How do controllers coordinate clearances through sectors?

"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."

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.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

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.



Yes. The strip would be updated by whichever controller has control of
the flight plan.


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??

No. He takes what is given to him. He has a 30 minute advance notice
of arrivals. If there's something he doesn't like he can call the
sector where the airplane will come from and slap on a restriction.

On Mar 28, 9:02 pm, Newps wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
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.

Yes. The strip would be updated by whichever controller has control of
the flight plan.

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??

No. He takes what is given to him. He has a 30 minute advance notice
of arrivals. If there's something he doesn't like he can call the
sector where the airplane will come from and slap on a restriction.

Wow, I can really see how the "Direct" clearance can really mess stuff
up. I guess when it was all airways it was pretty easy because you
always knew where planes would come from and where the conflicts would
happen.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:


Wow, I can really see how the "Direct" clearance can really mess stuff
up. I guess when it was all airways it was pretty easy because you
always knew where planes would come from and where the conflicts would
happen.



With the same amount of traffic there's less conflicts simply because
all the airplanes aren't meeting in the same spots.

Newps writes:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Wow, I can really see how the "Direct" clearance can really mess stuff
up. I guess when it was all airways it was pretty easy because you
always knew where planes would come from and where the conflicts would
happen.

With the same amount of traffic there's less conflicts simply because
all the airplanes aren't meeting in the same spots.

Interesting and not obvious to the uninitiated.

Is it possible to eyeball the scope and readily determine
if several crossing routes are going to conflict or does
the diversity of altitudes eliminate most?

All my aircraft entering the airspace are converging on a single point
for the most part. All the departures are woven thru the arrivals while
climbing. I have very little traffic in cruise flight just passing
thru. Most traffic I can eyeball to see if they'll be a conflict.




Everett M. Greene wrote:
Newps writes:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Wow, I can really see how the "Direct" clearance can really mess stuff
up. I guess when it was all airways it was pretty easy because you
always knew where planes would come from and where the conflicts would
happen.

With the same amount of traffic there's less conflicts simply because
all the airplanes aren't meeting in the same spots.


Interesting and not obvious to the uninitiated.

Is it possible to eyeball the scope and readily determine
if several crossing routes are going to conflict or does
the diversity of altitudes eliminate most?