5-4-5 Transferring Controller responsibilities for LOA release of control

[devriesc0801]

Do you apply h. 1. to aircraft and airspace for the "potential" turns when your LOA states that you release control for turns up to 30 degrees?

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

Yes. That's what it says to do

 

[Termine]

If you ship me a guy, and I turn the guy 30 degrees in accordance with the LOA between our facilities, and that causes a loss with another guy you're talking to... that's your loss. Without question.

The LOA says I can do it, which means you gotta protect for me doing it.

 

[32andBelow]

Yes. I don’t ship guys that can potentially be hit unless I know the receiving controller isn’t totally retarded. My whole facility is released for 30 degree turns and altitude changes

 

[Phillytroll69]

Thread locked atsap in

 

[jdatc]

If you ship me a guy, and I turn the guy 30 degrees in accordance with the LOA between our facilities, and that causes a loss with another guy you're talking to... that's your loss. Without question.

The LOA says I can do it, which means you gotta protect for me doing it.

We have departure SIDs that diverge which means they have 5 miles lateral by the end of our airspace. Center has control for turns. Our LOA requires 5 miles longitudinal or lateral.

If they turn a guy more direct and now we don’t have 5 miles, I don’t give a shit about my LOA anymore about providing them 5 miles, not my problem. I’m shipping them the back guy.

Same goes for them to us, if they have a bare 5 which they are required to provide on the STAR and I turn the guy 30 right into the wind (per my LOA) in their airspace and they lose 5, it’s not their problem, ship me the back guy.

 

[Termine]

5 miles lateral

5 miles

bare 5

But you working terminal airspace don't have a loss until you bust 3, right? And I thought I heard that most/all centers can go down to 3 below FL230 now. So those scenarios aren't actual losses of separation.

If two aircraft end up with less than 3 (and no divergence), that is a deal and somebody needs to eat it. And it sure won't be the guy who operated in accordance with the LOA.

 

[DADDYSbabyBIRD]

But you working terminal airspace don't have a loss until you bust 3, right? And I thought I heard that most/all centers can go down to 3 below FL230 now. So those scenarios aren't actual losses of separation.

If two aircraft end up with less than 3 (and no divergence), that is a deal and somebody needs to eat it. And it sure won't be the guy who operated in accordance with the LOA.

Correct, and if the receiving controller took both handoffs and then turned the lead they are actively taking over their own separation of the aircraft. You just have to give 5, if you do that and then they turn them and make it 4, that's on them and probably even still legal for them as well.

 

[Gauff]

If you ship me a guy, and I turn the guy 30 degrees in accordance with the LOA between our facilities, and that causes a loss with another guy you're talking to... that's your loss. Without question.

The LOA says I can do it, which means you gotta protect for me doing it.

I guess I would clarify that if you turn them into my traffic then it's my loss but if you turn them 30° into your own traffic that's on you.

Seems stupid to clarify that but I also figured it was a pretty simple rule to have a question about so idk

But you working terminal airspace don't have a loss until you bust 3, right? And I thought I heard that most/all centers can go down to 3 below FL230 now. So those scenarios aren't actual losses of separation.

If two aircraft end up with less than 3 (and no divergence), that is a deal and somebody needs to eat it. And it sure won't be the guy who operated in accordance with the LOA.

You're right but regardless, if you can see the traffic on your scope and turn into it just because you can by the LOA that's trash controlling and not safe. Sure the other controller fucked up and should have ensured separation in accordance with the LOA but I'd see the controller that gave a turn into traffic getting a PROC as well

 

[devriesc0801]

I guess I would clarify that if you turn them into my traffic then it's my loss but if you turn them 30° into your own traffic that's on you.

Seems stupid to clarify that but I also figured it was a pretty simple rule to have a question about so idk

I guess I would clarify that if you turn them into my traffic then it's my loss but if you turn them 30° into your own traffic that's on you.

Seems stupid to clarify that but I also figured it was a pretty simple rule to have a question about so idk

I see the aircraft conflict portion of this paragraph referenced a lot here, and most seem to be agree on its application. Do you all feel the same about the "potential violations of adjacent airspace" portion?

 

[slowtation]

This doesn't apply if the aircraft are VFR and under VFR flight following. Point them at each other (like really ensure they're dead wired to the same point and altitude) and then ship them over to tower. They'll fix it.

 

[Gauff]

I see the aircraft conflict portion of this paragraph referenced a lot here, and most seem to be agree on its application. Do you all feel the same about the "potential violations of adjacent airspace" portion?

That one is a little different to me I guess. In general I'd say I get point outs for adjacent airspace if the track of the aircraft is going to take them through or close to a different sector than the receiving controller. If they turn the aircraft in accordance with the LOA and now they are going through a different airspace I hadn't got a point out for if probably call if I saw it but also if I get an aircraft and turn them towards another airspace then I'm calling that controller because I don't rely on the other controller to have seen where I was gonna put them.

Also you can make the argument that the other controller turning the aircraft 30° will always end up in someone else's airspace if they let them fly that heading long enough and I'm not getting a point out on an aircraft 20miles from another controllers boundary just because the next controller can legally turn them that way.

If I think it's close to possible (with or without a turn) the aircraft will get close to another controllers airspace I'm getting the point out before I ship them though.

 

[Termine]

Do you all feel the same about the "potential violations of adjacent airspace" portion?

Not as strongly as I feel about the aircraft situation. I'm more in agreement with Gauff on this aspect of it.

The receiving controller might not know about all of my aircraft. I could have someone no-transponder but still IFR, or whatever. I'm the only one who knows about them, so I need to protect for the potential turn when I ship someone to the next facility. Like Gauff said, it's poor controlling if that next controller turns into traffic they can see. But I don't KNOW that they can see my traffic.

An airspace boundary doesn't move, though (unless coordinated separately). It's always there. I feel like if the receiving controller wants to turn the aircraft into a fixed boundary, it's on them to coordinate that.

I would agree that if you dig down into it, the paragraph is the same for aircraft and airspace conflicts. But in practice I don't treat them exactly the same.

 

[Gauff]

Not as strongly as I feel about the aircraft situation. I'm more in agreement with Gauff on this aspect of it.

The receiving controller might not know about all of my aircraft. I could have someone no-transponder but still IFR, or whatever. I'm the only one who knows about them, so I need to protect for the potential turn when I ship someone to the next facility. Like Gauff said, it's poor controlling if that next controller turns into traffic they can see. But I don't KNOW that they can see my traffic.

An airspace boundary doesn't move, though (unless coordinated separately). It's always there. I feel like if the receiving controller wants to turn the aircraft into a fixed boundary, it's on them to coordinate that.

I would agree that if you dig down into it, the paragraph is the same for aircraft and airspace conflicts. But in practice I don't treat them exactly the same.

Completely agree with this view of it all

 

[devriesc0801]

Not as strongly as I feel about the aircraft situation. I'm more in agreement with Gauff on this aspect of it.

The receiving controller might not know about all of my aircraft. I could have someone no-transponder but still IFR, or whatever. I'm the only one who knows about them, so I need to protect for the potential turn when I ship someone to the next facility. Like Gauff said, it's poor controlling if that next controller turns into traffic they can see. But I don't KNOW that they can see my traffic.

An airspace boundary doesn't move, though (unless coordinated separately). It's always there. I feel like if the receiving controller wants to turn the aircraft into a fixed boundary, it's on them to coordinate that.

I would agree that if you dig down into it, the paragraph is the same for aircraft and airspace conflicts. But in practice I don't treat them exactly the same.

Do you all know all high, low, interior approach sector boundaries, shelves, etc. of your surrounding airspace? Do you all know the active tfrs, refueling tracks, military airspace etc. of surrounding sectors?

Its easy to only think about immediate corners and boundaries, but there can be a lot more going on that only you know internally to your sector at that time.

Just above we were discussing how far down the line you have to protect (once the aircraft is in the receiving controllers jurisdiction, this paragraph ends).

But if we now think about the other extreme, (handoff is made, accepted and shipped at the far reaches of the releasing / transferring sector), who is responsible for the conflicts in that area of jurisdiction?

Completely agree with this view of it all

Which is interesting, since the two sentences are worded the same way and in the same paragraph, but treated differently?

 

[Gauff]

Do you all know all high, low, interior approach sector boundaries, shelves, etc. of your surrounding airspace? Do you all know the active tfrs, refueling tracks, military airspace etc. of surrounding sectors?

Its easy to only think about immediate corners and boundaries, but there can be a lot more going on that only you know internally to your sector at that time.

Just above we were discussing how far down the line you have to protect (once the aircraft is in the receiving controllers jurisdiction, this paragraph ends).

But if we now think about the other extreme, (handoff is made, accepted and shipped at the far reaches of the releasing / transferring sector), who is responsible for the conflicts in that area of jurisdiction?

I work a TRACON so when we do parachute jumping we give a point out or advisory on the altitude and area to all surrounding sectors and overlying sectors and they in turn avoid that area when shipping us aircraft. I'm also aware of neighboring MOAs when they are active and will avoid that with aircraft. We are also aware of TFRs that are taking place in neighboring sectors. None of that seems strange to not know.

Now say I get a point out from one facility about a plane switching to another facility and there is an active MOA or Jumping/Refueling etc, then I'm going to tell them "point out approved reference xxx" or I'll straight up ask them if they are aware of whatever activity taking place. It is your responsibility as the controller taking a point out to make sure the controller asking is aware of other conflicts whether that's traffic or a MOA or anything else.

Those things would only be an issue if you're saying that neither of the controllers are getting a point out with a controller whose airspace an aircraft is gonna be flying through and they have stuff going on. Also a point out can be denied too...

Your last paragraph goes straight to what you started asking about. The transfering controller is responsible to ensure there are no conflicts in their airspace prior to transferring the aircraft to the receiving controller. If there is a conflict with something I will initiate a handoff and call the receiving controller to point out a potential conflict if they are to turn the aircraft in accordance with the LOA, they take the handoff and it's now their responsibility no matter what the LOA says because they are aware of it.

 

[devriesc0801]

I work a TRACON so when we do parachute jumping we give a point out or advisory on the altitude and area to all surrounding sectors and overlying sectors and they in turn avoid that area when shipping us aircraft. I'm also aware of neighboring MOAs when they are active and will avoid that with aircraft. We are also aware of TFRs that are taking place in neighboring sectors. None of that seems strange to not know.

Now say I get a point out from one facility about a plane switching to another facility and there is an active MOA or Jumping/Refueling etc, then I'm going to tell them "point out approved reference xxx" or I'll straight up ask them if they are aware of whatever activity taking place. It is your responsibility as the controller taking a point out to make sure the controller asking is aware of other conflicts whether that's traffic or a MOA or anything else.

Those things would only be an issue if you're saying that neither of the controllers are getting a point out with a controller whose airspace an aircraft is gonna be flying through and they have stuff going on. Also a point out can be denied too...

Your last paragraph goes straight to what you started asking about. The transfering controller is responsible to ensure there are no conflicts in their airspace prior to transferring the aircraft to the receiving controller. If there is a conflict with something I will initiate a handoff and call the receiving controller to point out a potential conflict if they are to turn the aircraft in accordance with the LOA, they take the handoff and it's now their responsibility no matter what the LOA says because they are aware of it.

"Potential violations of airspace. . .

Potential conflicts with other aircraft in your area of jurisdiction"

It is a known fact, in this scenario, that as soon as you ship the aircraft you release control for turns up to 30 degrees.

Everyone seems to agree that they will protect this "potential" for other aircraft in their jurisdiction. How do we not feel the same about the "potential" for violations of airspace as the transferred aircraft leaves our area of jurisdiction in accordance with the LOA?

 

[Gauff]

"Potential violations of airspace. . .

Potential conflicts with other aircraft in your area of jurisdiction"

It is a known fact, in this scenario, that as soon as you ship the aircraft you release control for turns up to 30 degrees.

Everyone seems to agree that they will protect this "potential" for other aircraft in their jurisdiction. How do we not feel the same about the "potential" for violations of airspace as the transferred aircraft leaves our area of jurisdiction in accordance with the LOA?

We do, that's why you get point outs with airspace they can potentially fly through... That's it.

You can always play the what if game with everything in air traffic to an annoying degree. But saying what if that controller turns an aircraft off course 30° and leaves them on that heading for 60 miles and he enters another controllers airspace and that now you are at fault because you didn't ensure there were no airspace violations prior to shipping them is insane. Barring weather or some known event that would call for the receiving controller to take them way out of their way that shouldn't be on the transferring controller.

Also there is ALWAYS another potential conflict with another plane somewhere down the line. You have to draw the line somewhere.

If it is reasonable that if the receiving controller could turn the aircraft in accordance with your LOA and come close to or into an adjacent controllers airspace then you are responsible for a point out with that controller and to relay any potential airspace or traffic conflicts that controller made you aware of with the point out to the receiving controller. But if I get an aircraft and have control for turns for 30° and have to turn the plane and leave them on that heading for an extended period of time that would seem out of the ordinary or extreme for whatever reason then I'm calling the transferring controller to let them know and ensuring they were pointed out.

You can't just rely on your LOA to ensure everything is done and if something is non standard you need to verify. You need to take an active roll in the participation of separating aircraft and maintaining safety. Just assuming that it's by the LOA so you can do something unexpected and it's alright is stupid and trash controlling. It's not Black and White and you have to be able to work in grey areas where you always side on safety. Let's try to make sure no controller has a deal just because "it's in the LOA so I'm allowed to and they have to fix it now". That's not safe and these are people's lives.

 

[devriesc0801]

Continue to read down that same section and you will find j.

 

[MJ]

But in practice I don't treat them exactly the same.

Because in practice it’s for temporary/near incursions. The rule doesn’t need to cover the next 50 miles and 3 sectors because responsibility will be transferred by that point.