![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com... [snip] 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??? 1) Pretty much. Add in a bit of making life easier (for either himself, the next controller, the aircraft, or some combination of the three - in that order) and the experience based knowledge of what the next sector is likely to want or accept. 2) He's *always* ensuring there are no conflicts (or at least none that turn into "deals") in his airspace. Everything else is secondary. If it's a major re-route that involves happenings far down the road it's likely it came out of the ARTCC computer. The reasons behind that are many and complex. All the controller knows for sure (or cares about) is to issue it as written and get the aircraft to the (new?) fix at the boundary of his airspace where he can handoff. Major re-routes involving multiple airway or fix changes that remain within a single sector would normally violate 1) above so I never saw much of that. At least not at the terminal level. Generally speaking controllers are fairly autonomous and insular. Within the constraints of the local LOAs and SOPs they can do whatever they want within their own airspace. Their prime concern is what's going on in their airspace right now. At the operational level they don't normally know or care what's going on in someone else's airspace (so long as it doesn't affect their ops with bad or refused handoffs, excess coordination, a flood of poorly spaced inbounds, etc). The object of the exercise is to take the aircraft, do whatever needs doing with it, get rid of it, take the next one, do what needs doing, get rid of that one, take the next one, lather, rinse, repeat until relief plugs in and says "I've got it." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 27, 6:13 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
"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". No altitude? -Robert |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote: On Mar 27, 6:13 pm, Roy Smith wrote: "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". No altitude? Altitude if it's a handoff to a new facility. A new controller in the same facility, no altitude. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Debts are costing troops their Security clearances | Tiger | Naval Aviation | 8 | October 28th 06 01:53 AM |
Obtaining IFR clearances in Canada | Andrew Sarangan | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 22nd 04 03:47 PM |
Question: civilian contractors and security clearances | Charlie Wolf | Naval Aviation | 5 | July 6th 04 03:54 AM |
Clearances for Practice | Jerry Kaidor | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | March 28th 04 07:00 PM |
Where is approach good about multiple approaches and clearances in the air? | Andrew Gideon | Instrument Flight Rules | 29 | February 14th 04 02:51 AM |