Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the combined RADAR/D-Side position and received a handoff from ZAU Sector 75 on Air Carrier Y; and also noticed a PVD Data Block on Air Carrier X from the same sector appear on my screen. The Data Block on Air Carrier X appeared to be a point out to me; and I expected a call as such from ZAU 75. Instead; I received a call from ZAU 75 requesting approval for Air Carrier Y to climb from FL280 to FL320. The ZAU Controller first said Air Carrier Z; to which I responded 'Where is he?'; then Air Carrier YZ; then finally Air Carrier Y. I approved the climb to FL320 on Air Carrier Y and after terminating the call; entered an assigned altitude of FL320 in the Data Block of Air Carrier Y. A short time later; less than a minute; I received a call from ZAU 75 Controller again; and he/she wanted to know why I put FL320 in 'his/her' Data Block; and then stated they could do it when they actually issued it to the pilot. I responded that I had control of the Data Block and as such I would enter the altitude. The Controller tried to explain to me that they would use a /OK to enter the altitude when they issued the clearance; and that what I did was not correct because it did not reflect what the aircraft was doing; because I had no way to know that they had issued the climb clearance. The Controller also related that I was not supposed to change his\her Data Block because I was not talking to the pilot. I said that it was my Data Block since I already had the hand off; and he/she had already gotten approval for the climb from me. The Controller stated that he/she was just the D-Side; and had to get approval first; [and] then coordinate with her R-Side; and they had other airplanes so he might not do it right away. I stated I had no way to know that; and asked when I was supposed to put the altitude in the Data Block; and was told I was not supposed to do it; they would do it when the pilot received the clearance. I told the Controller that if there was a delay in giving the pilot the altitude; he/she should have coordinated that with me. At this time; I observed Air Carrier Y climbing; so obviously there was little delay between the APPREQ and the altitude clearance. I stated I could not believe we were even arguing about this at all. At that time I hung up the line and got back to my airplanes. Shortly afterwards I noticed Air Carrier X clip the NE corner of my sector; and realized that in the confusion/frustration that followed the phone call; the ZAU D-75 Controller never did actually make the pointout on Air Carrier X; which clipped the NE corner of my sector without coordination. The ZAU D-75 Controller spent so much time and attention on something insignificant that he/she neglected to do something more important; which was the pointout on Air Carrier X. In the days of the HOST computer; this event would not have occurred for this reason because the transferring Controller would not have been able to see me change the altitude after making the handoff; thus would not have felt the need to call me and tell me that what I did was wrong; since there was no way to see what I had done. Now that several ARTCCs are on ERAM; perhaps there needs to be a clarification of just when it is OK to enter a new altitude after it has been coordinated; and by whom. Once the handoff is made; coordination is required on subsequent changes to the flight plan; and perhaps it can be stated then; who will enter the changes. Suggesting the regular use of the /OK function; as the ZAU D-75 Controller did; is opening the door to making an error; since the override (/OK) function is in place to enhance safety by helping to prevent the accidental alteration of a Data Block which is not under your control. This is a new system; with new behavior; and until more controllers get used to it there will be some confusion; which is to be expected. There is a function in ERAM; called Local Interim Altitude; which would have probably obviated the coordinating controller's need to call me and attempt to correct my methods; since they could have entered FL280 as a Local Interim Altitude; and that would have overridden the display of the assigned altitude of FL320 in their Data Block. They could have then removed the local altitude when they issued the climb clearance. This still would not change what I did; since I expected the aircraft to start climbing in the next minute or so; and was changing my own Data Block to reflect that climb. I had no reason to believe that there would be much of a delay in the clearance being issued; and was not concerned about it; either way. I don't know how to prevent a similar occurrence if someone gets so distracted by nitpicking someone else's procedures that they neglect their own; more important duties.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller described an unsafe condition relating to the confusion regarding who is authorized to change Data Block information and when those changes can be made.