How do controllers coordinate clearances through sectors?

[Robert M. Gary]

I'm curious, how does one controller secure a direct clearance through
mulitple other controllers' areas? Sometimes it seems that after a
handoff the receiving controller doesn't know what your clearance is
(but certainly must have that area available for you).

As a typical example, I was flying home from Monterey last night and,
after passing the San Jose arrival area, received an updated
clearance, direct to my destination. Two controllers later, the
controllers asked me if I was direct to the VOR. I said no, I'm direct
home.
I'm curious how the issuing controller is able to ensure a clearance
all the way home direct. And how is it that a receiving controller
doesn't know what a plane's current clearance is? Doesn't this all
make it hard to plan conflict free traffic???

Do controller's "own" their own areas or does the computer? Can the
computer approve a clearance through a controller's area w/o his
acknowledgement? Does a controller need the computer to approve what
he does in his area?

-Robert

[Bob Gardner]

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.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm curious, how does one controller secure a direct clearance through
> mulitple other controllers' areas? Sometimes it seems that after a
> handoff the receiving controller doesn't know what your clearance is
> (but certainly must have that area available for you).
>
> As a typical example, I was flying home from Monterey last night and,
> after passing the San Jose arrival area, received an updated
> clearance, direct to my destination. Two controllers later, the
> controllers asked me if I was direct to the VOR. I said no, I'm direct
> home.
> I'm curious how the issuing controller is able to ensure a clearance
> all the way home direct. And how is it that a receiving controller
> doesn't know what a plane's current clearance is? Doesn't this all
> make it hard to plan conflict free traffic???
>
> Do controller's "own" their own areas or does the computer? Can the
> computer approve a clearance through a controller's area w/o his
> acknowledgement? Does a controller need the computer to approve what
> he does in his area?
>
> -Robert
>

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Mitty]

Well, he has a flight strip with the full clearance on it (or in some cases an
electronic flight strip -- ZMP is in the process of conversion.)

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

I just spent 3 hours plugged in at several positions in the MSP TRACON and one
of the things I learned is that when you check in with a new controller and have
been getting vectors they like you to include your assigned heading. For
example, "Cherokee November blah blah blah is level at 7 thousand, heading zero
two zero" and not just "Cherokee November blah blah blah is level at 7 thousand"
which is what I had been doing.

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.
There's just the target dot and the data block. So you can sin big time on your
heading and, if you don't sin too long, the controller will never know. At MSP
anyway.

Some of the controllers will undoubtedly chime in here.

On 3/26/2007 4:05 PM, Robert M. Gary wrote the following:
> 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
>
>

[John R. Copeland]

"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
>

I think there's some coordination that we pilots don't see.
Occasionally I go from central Ohio to northern Minnesota via
FWA OSH AUW BJI, which narrowly skirts some special-use airspaces.
One Sunday morning before reaching Ft Wayne, a ZID controller
asked me if I'd like to go direct Bemidji.
I answered, "Yes, but they usually won't let me do that."
Her reply: "It's not busy this morning. I think I can work it out for you."
And she did. And I thanked her for that.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
>
> But the question is, does he care about clearances through his
> airspace issued by other controllers?



The clearance is on the strip. If it's different the previous
controller is required to coordinate.


And, does he know what
> clearances aircraft have that enter his airspace?

That's a requirement of the previous controller.

[Newps]

Mitty wrote:


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


The previous controller is required to coordinate that.


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.



>
> 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.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I'm curious, how does one controller secure a direct clearance through
> mulitple other controllers' areas? Sometimes it seems that after a
> handoff the receiving controller doesn't know what your clearance is
> (but certainly must have that area available for you).


If I change your clearance before you takeoff I will make the change in
the computer. It is the centers responsibility to get those updates.
If I clear you direct after takeoff I am locked out of making changes in
the computer and have to coordinate over the landline.




>
> Do controller's "own" their own areas or does the computer?


A controller owns his own airspace. No computer owns anything.


Can the
> computer approve a clearance through a controller's area w/o his
> acknowledgement?

The computer does not approve/disapprove a clearance other than not
accepting a clearance that doesn't work. For example trying to input
going from one airway to another when those two airways don't cross or
otherwise meet. You can always clear someone direct.

[John R. Copeland]

"Newps" > wrote in message . ..
>
> Mitty wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>

ROTFL! Good zinger, Newps.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 26, 7:33 pm, Newps > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > I'm curious, how does one controller secure a direct clearance through
> > mulitple other controllers' areas? Sometimes it seems that after a
> > handoff the receiving controller doesn't know what your clearance is
> > (but certainly must have that area available for you).
>
> If I change your clearance before you takeoff I will make the change in
> the computer. It is the centers responsibility to get those updates.
> If I clear you direct after takeoff I am locked out of making changes in
> the computer and have to coordinate over the landline.
>
>
>
> > Do controller's "own" their own areas or does the computer?
>
> A controller owns his own airspace. No computer owns anything.

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

[Mitty]

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?

[Bob Gardner]

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
>
>

[Newps]

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.

[Newps]

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.

[Mitty]

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.

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[KP[_1_]]

"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).

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Roy Smith]

"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.

[KP[_1_]]

"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."

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Roy Smith]

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.

[Newps]

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.

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Newps]

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.

[Everett M. Greene[_2_]]

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?

[Newps]

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?