If an aircraft holding at SIGNS wishes to divert to KPBF instead of KJAN, what is true about the need for coordination?

In the context of air traffic management, the ability to amend an aircraft's route or destination is often governed by established communication protocols. The assertion that an amendment can be made without verbal coordination implies that specific conditions allow for a straightforward operational adjustment, particularly when diverting to an alternate airport like KPBF.

When an aircraft decides to divert from its original holding point to a different destination, the coordination requirements can vary. In standard operating procedures, especially for clear communication about flight plan changes, verbal coordination is generally encouraged. However, if specific procedural allowances exist — such as clear communication lines and predefined protocols that detail how to manage diversion situations — it's possible that amendments could be executed without the need for direct verbal coordination in certain circumstances.

For example, if the diversion is straightforward and does not involve conflicting air traffic or impact on other aircraft's operations, then it might be permissible to update the flight plan through electronic means or via established protocols instead of engaging in verbal communication.

This understanding of operational flexibility, especially in relatively uncomplicated situations, clarifies why the idea that an amendment can be made without verbal coordination resonates with standard operating practices.