How do controllers coordinate clearances through sectors?

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

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

"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."

"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.

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

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.