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?

 

[eltors0]

IMO the .65 should be rewritten. If someone switches you and airplane they are your control and you are responsible for every control instruction that you issue.

In my 23 years I have never transferred communication of an aircraft to someone else that I didn't intend them to have control of. Why switch them if you don't want them to control them? Just keep them until you are ready for them to control the aircraft.

Same thing in reverse is true. If you ship me an aircraft I will absolutely issue the control instructions necessary. I am not calling you to ask for control, why? Because you shouldn't have transferred communication if you still wanted to control the aircraft.

The concept is really simple, the only person who can issue control instructions is the one talking to the aircraft. Therefore control is inherently theirs.

AW

/thread

 

[Gauff]

IMO the .65 should be rewritten. If someone switches you and airplane they are your control and you are responsible for every control instruction that you issue.

In my 23 years I have never transferred communication of an aircraft to someone else that I didn't intend them to have control of. Why switch them if you don't want them to control them? Just keep them until you are ready for them to control the aircraft.

Same thing in reverse is true. If you ship me an aircraft I will absolutely issue the control instructions necessary. I am not calling you to ask for control, why? Because you shouldn't have transferred communication if you still wanted to control the aircraft.

The concept is really simple, the only person who can issue control instructions is the one talking to the aircraft. Therefore control is inherently theirs.

AW

I mean if it's in an LOA that you don't have control til a certain point then you straight up don't have control. I will switch center planes direct to the fix they are supposed to go while they are climbing and have other planes all around them but they are free of conflict on their route. Center doesn't have control for turns until they climb above my airspace, and if they did turn a plane they would most certainly cause a deal. Sure I could hold on to them until they are level at the top of my airspace and about to be out of the lateral boundary but the pilots want to climb and center wants to turn them so they can keep them climbing and then turn once they are above me.

So no transfer of communication does not constitute transfer of control at all

 

[32andBelow]

/thread

In stratified airspace you need the next controller to climb them out and into their sector. Making them level off is so dumb

 

[blarg]

It actually does make sense that we should protect all aircraft and airspace from all KNOWN potential conflicts and airspace violations after completion of a handoff and communications transfer. To act like you have no idea what potential events may occur with a written agreement outlining the exact parameters and the exact point at which that control transfer occurs is a lazy excuse to not do your job.

Your pointout and call for control example is irrelevant, since a handoff did not occur. This section is discussing the transferring controller's responsibilities for a radar handoff. Thats like using the radar section to control pattern traffic.

If we are unhappy protecting items that we give away in an LOA, then the LOA needs fixing, not the .65

Do people here give full control to controllers and pilots for everything any time it is asked? I guess I would too if I though it was someone else's job to do all the separation in my own airspace.

Handoff everyone and give away full control and im done cuz now its all their responsibility....... novel idea

I'm not sure where you're getting the "handoff did not occur" from. My examples were all based on a handoff having been made and someone calling to get control after the a/c is shipped to them (or via LOA or whatever).

If someone calls for control and I don't have possible traffic with another a/c, of course I release control. Why would I not release control? Are you terrible at your job?

Anyway, my explanation is the *official FAA guidance*, so I don't really care about your opinion on whether or not it is correct, because it is correct.

 

[Atcbrownie]

I mean if it's in an LOA that you don't have control til a certain point then you straight up don't have control. I will switch center planes direct to the fix they are supposed to go while they are climbing and have other planes all around them but they are free of conflict on their route. Center doesn't have control for turns until they climb above my airspace, and if they did turn a plane they would most certainly cause a deal. Sure I could hold on to them until they are level at the top of my airspace and about to be out of the lateral boundary but the pilots want to climb and center wants to turn them so they can keep them climbing and then turn once they are above me.

So no transfer of communication does not constitute transfer of control at all

I understand what you are saying it just stupid to write it that way. The .65 is inherently wrong on this subject. That's why you have to address it in an LOA. If the .65 was written the way that I described it, no LOA in any part of the country would have to address "transfer of control".

My guess is, some idiot 50 years ago, while working non-radar routes named by colors (look it up, it was a thing) switched an aircraft to another idiot who also worked non-radar. The 1st idiot thought to themselves "the next guy probably isn't an idiot" so they switch the plane to the other guy who happened to also be an idiot.

2nd idiot was like "the guy that switched me this plane couldn't have been an idiot" so he did something idiotic.

While I grew up in ATC working terminal non-radar for days on end, that is not really a thing that happens anymore and if it does, the facility goes ATC zero and gives away airspace.

Fusion, ADSB and whatever center guys have basically eliminated this problem.

The most important point is don't switch an aircraft if you haven't eliminated all potential conflicts. Wait until the next sector/facility can in no way put two together.

Also, use your eyeballs and scan everything ahead before you open your mouth and issue a control instruction. And never issue an instruction if you can't explain why you issued it.

As I said in the last post, if you issue an instruction (even if the LOA says you have control) you and you alone are responsible for the airspace that you turn in to.

AW

 

[devriesc0801]

Thats what im trying to find. The "official faa guidance".

 

[blarg]

I understand what you are saying it just stupid to write it that way. The .65 is inherently wrong on this subject. That's why you have to address it in an LOA. If the .65 was written the way that I described it, no LOA in any part of the country would have to address "transfer of control".

My guess is, some idiot 50 years ago, while working non-radar routes named by colors (look it up, it was a thing) switched an aircraft to another idiot who also worked non-radar. The 1st idiot thought to themselves "the next guy probably isn't an idiot" so they switch the plane to the other guy who happened to also be an idiot.

2nd idiot was like "the guy that switched me this plane couldn't have been an idiot" so he did something idiotic.

While I grew up in ATC working terminal non-radar for days on end, that is not really a thing that happens anymore and if it does, the facility goes ATC zero and gives away airspace.

Fusion, ADSB and whatever center guys have basically eliminated this problem.

The most important point is don't switch an aircraft if you haven't eliminated all potential conflicts. Wait until the next sector/facility can in no way put two together.

Also, use your eyeballs and scan everything ahead before you open your mouth and issue a control instruction. And never issue an instruction if you can't explain why you issued it.

As I said in the last post, if you issue an instruction (even if the LOA says you have control) you and you alone are responsible for the airspace that you turn in to.

AW

Holding on to everyone until there's no possible way anything could happen even if you haven't released control does cover your ass, but is also nonsensical protecting of other people doing illegal things. If they fuck up, that's on them. If everyone did this, as Gauff mentioned, everyone would be leveling off and doing other wasteful stuff for no reason.

Thats what im trying to find. The "official faa guidance".

It's come down through our facility in response to specific issues more than once, but I don't know if there's any nationally published document regarding it.

 

[devriesc0801]

I understand what you are saying it just stupid to write it that way. The .65 is inherently wrong on this subject. That's why you have to address it in an LOA. If the .65 was written the way that I described it, no LOA in any part of the country would have to address "transfer of control".

My guess is, some idiot 50 years ago, while working non-radar routes named by colors (look it up, it was a thing) switched an aircraft to another idiot who also worked non-radar. The 1st idiot thought to themselves "the next guy probably isn't an idiot" so they switch the plane to the other guy who happened to also be an idiot.

2nd idiot was like "the guy that switched me this plane couldn't have been an idiot" so he did something idiotic.

While I grew up in ATC working terminal non-radar for days on end, that is not really a thing that happens anymore and if it does, the facility goes ATC zero and gives away airspace.

Fusion, ADSB and whatever center guys have basically eliminated this problem.

The most important point is don't switch an aircraft if you haven't eliminated all potential conflicts. Wait until the next sector/facility can in no way put two together.

Also, use your eyeballs and scan everything ahead before you open your mouth and issue a control instruction. And never issue an instruction if you can't explain why you issued it.

As I said in the last post, if you issue an instruction (even if the LOA says you have control) you and you alone are responsible for the airspace that you turn in to.

AW

Thank you. I brought this up on here vs the .65 wording since reading this section again has thrown me for a loop. Im definitely on board with "we operate this way", but placing that logically against the .65 wording did not sit well after reading it again. I wanted to see quality discussion on the black and white .65 wording and see where we got, not just "trust me bro"

 

[Atcbrownie]

Blarg, I agree with you on the leveling off point. I would cautiously argue that that only happens because the mindset has been wrong forever.

 

[wrench978]

I understand what you are saying it just stupid to write it that way. The .65 is inherently wrong on this subject. That's why you have to address it in an LOA. If the .65 was written the way that I described it, no LOA in any part of the country would have to address "transfer of control".

My guess is, some idiot 50 years ago, while working non-radar routes named by colors (look it up, it was a thing) switched an aircraft to another idiot who also worked non-radar. The 1st idiot thought to themselves "the next guy probably isn't an idiot" so they switch the plane to the other guy who happened to also be an idiot.

2nd idiot was like "the guy that switched me this plane couldn't have been an idiot" so he did something idiotic.

While I grew up in ATC working terminal non-radar for days on end, that is not really a thing that happens anymore and if it does, the facility goes ATC zero and gives away airspace.

Fusion, ADSB and whatever center guys have basically eliminated this problem.

The most important point is don't switch an aircraft if you haven't eliminated all potential conflicts. Wait until the next sector/facility can in no way put two together.

Also, use your eyeballs and scan everything ahead before you open your mouth and issue a control instruction. And never issue an instruction if you can't explain why you issued it.

As I said in the last post, if you issue an instruction (even if the LOA says you have control) you and you alone are responsible for the airspace that you turn in to.

AW

The colored routes are still a thing. I have Amber, blue, green and red routes in my airspace now.

I agree with you though. I think the confusion lies in what people think is a potential conflict. Climbing through another aircraft’s altitude, climb rate looks good but nothing done to ensure it, don’t switch them. The next sector has control for turns and could whack another facility, that’s not a potential conflict.

A real world example that we work every day at ZSU. Aircraft southeast bound on L452 from ZMA, we have control for turns up to H170 30 miles inside ZMA’s airspace. L452 makes a bit of a dogleg to avoid Santo Domingo center’s airspace. According to some, if I give direct ANADA (my exit fix to Piarco center), ZMA is responsible for the point out? No way. If I issue the instruction, it’s my airspace violation

 

[GroundClutter]

The colored routes are still a thing. I have Amber, blue, green and red routes in my airspace now.

Off topic - so those routes through The Gulf that are Axxx,UAxxx,Lxxx and ULxxx they are read aloud as "Amber, Upper Amber, Lima, Upper Lima"?

Everyone in my landlocked area thinks I'm nuts when we give reroutes to Mexico

 

[32andBelow]

Off topic - so those routes through The Gulf that are Axxx,UAxxx,Lxxx and ULxxx they are read aloud as "Amber, Upper Amber, Lima, Upper Lima"?

Everyone in my landlocked area thinks I'm nuts when we give reroutes to Mexico

We have every letter you can thing of. We just say the letter. Colored routes are between NDBs and are getting decommissioned fast. But the letter routes are usually just letter like ROMEO and then number and are RNAV routes. But some routes like NCA are just said NCA no phonetics.

 

[wrench978]

Off topic - so those routes through The Gulf that are Axxx,UAxxx,Lxxx and ULxxx they are read aloud as "Amber, Upper Amber, Lima, Upper Lima"?

Everyone in my landlocked area thinks I'm nuts when we give reroutes to Mexico

Depends on the controller here, some will say Blue 520, some say Bravo 520. The Limas and the Mikes are all phonetic though.

 

[Gauff]

I understand what you are saying it just stupid to write it that way. The .65 is inherently wrong on this subject. That's why you have to address it in an LOA. If the .65 was written the way that I described it, no LOA in any part of the country would have to address "transfer of control".

My guess is, some idiot 50 years ago, while working non-radar routes named by colors (look it up, it was a thing) switched an aircraft to another idiot who also worked non-radar. The 1st idiot thought to themselves "the next guy probably isn't an idiot" so they switch the plane to the other guy who happened to also be an idiot.

2nd idiot was like "the guy that switched me this plane couldn't have been an idiot" so he did something idiotic.

While I grew up in ATC working terminal non-radar for days on end, that is not really a thing that happens anymore and if it does, the facility goes ATC zero and gives away airspace.

Fusion, ADSB and whatever center guys have basically eliminated this problem.

The most important point is don't switch an aircraft if you haven't eliminated all potential conflicts. Wait until the next sector/facility can in no way put two together.

Also, use your eyeballs and scan everything ahead before you open your mouth and issue a control instruction. And never issue an instruction if you can't explain why you issued it.

As I said in the last post, if you issue an instruction (even if the LOA says you have control) you and you alone are responsible for the airspace that you turn in to.

AW

I have eliminated potential conflicts because center doesn't have control for turns until they climb out of my airspace. Saying that they should have complete control on contact is beyond stupid and would require me to level every single commercial aircraft for 30 miles before I could switch them so that all conflicts are resolved when they would be way up in the flight levels normally.

If center needs a turn for an conflict they might have then they need to coordinate that or climb out of my airspace because I have non stop VFR traffic all over and constant IFR overflights that will conflict with them turning off the aircrafts files route.

I also don't believe the .65 is wrong. It is less restrictive and allows for LOAs to be more restrictive and explicitly spell out where transfer of control is. Which is the way it should be because every airspace is inherently different and some need different things than others . If you want to say the .65 should allow for control on contact with each aircraft that's fine but then every single LOA is going to address where the TCP is and override that because control on contact is stupid and not safe inside someone else's airspace unless coordinated specifically with the controller.

Maybe I'm missing what you're saying though. But yes even if you have control you can't rely on the other controller to have done everything right and need to be scanning and if you are gonna turn into another sectors airspace you should verify that there was a point out regardless of the other controller was supposed to do it.

 

[Atcbrownie]

You are in fact missing what is being said. Its ok. I was going to type out an explanation but I don't want to argue. I am overjoyed that there is finally some actual ATC discussion going on instead of the other nonsense.

AW

 

[KP-ATC]

If they are on my freq, they are my control

 

[32andBelow]

If they are on my freq, they are my control

Lmao insane take. Try doing that with another country and see what happens.