situations when a controller has an aircraft *in another
controller's airspace.* In these situations the controller either has to
coordinate what he wants to do (many LOAs allow limited control without
additional coordination after a handoff but before the aircraft crosses the
actual sector boundary), wait until the aircraft crosses into his own
airspace, or handoff the aircraft to the controller who's airspace the
aircraft is actually in (very common when an aircraft pops up on the wrong
freq).

Very interesting. So what is the basis on which a controller accepts
or denies a request for a more direct route? Is it just avoiding
conflicts in his own airspace? When a controller issues an updated
clearance that substantially changes the routing is he just ensuring
there are no conflict in his own area???

-Robert

"Bob Gardner" wrote:
I used to handle that by saying to the new controller "BuzzBomb 234X, 7000
feet, on a vector." A previous controller can't issue an instruction that
has any effect in a subsequent sector, to the best of my knowledge, and the
"new" controller can do whatever s/he needs to do without regard for what
the previous controller did or said.

I was taught that when on a vector, to check in with "New York, Cessna 123,
assigned 270 heading".

It always amazes me what controllers don't seem to know about me. It's
kind of strange to have conversations like:

New York: Archer 08X, were you cleared into the Class Bravo !?

08X: Um, yeah, two controllers ago.

New York: Oh, OK.