Narrative:

I was working local control; ground control; and clearance delivery combined. Aircraft X called asking for his clearance to kmsy. I read him his clearance. A few minutes later he called ready to taxi and I issued taxi instructions. Since we were in swap (severe weather avoidance plan) and aircraft X was requesting 38000 feet I had to call ZNY lrp sector for a release. Upon calling ZNY I was told aircraft X would be held for release for an undetermined amount of time. Aircraft X was informed of the delay; he then requested to amend his final altitude to 8000 feet thereby circumventing the need for a release from center. Aircraft X would try to work out higher altitudes when he got through the weather. The flight data controller amended aircraft X's final altitude to 8000 feet. I reissued his altitude clearance and cleared him for takeoff. Once airborne aircraft X was given a right turn direct first fix and shipped to departure.the departure controller went through his normal duties with aircraft X; eventually shipping him to harrisburg approach. A few minutes later harrisburg called the departure controller back asking if we had received a release on aircraft X from the center. The departure controller explained that he was amended to 8000 feet. Harrisburg claims to have never received that amendment. A few more minutes later harrisburg called the departure controller again to verify that 8000 feet was put into the system for aircraft X. The departure controller confirmed that he had put the amendment in himself and had the confirmation strip in his hand. Harrisburg claimed again to have not received the amendment to 8000 feet.ZNY later called and the controller in charge (controller in charge) answered the line. ZNY said that aircraft X should have been held for release but rdg tower released him anyway. The controller in charge explains that aircraft X was initially told to hold for release; but then requested to stay at 8000 feet. The amendment was put into the system and aircraft X was released. ZNY then says that an mor (mandatory occurrence report) was filed for the incident.clarification for all involved on tower enroute aircraft and how tower enroute aircraft do not require a release from center since they are not going to center altitudes.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IFR pilot requested a clearance change to allow flight at a lower enroute altitude in order to avoid a lengthy weather delay. After release; the Center Controller and Tower Controller disagreed on whether or not the aircraft should have been permitted to depart.

Narrative: I was working Local Control; Ground Control; and Clearance Delivery combined. Aircraft X called asking for his clearance to KMSY. I read him his clearance. A few minutes later he called ready to taxi and I issued taxi instructions. Since we were in SWAP (Severe Weather Avoidance Plan) and Aircraft X was requesting 38000 feet I had to call ZNY LRP sector for a release. Upon calling ZNY I was told Aircraft X would be held for release for an undetermined amount of time. Aircraft X was informed of the delay; he then requested to amend his final altitude to 8000 feet thereby circumventing the need for a release from Center. Aircraft X would try to work out higher altitudes when he got through the weather. The Flight Data controller amended Aircraft X's final altitude to 8000 feet. I reissued his altitude clearance and cleared him for takeoff. Once airborne Aircraft X was given a right turn direct first fix and shipped to Departure.The Departure controller went through his normal duties with Aircraft X; eventually shipping him to Harrisburg Approach. A few minutes later Harrisburg called the Departure controller back asking if we had received a release on Aircraft X from the Center. The Departure controller explained that he was amended to 8000 feet. Harrisburg claims to have never received that amendment. A few more minutes later Harrisburg called the Departure controller again to verify that 8000 feet was put into the system for Aircraft X. The Departure controller confirmed that he had put the amendment in himself and had the confirmation strip in his hand. Harrisburg claimed again to have not received the amendment to 8000 feet.ZNY later called and the Controller in Charge (CIC) answered the line. ZNY said that Aircraft X should have been held for release but RDG Tower released him anyway. The CIC explains that Aircraft X was initially told to hold for release; but then requested to stay at 8000 feet. The amendment was put into the system and Aircraft X was released. ZNY then says that an MOR (Mandatory Occurrence Report) was filed for the incident.Clarification for all involved on Tower Enroute aircraft and how Tower Enroute aircraft do not require a release from Center since they are not going to Center altitudes.

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.