DTY/LKS, I have been re-reading this thread and your earlier posts and there is one further point I would like to put to you.
Don't forget that Standing Agreements are in MATS Part 2, which is confidential to you ATCOs and therefore neither addresed to, nor generally available to, us pilots.
The example you cite, transition from Shannon to MACC at LIFFY, requires descent to make FL270 by LIFFY - as you say to get under LACC Sector 7 above, which I understand has its base at FL285. I totally agree that failure of inbound traffic to make the previously cleared level of FL270 by LIFFY has obvious potential for conflict with either traffic in IOM Sector or Sector 7. Where I disagree with you is with your implication that the pilot has responsibility for complying with the Standing Agreement. He is not operationally aware of any level restriction as a Standing Agreement - he will (or should!) simply comply with the levels he is cleared to at each stage in the descent.
So, when you say ...
The IOM ATCO descends you to FL190, therefore the restriction that the previous ATCO gave you still applies as it is not that ATCO that has given you a new clearance. SO the clearance of FL270 at LIFFY still applies.
... I have to say I think you are absolutely incorrect.
If, on handover, the IOM Controller is in any doubt of the inbound's ability to achieve FL270 by LIFFY, he should reiterate the requirement. If he then issues a further clearance to, say, FL190 and does not restate the LIFFY constraint, then the restriction of FL270 at LIFFY can, quite rightly, be considered to be cancelled and I would suggest that Paragraph 7 (quoted above) clearly indicates this.
The point I am trying to emphasise is that it must be the IOM Sector Controller's responsibilty to ensure that the Standing Agreement is adhered to and not the Pilot's - Pilots are not aware of Standing Agreements per se.
JD
