Narrative:

Tower called for release for aircraft X. I had traffic inbound from the north and southeast at the time. Convective weather was also an issue at the time.I had the original strip in my bay when they called for release. I released to 11;000 feet. The tower controller came back and then said 'amendment one direct [fix].' I was surprised and saw that indeed the flight plan had been amended. Said unable for traffic and reiterated [SID] and 11;000 feet. I also gave a 2 minute time restriction to ensure the aircraft did not interfere with inbounds.he called back a little later saying that the aircraft was delayed and verified the release was still ok; which it was.oddly; tower's action to remove the SID is what caused the departure delay. Also; 11;000 feet initial altitude direct [fix] is below our minimum IFR altitude (mia) and dangerously close to terrain; certainly an illegal release.tower once again violated faah 7110.65 paragraph 2-2-11.c by not calling with amendment info verbally within 15 minutes of proposed departure-time.attached is nasquest data proving when tower amended the flight plan (xa:45:42). Original proposed-time was xa:30. The amendment back to the [SID] was my entry at xa:48:54 so the flight plan once again reflected the actual clearance; with the aircraft departure message coming a minute later.somewhat related; our supervisor at the time was quite explicitly not delivering strips to the area. Controllers were instructed by him to 'get the strips then hit the list;' meaning the hoppers would only realistically be cleared every 5-10 minutes anyway at most frequent; given our staffing. I don't believe that more continual strip posting would have fully mitigated the situation here; but it is an ancillary issue that has crept up in our [sector area]. We have discussed this as a local safety council and are moving on it already. Just want it included in the report for the record.sometimes I contemplate taking their fdio [flight data printer] away from them... But that's not good.I think tower should call when removing any SID originally filed by a pilot; even if the pilot is the one requesting the change. Tower should certainly not be modifying flight plans without either a pilot request or ARTCC approval.otherwise; not sure what to actually change. The faah 7110.65 is pretty clear on how to handle amendments.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower requested approval to release a departure from ARTCC. ARTCC approved the release then Tower advised they had amended the departure route. The amended departure route was in confliction with ARTCC traffic and below minimum terrain requirements. ARTCC cancelled the release. Tower is required to enter amended routes into the flight data processing more than 15 minutes before the proposed departure time or verbally get approval for amended route. The Tower did not comply with those requirements.

Narrative: Tower called for release for Aircraft X. I had traffic inbound from the north and southeast at the time. Convective weather was also an issue at the time.I had the original strip in my bay when they called for release. I released to 11;000 feet. The Tower controller came back and then said 'amendment one direct [fix].' I was surprised and saw that indeed the flight plan had been amended. Said unable for traffic and reiterated [SID] and 11;000 feet. I also gave a 2 minute time restriction to ensure the aircraft did not interfere with inbounds.He called back a little later saying that the aircraft was delayed and verified the release was still ok; which it was.Oddly; Tower's action to remove the SID is what caused the departure delay. Also; 11;000 feet initial altitude direct [fix] is below our Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) and dangerously close to terrain; certainly an illegal release.Tower once again violated FAAH 7110.65 paragraph 2-2-11.c by not calling with amendment info verbally within 15 minutes of proposed departure-Time.Attached is NASQuest data proving when Tower amended the flight plan (XA:45:42). Original Proposed-Time was XA:30. The amendment back to the [SID] was my entry at XA:48:54 so the flight plan once again reflected the actual clearance; with the aircraft departure message coming a minute later.Somewhat related; our supervisor at the time was quite explicitly not delivering strips to the area. Controllers were instructed by him to 'get the strips then hit the list;' meaning the hoppers would only realistically be cleared every 5-10 minutes anyway at most frequent; given our staffing. I don't believe that more continual strip posting would have fully mitigated the situation here; but it is an ancillary issue that has crept up in our [Sector Area]. We have discussed this as a local safety council and are moving on it already. Just want it included in the report for the record.Sometimes I contemplate taking their FDIO [Flight Data Printer] away from them... but that's not good.I think Tower should call when removing any SID originally filed by a pilot; even if the pilot is the one requesting the change. Tower should certainly not be modifying flight plans without either a pilot request or ARTCC approval.Otherwise; not sure what to actually change. The FAAH 7110.65 is pretty clear on how to handle amendments.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.