Portmanteau :
the ATC FPL is seen in its entirety by the departure aerodrome ATC
No, grizzled already replied , but let me explain , also for others here, how a flight plan is distributed .
First Every State has its own variation of the form itself .Only the fields 1 to 19 are ICAO standard, the rest is not. The box " accepted by" we see on the Bolivian photocopy of this flight is a local Bolivian addition.
If you take a European one ( I have the German DFS form in front of me ) it just says " Signature of pilot or representative , and another box beside it : Signature AIS ( who has received it ) period,
Second : the boxes Endurance, POB, RMK, Emergency radios and dinghies, color a/c name PIC etc, are all part of the Field 19 labelled : Additional information " this box is only for SAR purposes and is not transmitted to ATC .
Now that said , transmission to the first ATC unit ( generally the TWR or the departure airport if departing from a Controlled aerodrome, otherwise the ACC above it ) is as follow :. They will only receive fields 7 to 16 ( ending with Destination aerodrome) .
Field 17 ( Total EET and Alternate aerodromes )are of no interest to the Departing unit and Field 18 (Other info) is normally not processed unless it contains pertinent info for ATC ( example > if ZZZZ set as destination if going to a airport which does not have an ICAO designator , then it will say : DEST/ and name in plain language , that may be transmitted , but not always .
This is the reason why in case of problems the first things a controller will ask you is how many souls on board , eventual endurance, or alternate A/D.
because he/she does not have the info ( he could get it of course by making a phone call but it will take time )
So in short : Unless Bolivia as a State has a specific procedure elevating the responsibilities of an ARO to refuse a PLN , and therefore a flight to depart , under normal ICAO standards, there is no way miss Celia had the authority to do so, not did the first TWR controllers since they did not have the " wrong fuel" info ( only the lack of SID would/may have been queered.)
Finally a Flight plan, by definition is only is only that : a plan , it is not a set in Stone Document once airborne. It can be modified in Flight no problem . Change destination , route, land in between , whatever. Even by ATC : think for instance a Military exercise area being prolonged forcing a change in routing, Capping flight to a lower altitude affecting range and therefore destination , etc...I have done this many times , and you've seen it too especially in your days
So using a Flight plan to explain this accident or worse we see blame people for it is for me absolutely ludicrous.
Sorry for long post , raining and cold outside..
