Phraseology: Released by or released from

[muellakos]

Anyone knows which one is correct when transfering from one FIR to a different one.
"released from" or "released by"
For example, in transfer of comms
"Released from/by Shanwick control, contact XXX on 121.345"
It popped up in a discussion between colleagues

[mebur_verce]

I don’t believe this is standard phraseology, so it’s up to you, really.

As an ATCO, I say “released by...”, but most of the times the next unit will still call us to verify that the traffic is actually released...talk about trusting the pilots :E

[chevvron]

In my admittedly limited experience, the 'release point' is either a position or a passing level.

[parishiltons]

I don’t believe this is standard phraseology, so it’s up to you, really.

As an ATCO, I say “released by...”, but most of the times the next unit will still call us to verify that the traffic is actually released...talk about trusting the pilots :E
You are correct - there is nothing standard about this. The TOC point is defined in the LOA or other agreement between adjacent ANSPs or units within the same ANSP. This may be a clean handoff at the TOC point, or there may be conditions, such as back coordination required for any or certain clearance changes within a parameter of crossing the TOC point.

The whole 'released' thing is so old fashioned.

[FlightDetent]

There are places when it is really helpful if you guys say so, and the other unit takes our word for it.

[parishiltons]

There are places when it is really helpful if you guys say so, and the other unit takes our word for it.
Yes, but it has no real meaning. If you tell an ATC unit that the previous unit has 'released' you that means squat. Sure it implies that the previous unit has transferred you and once beyond the defined TOC point the next ATC unit can disregard any constraint that the previous unit may have had, but it does not mean that in reality. Cross boundary issues are defined by LoA between the ATC units/ANSPs involved. A typical example is where you are crossing a boundary, but just inside the area you are exiting there is crossing traffic that does not affect the new unit you are entering, but is still a restriction on your operation until the required lateral separation is achieved. The new unit knows nothing about that conflicting traffic so if you tell them that you are 'released' and they change your level to or through the conflicting traffic then TCAS will be your saviour.

So I'll repeat - the term 'released' is an anachronism and has no place in modern air traffic management. Be very, very cautious if relying on any such statement.

[AyrTC]

In answer to your question I would use “released in” :eek: Now having said that most of what parishiltons says is correct. It is a very lazy ATC technique although the ATCO may be trying to be helpful. The example I have seen regularly is an aircraft 10 miles from the UIR boundary requesting descent because it has reached its top of descent point for its destination in the adjacent UIR/FIR. Instead of phoning up the next UIR the ATCO will tell the aircraft to contact xxxx on yyyyyy and tell them you are released in zzzz Airspace. The ATCO would only do this if there was no conflicting traffic to the aircraft involved.

As you you get older and wiser and it becomes a regular occurrence for this flight you can always pre empt the situation by coordinating an early descent in advance.

Rgds
AyrTC

[chevvron]

Yes, but it has no real meaning. If you tell an ATC unit that the previous unit has 'released' you that means squat.
.
I have actually heard it used but years ago; aircraft inbound Gibraltar through Spanish airspace; one of the first things the Gib controller said to him was 'have you been released by Seville'?

[qwerty2]

My understanding was that a release from one ATC unit to another was defined by
A time
A position
A level
Of course that was years ago when things were defined by one atc unit to another and not via third parties.
When a pilot told me he was released that meant nothing until I'd checked back

[AyrTC]

qwerty2 that is the correct use of release from Area to APC. The original question relates centre to centre ( FIR to FIR ) and it is something that has developed ( unofficially ) over the decades. I should imagine that you will not find it written down anywhere.
Rgds
AyrTC

[rolaaand]

It is not a technique I like to use as it is non- standard and open to errors. Released for what? Turns,climb,descent,speed reduction....etc. If you are approaching the boundary of my sector and I suspect you’ll want or have already asked for climb or decsent I’ll either call the next sector and coordinate or transfer you and let them back coordinate with me.

[ZOOKER]

It brings up 2 procedures. 'Transfer Of Control', and 'Transfer Of Communication', both of which may occur at different times/positions or levels, depending on local procedures.
One of the discussions which often came up in U.K. Area Control, was 'Is an a/c transferred between en-route sectors, on a 'Standing Agreement', released for turn?'.