when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

[Arden Prinz]

Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
(which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
class C to the surface airspace. A fellow pilot was with me, and he
later mentioned that thought I might have violated the controller's
instructions. Hmmmm... That brings up a question --- when does the
"remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end? I figured that
since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?

Thank-you.

[John Gaquin]

"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message

>.......That brings up a question --- when does the
> "remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end?

> ...I figured that
> since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
> me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
> clear, that it was now understood that I could enter.

When you're talking about airspace entry, etc., pilot/controller interaction
is *never* "understood", or "presumed". Clear and direct statements are
used.

>The controller
> didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?

When you hear the phrase '....cleared to enter...', or '....cleared
into...', or some such. The "remain clear" instruction is so that you don't
come barging into the class C immediately after takeoff, before the
controller has a chance to identify and coordinate you. He probably didn't
make an issue of it because he was about to clear you to turn in anyway
[speculation on my part.].

[John Harlow]

> time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace".

Lol - in my experience, either the airspace is too busy - or you sound like
you could be a nuisance.

> . Well, the controller then called
> me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> aircraft type,

If you didn't automatically give him all that right after establishing
contact with him (assuming him), then maybe that's why he didn't want to be
bothered by you. I can just hear the controllers sigh when someone gets on
and says "podunk approach, november 12345, would like flight following" and
then the game of 20 questions starts.

> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?

When you explicitly get permission to enter.

[Maule Driver]

"John Harlow" >
> > time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> > told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace".
>
> Lol - in my experience, either the airspace is too busy - or you sound
like
> you could be a nuisance.

Sounds like it could have been a standard instruction for any a/c on the
ground calling in before departure. Not clear anyone is a nuisance or that
there is *any* traffic. Local practices vary.

>
> > . Well, the controller then called
> > me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> > exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> > aircraft type,
>
> If you didn't automatically give him all that right after establishing
> contact with him (assuming him), then maybe that's why he didn't want to
be
> bothered by you. I can just hear the controllers sigh when someone gets
on
> and says "podunk approach, november 12345, would like flight following"
and
> then the game of 20 questions starts.
>
Did the controller contact the pilot after departure before the pilot called
himself?

> > to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> > to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
>
> When you explicitly get permission to enter.
>
.... or in this Class C situation, after announcing my intent to proceed
direct on course thru the Class C. I would consider any acknowledgement of
the call that did not include a "remain clear" to be sufficient to proceed
on course. That's not how I would do it, but I think that would be ok.

I'm thinking that it may be local practice to instruct any pilot on the
ground to remain clear of the Class C. Once in the air, the normal Class C
procedures would apply. Which would mean once contact is established, entry
would be permitted subject to any instruction to the contrary. But since a
remain clear had already been issued, I too would want explicit permission
to enter.

[EDR]

Class C: you have to establish two way radio contact and have
permission. The short answer is to request on course after
estaablishing two way radio contact.

Class B: you have to have a clearance.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Basic rules for Class C is paragraph 3-2-4 of the AIM:
1. When controller responds WITH your tail number that is clearance to enter
the class C airspace..
2. Exception to this rule is if the controller says, "Remain outside the
class Charlie airspace and standby." <he is expected/required to use that
exact phrase>

Now, the rule not printed <that I can see> is the exact phrase for
cancelling the remain clear instruction... So, per the Class C rules when
the controller called you back the second time by 'tail number', and said,
"radar contact established", etc., that was again establishing radio contact
(per rule #1) and absent instructions to the contrary you are now cleared to
enter the class C, and if he doesn't like your new heading, he will say
so...

Therefore, you were cleared and did not bust any rules...
I would have preferred that he said, cleared to enter my airspace, or the
class c, etc., somewhere in his patter - obviously he understands rule #1
and expects you to also understand it...
denny
"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
om...
> Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
> was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
> (which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
> the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
> was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
> to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
> time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
> after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
> area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
> me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
> can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
> turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
> class C to the surface airspace. A fellow pilot was with me, and he
> later mentioned that thought I might have violated the controller's
> instructions. Hmmmm... That brings up a question --- when does the
> "remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end? I figured that
> since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
> me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
> clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
> didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
>
> Thank-you.

[Robert Moore]

EDR > wrote

> Class C: you have to establish two way radio contact and have
> permission.

"Permission" is not acceptable air traffic control terminology.
If I am not told to "remain clear", I CAN fly in Class C and D.

Bob Moore

[Dennis O'Connor]

The basic thrust of your analysis is correct for most controlled airspace,
John; but the clinker in the ashes here is that when a class C controller
calls your tail number, it is per the rules THE permission to enter unless
he specifically instructs you to remain clear...
What the AIM does not make it clear is that after being told to stand clear,
any subsequent tail number call, and especially with a phrase like, 'radar
contact established', barometer setting, etc., is clearance to enter per the
rule unless he repeats the instruction to remain clear, or assigns you a
heading, etc.. A point the FAA ought to clarify... I would, like you,
prefer that the AIM require the controller to say, ". . . cleared . . . " It
does not, that I can find...
denny

"John Gaquin" > wrote in > When you hear the phrase
'....cleared to enter...', or '....cleared
> into...', or some such.

[Brad Z]

How did you contact approach prior to departure, RCO, GCO, telephone? If
so, he didn't know when you'd appear and didn't give you blanket
authorization to enter. Because entry doesn't require an ATC clearance, you
won't hear the words "cleared into..." or the like. For clarification, you
could check-in on the frequency with something like "N12345 off podunk
regional, 700 climbing for 3000, requesting overflight of Gunfire AFB, VFR
to Distantville Airport. If that's approved, you're golden. In your
scenario, after radar contact and 2-way comms in the air were established
without any further instructions to remain clear, you got the green light.


"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
om...
> Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
> was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
> (which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
> the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
> was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
> to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
> time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
> after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
> area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
> me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
> can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
> turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
> class C to the surface airspace. A fellow pilot was with me, and he
> later mentioned that thought I might have violated the controller's
> instructions. Hmmmm... That brings up a question --- when does the
> "remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end? I figured that
> since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
> me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
> clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
> didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
>
> Thank-you.

[Nathan Young]

On 13 Feb 2004 04:13:24 -0800, (Arden Prinz)
wrote:

>Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
>was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
>(which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
>the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
>was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
>to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
>time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
>told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
>after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
>area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
>me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
>exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
>aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
>can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
>turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
>class C to the surface airspace.

Charlie airspace requires established two way radio comm before entry.
You had this. However, the controller also told you to stay clear of
Charlie airspace. Therefore you needed to get cleared into Charlie
airspace before making the turn and did not - so I believe this was an
airspace incursion.

Irrespective of regulations - it never hurts to ask the controller for
clarification. I would say especially so with an Air Force base - you
never know what kind of wierd operations they may have going inside
their airspace.

-Nathan

[Robert Moore]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote

> Basic rules for Class C is paragraph 3-2-4 of the AIM:
> 1. When controller responds WITH your tail number that
> is clearance to enter the class C airspace..

Dennis, the word "clearance" has specific meaning in aviation and
NO clearance is required, nor given, for VFR a/c to enter Class C
airspace.

Quoting from the AIM:

"1. If the controller responds to a radio call with,
"(aircraft callsign) standby," radio communications
have been established and the pilot can enter the
Class C airspace."


Bob Moore

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:28:56 GMT, Nathan Young
> wrote:

>On 13 Feb 2004 04:13:24 -0800, (Arden Prinz)
>wrote:
>
>>Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
>>was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
>>(which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
>>the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
>>was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
>>to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
>>time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
>>told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
>>after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
>>area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
>>me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
>>exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
>>aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
>>can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
>>turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
>>class C to the surface airspace.
>
>Charlie airspace requires established two way radio comm before entry.
>You had this. However, the controller also told you to stay clear of
>Charlie airspace. Therefore you needed to get cleared into Charlie
>airspace before making the turn and did not - so I believe this was an
>airspace incursion.
>
>Irrespective of regulations - it never hurts to ask the controller for
>clarification. I would say especially so with an Air Force base - you
>never know what kind of wierd operations they may have going inside
>their airspace.

Update: I didn't thoroughly read your original post. I didn't realize
your original call to approach was on the ground (and that probably
several minutes passed before contacting that controller again in the
air). That certainly obfuscates things.

I think that once two-way comm and radar contact was established with
you in the air, since the controller did not issue the 'Stay clear of
C' command - you did no wrong.

I still stand by my original comment that it wouldn't have hurt to
clarify intentions with the controller.

-Nathan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
> was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
> (which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
> the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
> was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
> to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
> time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
> after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
> area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
> me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
> can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
> turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
> class C to the surface airspace. A fellow pilot was with me, and he
> later mentioned that thought I might have violated the controller's
> instructions. Hmmmm... That brings up a question --- when does the
> "remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end? I figured that
> since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
> me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
> clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
> didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
>

It ends upon receipt of ATC instructions that permit entry.

[John Gaquin]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message

> .....when a class C controller
> calls your tail number, it is per the rules THE permission to enter unless
> he specifically instructs you to remain clear...

I stand corrected. I didn't (and still don't) recall that detail, but then
again, I never flew anything but IFR after about 1982. Doesn't sound like
it makes much sense, to me, but if that's what's written.....

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> The basic thrust of your analysis is correct for most controlled airspace,
> John; but the clinker in the ashes here is that when a class C controller
> calls your tail number, it is per the rules THE permission to enter unless
> he specifically instructs you to remain clear...
> What the AIM does not make it clear is that after being told to stand
clear,
> any subsequent tail number call, and especially with a phrase like, 'radar
> contact established', barometer setting, etc., is clearance to enter per
the
> rule unless he repeats the instruction to remain clear, or assigns you a
> heading, etc..
>

The reason the AIM doesn't say that is because that's not the way it is.
Once told to remain clear you must remain clear until receipt of an
instruction that permits entry.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Basic rules for Class C is paragraph 3-2-4 of the AIM:
> 1. When controller responds WITH your tail number that is
> clearance to enter the class C airspace..
> 2. Exception to this rule is if the controller says, "Remain outside the
> class Charlie airspace and standby." <he is expected/required to use that
> exact phrase>
>
> Now, the rule not printed <that I can see> is the exact phrase for
> cancelling the remain clear instruction... So, per the Class C rules when
> the controller called you back the second time by 'tail number', and said,
> "radar contact established", etc., that was again establishing radio
contact
> (per rule #1) and absent instructions to the contrary you are now cleared
> to enter the class C, and if he doesn't like your new heading, he will say
> so...
>

Wrong. Once told to memain clear you must remain clear until the controller
issues an instruction that permits entry.


>
> Therefore, you were cleared and did not bust any rules...
> I would have preferred that he said, cleared to enter my airspace, or the
> class c, etc., somewhere in his patter - obviously he understands rule #1
> and expects you to also understand it...
>

Once told to remain clear, entering without an explicit instruction that
permitted entry, such as "proceed on course" or "fly heading xxx", would be
a violation of FAR 91.123(b).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:B%4Xb.306189$na.460859@attbi_s04...
>
> How did you contact approach prior to departure, RCO, GCO, telephone? If
> so, he didn't know when you'd appear and didn't give you blanket
> authorization to enter. Because entry doesn't require an ATC clearance,
you
> won't hear the words "cleared into..." or the like. For clarification,
you
> could check-in on the frequency with something like "N12345 off podunk
> regional, 700 climbing for 3000, requesting overflight of Gunfire AFB, VFR
> to Distantville Airport. If that's approved, you're golden. In your
> scenario, after radar contact and 2-way comms in the air were established
> without any further instructions to remain clear, you got the green light.
>

Wrong. He had been instructed to remain clear of the Class C airspace. He
doesn't have the green light until that instruction is superseded.

[EDR]

In article >, Robert
Moore > wrote:

> EDR > wrote
>
> > Class C: you have to establish two way radio contact and have
> > permission.
>
> "Permission" is not acceptable air traffic control terminology.
> If I am not told to "remain clear", I CAN fly in Class C and D.

I understand that. I went round and round with FAA HQ on this issue in
the 1980's. Permission is the word they used. From there the arguement
turned to what constituted permission.

[Arden Prinz]

Steven,

> Once told to memain clear you must remain clear until the controller
> issues an instruction that permits entry.

I sort of thought that when the controller called me by tail number
and said radar contact (and didn't say remain clear), that would
constitute a communication that permits entry. But you wrote:

> ... entering without an explicit instruction that
> permitted entry, such as "proceed on course" or "fly heading xxx", would be
> a violation ...

What determines which communications permit entry? Can you point me
to a reference in the FAR or AIM? Do say "proceed on course", but how
is that an explicit instruction to enter the class C airspace? I
would think "cleared to enter class C airspace" would be an explicit
instruction, but I certainly never hear that because I didn't think
that was necessary for class C, only class B. I don't understand why
you think "proceed on course" is an explicit instruction that permits
entry. (It certainly wouldn't be explicit if we were talking about
class B.) Again, a reference to something that would help be know
exactly which communications constituted explicit instruction to enter
vs. not would help me for the future.

John Gaquin wrote:

> When you're talking about airspace entry, etc., pilot/controller interaction
> is *never* "understood", or "presumed". Clear and direct statements are
> used.
....
> When you hear the phrase '....cleared to enter...', or '....cleared
> into...', or some such.
I keep my airplane at a class C airport and don't think I ever hear
that type of language. When the controller calls my tail number and
doesn't tell me to remain clear then it means that I can enter.

John Harlow wrote:
> Lol - in my experience, either the airspace is too busy - or you sound
> like you could be a nuisance.
I think it might be standard practice for this AFB. I don't think the
airspace was busy. I guess they don't want people flying in until
they can see them on their screens. I hope I didn't sound like a
nuisance.

John Harlow wrote:
> When you explicitly get permission to enter.
I though when they called my tail number and didn't tell me to remain
clear that was permission. Where is what I need to hear defined in
the FAR or AIM?

Maule Driver wrote:
> Did the controller contact the pilot after departure before the pilot
> called himself?
The controller called me (my speculation is that he called me upon
seeing me on his radar).

Nathan Young wrote:
> Irrespective of regulations - it never hurts to ask the controller for
> clarification.

I agree with you, but at the time it didn't occur to me that I needed
any clarification. I heard my tail number and did not hear another
remain clear and thought that meant I could enter. The ONLY reason
that I questioned this was that my pilot friend who was on board
questioned it first. And he said that he honestly didn't know, but
believed that I should have heard something else before entering.
Yes, I ask when I am confused about something ... but only if I
realize that I am confused. :-)
Anyway I prefer to get straightened out on these things on the ground
when possible so that I don't have to continually quiz the controllers
about things that I'm expected to know while in the air.

Steven P. McNicoll:
> It ends upon receipt of ATC instructions that permit entry.

Which are defined where?

Thank-you!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Steven,
>
> > Once told to memain clear you must remain clear until the controller
> > issues an instruction that permits entry.
>
> I sort of thought that when the controller called me by tail number
> and said radar contact (and didn't say remain clear), that would
> constitute a communication that permits entry.
>

It does, unless the controller instructs you to remain clear of the Class C
airspace, as was the case here.


>
> But you wrote:
>
> > ... entering without an explicit instruction that
> > permitted entry, such as "proceed on course" or "fly heading xxx", would
be
> > a violation ...
>
> What determines which communications permit entry? Can you point me
> to a reference in the FAR or AIM? Do say "proceed on course", but
> how is that an explicit instruction to enter the class C airspace? I
> would think "cleared to enter class C airspace" would be an explicit
> instruction, but I certainly never hear that because I didn't think
> that was necessary for class C, only class B. I don't understand why
> you think "proceed on course" is an explicit instruction that permits
> entry. (It certainly wouldn't be explicit if we were talking about
> class B.) Again, a reference to something that would help be know
> exactly which communications constituted explicit instruction to enter
> vs. not would help me for the future.
>

The last instruction issued by ATC in this case was "remain clear of the
Class C airspace. That instruction remains in effect until overridden by
another instruction. How can it be any other way? If you were IFR and
assigned eight thousand, at what point can you descend to six thousand?

[Dennis O'Connor]

Ahh jeez, Steven... Firstly, because the question was not one for which
there is a pat answer in the AIM, I researched my answer before giving
it... A habit more people on here could benefit from... And, even though I
couched my answer in gentle terms, it is the correct regulatory answer, not
a guess...

As I commented, I don't see specific phrase in the AIM for the controller to
use for clearing an aircraft into the Class C after being told to stand
clear - and it might be a good idea...

But I could still be wrong, so I just polled both the Supervisor of a Class
C airspace, and I polled the supervisor of the Michigan FSDO... Both agree
that the AIM is correct... A pilot is cleared into the class C when the
controller establishes radio contact using the tail number; and does not
instruct him to remain clear... Nothing more is required...

So, on the first call the pilot was told, "Aircraft calling remain clear of
Charlie?, or "November 1234 remain clear of Class Charlie.", or words to
that effect... Fine, we all agree he is to remain clear...
Now the controller calls a bit later and says something to the effect,
"November 1234, radar contact 8 miles east of xyz, altimeter 30 point 00",
<or some variation> and shuts up - because he has established radio contact
which is 'the clearance to enter'...

So, I asked both, wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to
enter the C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no
confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing radio
contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM..
denny

"Steven P. McNicoll" <> Wrong. Once told to memain clear you must remain
clear until the controller
> issues an instruction that permits entry.

[Maule Driver]

Even though I think there is some grey area here, I agree with the overly
curt but usually accurate Steven.

The last instruction issued was "remain clear' and that was issued, by tail
number, by approach to the aircraft (they would not have issued a
transponder without a tail number).

The grey area is that the 'remain clear' was issued *before departure*.
Once in the air, it seems reasonable to assume that an acknowleged call with
tail number is clearance in. But it seems ill advised to proceed on such an
assumption.

Here's the problem faced by the controller - a pilot asks for FF or whatever
before takeoff. The controller has absolutely no way to fix the time the
pilot will depart. So in order to avoid a misunderstanding about being
cleared into Class C while on the ground, he issues a 'remain clear' by
default. Once the pilot is in the air, the normal provisions would then
apply. An acknowledged call would be clearance into the space unless a
'remain clear' is issued. I'd bet that's what the controller intended ....
but I wouldn't act on it. It's a nasty grey area and requires some explicit
clarification before proceeding.

In IFR land, the problem is avoided by issuing a void time clearance in
order to fix the time that the pilot takes off and airspace has to be
cleared.

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> Ahh jeez, Steven... Firstly, because the question was not one for which
> there is a pat answer in the AIM, I researched my answer before giving
> it... A habit more people on here could benefit from... And, even though
I
> couched my answer in gentle terms, it is the correct regulatory answer,
not
> a guess...
>
> As I commented, I don't see specific phrase in the AIM for the controller
to
> use for clearing an aircraft into the Class C after being told to stand
> clear - and it might be a good idea...
>
> But I could still be wrong, so I just polled both the Supervisor of a
Class
> C airspace, and I polled the supervisor of the Michigan FSDO... Both
agree
> that the AIM is correct... A pilot is cleared into the class C when the
> controller establishes radio contact using the tail number; and does not
> instruct him to remain clear... Nothing more is required...
>
> So, on the first call the pilot was told, "Aircraft calling remain clear
of
> Charlie?, or "November 1234 remain clear of Class Charlie.", or words to
> that effect... Fine, we all agree he is to remain clear...
> Now the controller calls a bit later and says something to the effect,
> "November 1234, radar contact 8 miles east of xyz, altimeter 30 point 00",
> <or some variation> and shuts up - because he has established radio
contact
> which is 'the clearance to enter'...
>
> So, I asked both, wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to
> enter the C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no
> confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing
radio
> contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM..
> denny
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" <> Wrong. Once told to memain clear you must remain
> clear until the controller
> > issues an instruction that permits entry.
>
>

[Dennis O'Connor]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
m...
> Even though I think there is some grey area here, I agree with the overly
> curt but usually accurate Steven.

One of the things expressed by the folks I talked to; they get frustrated by
pilots who enter the system and do not understand the most basic of rules,
even when the controller uses the exact phrasing that the AIM calls out...
As the one said, "I'm here for safety of flight, not to be your CFI..."
denny

[Richard Ross]

You do not need a "Clearance" to enter Class C, however you do need two way
communications and be recognized as stated below in the Airmen Information
Manual.



Richard



3. Arrival or Through Flight Entry Requirements. Two-way radio communication
must be established with the ATC facility providing ATC services prior to
entry and thereafter maintain those communications while in Class C
airspace. Pilots of arriving aircraft should contact the Class C airspace
ATC facility on the publicized frequency and give their position, altitude,
radar beacon code, destination, and request Class C service. Radio contact
should be initiated far enough from the Class C airspace boundary to
preclude entering Class C airspace before two-way radio communications are
established.

NOTE-
1. If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(aircraft callsign)
standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot can enter
the Class C airspace.

2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of
Class C services, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside the
Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.

3. It is important to understand that if the controller responds to the
initial radio call without using the aircraft identification, radio
communications have not been established and the pilot may not enter the
Class C airspace.

EXAMPLE-
1. [Aircraft callsign] "remain outside the Class Charlie airspace and
standby."

2. "Aircraft calling Dulles approach control, standby."

"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
om...
> Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
> was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
> (which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
> the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
> was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
> to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
> time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
> after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
> area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
> me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
> can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
> turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
> class C to the surface airspace. A fellow pilot was with me, and he
> later mentioned that thought I might have violated the controller's
> instructions. Hmmmm... That brings up a question --- when does the
> "remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end? I figured that
> since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
> me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
> clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
> didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
>
> Thank-you.
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The last instruction issued by ATC in this case was "remain clear of the
> Class C airspace. That instruction remains in effect until overridden by
> another instruction. How can it be any other way?

Well, suppose the pilot returns tomorrow and establishes two-way
communication with the Class C controller. Yesterday's remain-clear
instruction still has not been explicitly rescinded. So is it still in
effect, or can the pilot now enter the Class C?

--Gary

[Andrew Sarangan]

I've had this happen to me a few times. After a "remain clear"
instruction, the controller would say something like "cancel previous
restriction, proceed on course". The "remain clear" instruction does
not expire until the controller explicitly cancels it.



(Arden Prinz) wrote in message >...
> Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
> was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
> (which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
> the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
> was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
> to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
> time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
> after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
> area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
> me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
> can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
> turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
> class C to the surface airspace. A fellow pilot was with me, and he
> later mentioned that thought I might have violated the controller's
> instructions. Hmmmm... That brings up a question --- when does the
> "remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end? I figured that
> since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
> me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
> clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
> didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
>
> Thank-you.

[Maule Driver]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Even though I think there is some grey area here, I agree with the
overly
> > curt but usually accurate Steven.
>
> One of the things expressed by the folks I talked to; they get frustrated
by
> pilots who enter the system and do not understand the most basic of rules,
> even when the controller uses the exact phrasing that the AIM calls out...
> As the one said, "I'm here for safety of flight, not to be your CFI..."
> denny
>
I'm sure it is frustrating. But the answer to the original question
remained murky to me. So I too went back to the FARs and the AIM. My
understanding now is that you are correct Dennis. The pilot was legal but
the sequence of communciations from ATC was confusing. And getting to that
conclusion was not straightforward.

ATC had issued a "remain clear" before departure. And the implication in
the original post was the the tail number was used since a squawk code was
issued before the departure.

Steven stated, "Once told to memain clear you must remain clear until the
controller issues an instruction that permits entry." As a practical
matter, I would agree. But Dennis goes on to state, "...he has established
radio contact which is 'the clearance to enter'...So, I asked both(FAA
types) , wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to enter the
C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no
confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing radio
contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM." I say
b*** s*** to the FAA types.

I would counter that the AIM is not regulatory and that an ATC communication
using your tail number is not always a clearance to enter. An example
would be where per the AIM, ATC says "1234Alpha, remain outside Class
Charlie and standby". Then follows with a "1234 Alpha traffic 11 oclock
3,000feet". I would maintain that I've been told to remain clear and that
the subsequent tail number identified communication *does not* clear me to
enter. I would still be waiting for an instruction that permits entry.

So, if a pilot has been told to remain clear and identified by tail number,
then he should remain clear until given an instruction that permits entry.
A vector would do the trick. Legally, a 'radar contact and altimeter' would
probably keep you out of jail but would be a bit stupid. Any frustration by
ATC is misguided. A simple "...and proceed direct xxx" would do. I've been
in this situation and in that particular case each traffic advisory was
accompanied by the repeated instruction to 'remain clear'. Now that was
clear!

But in this case, the key is that the "remain clear" was issued before
departure and therefore doesn't play a part in subsequent communications
after departure. There's no requirement to establish communications from an
underlying airport before departure so any radio contact established before
departure shouldn't be considered qualification to enter the Class C. By
the same token, the admonishment to remain clear of Class C issued before
departure is meaningless once one has departed. If one establishes radio
contact after departure, then one is cleared to enter just as the original
poster did.

It's clear to me now but it certainly isn't clear "according to the most
basic of rules".Nor is it clear to the well trained pilot in actual flight.
Otherwise their wouldn't be so much confusion on the part of so many
knowledgeable people on this newsgroup.

Thanks for an excuse to study the FAR/AIM.

[Maule Driver]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> > The last instruction issued by ATC in this case was "remain clear of the
> > Class C airspace. That instruction remains in effect until overridden
by
> > another instruction. How can it be any other way?
>
> Well, suppose the pilot returns tomorrow and establishes two-way
> communication with the Class C controller. Yesterday's remain-clear
> instruction still has not been explicitly rescinded. So is it still in
> effect, or can the pilot now enter the Class C?
>
I think you are getting to the heart of the matter. The key is that the
"remain clear' was issued before departure. It is a meaningless
admonishment by ATC. They can't clear you to enter before departure anymore
than they need to tell you to remain clear. What it is really meant to
convey is that "just because you are about ready to depart and we've made
radio contact with N-numbers, don't think it means that radio contact has
been established for the purpose of entering my Class C - let's talk after
you depart"

[Maule Driver]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
om...
> I've had this happen to me a few times. After a "remain clear"
> instruction, the controller would say something like "cancel previous
> restriction, proceed on course". The "remain clear" instruction does
> not expire until the controller explicitly cancels it.
>
Except in this case, the "remain clear" was issued before a VFR departure
and is meaningless. Conversely, if the ATC and the pilot established radio
contact with tail number ID included *just before departure*, it does not
mean that the pilot is cleared to depart and enter the Class C. That radio
contact and it's implied clearance is equally meaningless. The
communications aren't meaningful until the pilot is in flight.


..

[Dennis O'Connor]

"Maule Driver" > . The pilot was legal but
> the sequence of communciations from ATC was confusing. And getting to
that
> conclusion was not straightforward.

Absolute agreement on that... And, I actually learned something, so it was
win-win... I do owe a controller a ride however, so knowledge is never
free...

denny

[Tom Fleischman]

In article t>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> The reason the AIM doesn't say that is because that's not the way it is.
> Once told to remain clear you must remain clear until receipt of an
> instruction that permits entry.
>

The O.P. stated that after recieving a beacon code and being told to
remain clear the controller then called him back and asked some
questions. That sounds like he was setting up a progress strip for VFR
advisories for him. He said he thought the controller also may have
acknowleged radar contact. I think an acknowlegement of radar contact
would then permit entry to Class C. All you need to enter Class C is a
Mode C transponder and two-way radio communications. You do not need to
be "cleared into" Class C.

Would you not agree?

[Tom Fleischman]

Without knowing what exactly was said by the controller on the second
call we can go around and around on this until the cows come home and
not come to a definate conclusion about whether he was legal to
proceed. Any debate is really meaningless without knowlege of exactly
what was said by the controller on the second call.


In article >, Maule
Driver > wrote:

> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > Even though I think there is some grey area here, I agree with the
> overly
> > > curt but usually accurate Steven.
> >
> > One of the things expressed by the folks I talked to; they get frustrated
> by
> > pilots who enter the system and do not understand the most basic of rules,
> > even when the controller uses the exact phrasing that the AIM calls out...
> > As the one said, "I'm here for safety of flight, not to be your CFI..."
> > denny
> >
> I'm sure it is frustrating. But the answer to the original question
> remained murky to me. So I too went back to the FARs and the AIM. My
> understanding now is that you are correct Dennis. The pilot was legal but
> the sequence of communciations from ATC was confusing. And getting to that
> conclusion was not straightforward.
>
> ATC had issued a "remain clear" before departure. And the implication in
> the original post was the the tail number was used since a squawk code was
> issued before the departure.
>
> Steven stated, "Once told to memain clear you must remain clear until the
> controller issues an instruction that permits entry." As a practical
> matter, I would agree. But Dennis goes on to state, "...he has established
> radio contact which is 'the clearance to enter'...So, I asked both(FAA
> types) , wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to enter the
> C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no
> confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing radio
> contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM." I say
> b*** s*** to the FAA types.
>
> I would counter that the AIM is not regulatory and that an ATC communication
> using your tail number is not always a clearance to enter. An example
> would be where per the AIM, ATC says "1234Alpha, remain outside Class
> Charlie and standby". Then follows with a "1234 Alpha traffic 11 oclock
> 3,000feet". I would maintain that I've been told to remain clear and that
> the subsequent tail number identified communication *does not* clear me to
> enter. I would still be waiting for an instruction that permits entry.
>
> So, if a pilot has been told to remain clear and identified by tail number,
> then he should remain clear until given an instruction that permits entry.
> A vector would do the trick. Legally, a 'radar contact and altimeter' would
> probably keep you out of jail but would be a bit stupid. Any frustration by
> ATC is misguided. A simple "...and proceed direct xxx" would do. I've been
> in this situation and in that particular case each traffic advisory was
> accompanied by the repeated instruction to 'remain clear'. Now that was
> clear!
>
> But in this case, the key is that the "remain clear" was issued before
> departure and therefore doesn't play a part in subsequent communications
> after departure. There's no requirement to establish communications from an
> underlying airport before departure so any radio contact established before
> departure shouldn't be considered qualification to enter the Class C. By
> the same token, the admonishment to remain clear of Class C issued before
> departure is meaningless once one has departed. If one establishes radio
> contact after departure, then one is cleared to enter just as the original
> poster did.
>
> It's clear to me now but it certainly isn't clear "according to the most
> basic of rules".Nor is it clear to the well trained pilot in actual flight.
> Otherwise their wouldn't be so much confusion on the part of so many
> knowledgeable people on this newsgroup.
>
> Thanks for an excuse to study the FAR/AIM.
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ahh jeez, Steven... Firstly, because the question was not one for which
> there is a pat answer in the AIM, I researched my answer before giving
> it... A habit more people on here could benefit from... And, even though
> I couched my answer in gentle terms, it is the correct regulatory answer,
> not a guess...
>

Your answer is wrong, and the AIM is not regulatory.


>
> As I commented, I don't see specific phrase in the AIM for the
> controller to use for clearing an aircraft into the Class C after being
> told to stand clear - and it might be a good idea...
>

Specific phrases for controller usage are found in FAA Order 7110.65, but
there is no phrase like "cancel your last instruction and now comply with
this instruction", nor should there be. Previous instructions are simply
overridden by subsequent instructions. For example, an aircraft may have
been instructed to "fly heading 360", and a bit later is instructed to "turn
right heading 020". The 360 heading isn't cancelled prior to the issuance
of the 020 heading, the 360 heading is simply overridden by the 020 heading.


>
> But I could still be wrong, so I just polled both the Supervisor of a
> Class C airspace, and I polled the supervisor of the Michigan FSDO...
> Both agree that the AIM is correct... A pilot is cleared into the class
> C when the controller establishes radio contact using the tail number;
> and does not instruct him to remain clear... Nothing more is required...
>

That's true, but that's not what happened in this case. In this case the
pilot was instructed to remain clear of the Class C airspace.


>
> So, on the first call the pilot was told, "Aircraft calling remain clear
> of Charlie?, or "November 1234 remain clear of Class Charlie.",
> or words to that effect... Fine, we all agree he is to remain clear...
> Now the controller calls a bit later and says something to the effect,
> "November 1234, radar contact 8 miles east of xyz, altimeter 30
> point 00", <or some variation> and shuts up - because he has
> established radio contact which is 'the clearance to enter'...
>

Wrong. Radio contact was established when the controller said, "November
1234 remain clear of Class Charlie."


>
> So, I asked both, wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to
> enter the C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no
> confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing
> radio contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM..
>

Yes, if nothing else is said that is correct. But in this case the aircraft
was instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace and that instruction
remains in effect until some instruction is issued that permits entry.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I'm sure it is frustrating. But the answer to the original question
> remained murky to me. So I too went back to the FARs and the
> AIM. My understanding now is that you are correct Dennis. The
> pilot was legal but the sequence of communciations from ATC was confusing.
And getting to that conclusion was not straightforward.
>

The answer to the original question, "when does the 'remain clear of class C
airspace' instruction end?", is clear, it ends when overridden by another
instruction.


>
> ATC had issued a "remain clear" before departure. And the implication >
in the original post was the the tail number was used since a squawk code >
was issued before the departure.
>
> Steven stated, "Once told to memain clear you must remain clear until the
> controller issues an instruction that permits entry." As a practical
> matter, I would agree. But Dennis goes on to state, "...he has
> established radio contact which is 'the clearance to enter'...So, I
> asked both (FAA types), wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now
> 'cleared to enter the C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that
> there is no confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is
> establishing radio contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out
> in the AIM." I say b*** s*** to the FAA types.
>

Radio contact was established when the aircraft was still on the ground, at
the same time the controller said "after departure remain clear of the class
C airspace". Establishing radio contact without an instruction to remain
clear of Class C airspace permits entry, establishing radio contact with an
instruction to remain clear does not permit entry.


>
> I would counter that the AIM is not regulatory and that an ATC
> communication using your tail number is not always a clearance
> to enter. An example would be where per the AIM, ATC says
> "1234Alpha, remain outside Class Charlie and standby". Then
> follows with a "1234 Alpha traffic 11 oclock 3,000feet". I would
> maintain that I've been told to remain clear and that
> the subsequent tail number identified communication *does not*
> clear me to enter. I would still be waiting for an instruction that
> permits entry.
>

Exactly.


>
> So, if a pilot has been told to remain clear and identified by tail
> number, then he should remain clear until given an instruction that
> permits entry. A vector would do the trick. Legally, a 'radar
> contact and altimeter' would probably keep you out of jail but
> would be a bit stupid.
>

Radar contact and an altimeter does not override an instruction to remain
clear of Class C airspace and neither is an entry requirement.


>
> But in this case, the key is that the "remain clear" was issued before
> departure and therefore doesn't play a part in subsequent
> communications after departure.
>

You've got it backwards. Before departure the aircraft is on the ground
outside of Class C airspace. "Remain clear" can only apply after departure.


>
> There's no requirement to establish communications from an
> underlying airport before departure so any radio contact established
> before departure shouldn't be considered qualification to enter the
> Class C.
>

Why not? There's no requirement to establish radio contact 40 miles from
the Class C boundary but if one does so then one is permitted entry.


>
> By the same token, the admonishment to remain clear of Class C
> issued before departure is meaningless once one has departed.
>

Actually, it is meaningful only after departure. It isn't meaningful before
departure because it isn't possible to enter the Class C airspace without
departing.


>
> If one establishes radio contact
> after departure, then one is cleared to enter just as the original
> poster did.
>

Not if one has been instructed to remain clear.


>
> It's clear to me now but it certainly isn't clear "according to the most
> basic of rules".
>

It doesn't sound like it's clear to you yet.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:6idXb.310621$na.463020@attbi_s04...
>
> Well, suppose the pilot returns tomorrow and establishes two-way
> communication with the Class C controller. Yesterday's remain-clear
> instruction still has not been explicitly rescinded. So is it still in
> effect, or can the pilot now enter the Class C?
>

What happened yesterday? Why didn't the pilot respond to the controller's
calls?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I think you are getting to the heart of the matter. The key is that the
> "remain clear' was issued before departure. It is a meaningless
> admonishment by ATC. They can't clear you to enter before departure
> anymore than they need to tell you to remain clear.
>

Meaningless before departure, meaningful after departure.


>
> What it is really meant to convey is that "just because you are about
> ready to depart and we've made radio contact with N-numbers, don't
> think it means that radio contact has been established for the purpose
> of entering my Class C - let's talk after you depart"
>

What it really means is "remain outside Class C airspace until I say
something that permits entry."

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > As I commented, I don't see specific phrase in the AIM for the
> > controller to use for clearing an aircraft into the Class C after being
> > told to stand clear - and it might be a good idea...
> >
>
> Specific phrases for controller usage are found in FAA Order 7110.65, but
> there is no phrase like "cancel your last instruction and now comply with
> this instruction", nor should there be. Previous instructions are simply
> overridden by subsequent instructions. For example, an aircraft may have
> been instructed to "fly heading 360", and a bit later is instructed to
"turn
> right heading 020". The 360 heading isn't cancelled prior to the issuance
> of the 020 heading, the 360 heading is simply overridden by the 020
heading.
>
>
> >
> >
> > So, on the first call the pilot was told, "Aircraft calling remain clear
> > of Charlie?, or "November 1234 remain clear of Class Charlie.",
> > or words to that effect... Fine, we all agree he is to remain clear...
> > Now the controller calls a bit later and says something to the effect,
> > "November 1234, radar contact 8 miles east of xyz, altimeter 30
> > point 00", <or some variation> and shuts up - because he has
> > established radio contact which is 'the clearance to enter'...
> >
>
> Wrong. Radio contact was established when the controller said, "November
> 1234 remain clear of Class Charlie."
>
>
> >
> > So, I asked both, wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to
> > enter the C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no
> > confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing
> > radio contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM..
> >
>
> Yes, if nothing else is said that is correct. But in this case the
aircraft
> was instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace and that instruction
> remains in effect until some instruction is issued that permits entry.
>
>

Steven, just as you said that the previous instructions would not be
explicitly cancelled, so too is the "remain clear." Using the tail number -
especially with the phrase "radar contact" - definitely makes it for me. I
would enter the Class C.

I would expect the following phrases to keep me clear of the Class C - 1)
"aircraft calling NE of class C, where did you say you wanted to go?" or 2)
Cessna 1234, continue to remain clear of the class C airspace. What are your
intentions?"

I would find this one confusing "Cessna 1234, where did you say you wanted
to go?" It uses the tail number which is enough but indicates that the
controller is still trying to figure out what to do with me. I would
question whether that establishes radio contact to enter the Class C.

The point should be that this isn't a game to try to fool the controller
into saying something that unknowingly grants permission. When in doubt,
double check.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Except in this case, the "remain clear" was issued before a
> VFR departure and is meaningless.
>

Why is it meaningless? What gives you the idea that an aircraft cannot be
told to remain clear of Class C airspace prior to departure?


>
> Conversely, if the ATC and the pilot established radio
> contact with tail number ID included *just before departure*, it does not
> mean that the pilot is cleared to depart and enter the Class C.
>

Why not?


>
> That radio contact and it's implied clearance is equally meaningless. The
> communications aren't meaningful until the pilot is in flight.
>

Why is it meaningless? It meets the entry requirements.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> The O.P. stated that after recieving a beacon code and being told to
> remain clear the controller then called him back and asked some
> questions. That sounds like he was setting up a progress strip for VFR
> advisories for him. He said he thought the controller also may have
> acknowleged radar contact. I think an acknowlegement of radar contact
> would then permit entry to Class C. All you need to enter Class C is a
> Mode C transponder and two-way radio communications. You do not
> need to be "cleared into" Class C.
>
> Would you not agree?
>

"Radar contact" does not override the instruction to remain clear of the
Class C airspace.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Maule Driver" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > What it is really meant to convey is that "just because you are about
> > ready to depart and we've made radio contact with N-numbers, don't
> > think it means that radio contact has been established for the purpose
> > of entering my Class C - let's talk after you depart"
> >
>
> What it really means is "remain outside Class C airspace until I say
> something that permits entry."
>
>

These are both right. Using the tail number is enough to establish radio
contact and grants permission to enter the Class C. That is exactly why the
extra "remain clear of the Class C" was included in the departure clearance.
If the tail number were not enough, then that would not be necessary.

After departure, the tail number and a radar contact are enough radio
contact to enter the class C. If the controller needed something different,
it would be added as a "Cessna 1234, radar contact, remain clear of the
class C."

-------------------------------

Travis

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> Without knowing what exactly was said by the controller on the second
> call we can go around and around on this until the cows come home and
> not come to a definate conclusion about whether he was legal to
> proceed. Any debate is really meaningless without knowlege of exactly
> what was said by the controller on the second call.
>

If he was issued an instruction that overrode the previous instruction to
remain clear of Class C airspace then he was legal to enter Class C
airspace. If he was not issued an instruction that overrode the previous
instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace then he was not legal to
enter Class C airspace. There is no gray area here.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Steven, just as you said that the previous instructions would not be
> explicitly cancelled, so too is the "remain clear." Using the tail
> number - especially with the phrase "radar contact" - definitely
> makes it for me. I would enter the Class C.
>

Then you would be operating an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an
area in which air traffic control is exercised and thus be in violation of
FAR 91.123(b). An instruction to "remain clear" is implicitly overridden by
an instruction that requires or permits entry of the Class C airspace. "Fly
heading 110, vector for traffic" would do it, so would "proceed on course"
or "enter a right base for runway 32", but "radar contact" would not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> These are both right. Using the tail number is enough to establish radio
> contact and grants permission to enter the Class C. That is exactly why
> the extra "remain clear of the Class C" was included in the departure
> clearance. If the tail number were not enough, then that would not be
> necessary.
>
> After departure, the tail number and a radar contact are enough radio
> contact to enter the class C. If the controller needed something
different,
> it would be added as a "Cessna 1234, radar contact, remain clear of the
> class C."
>

The "remain clear of the Class C" applies only after departure and remains
in effect until overridden by an instruction that permits or requires entry.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Steven, just as you said that the previous instructions would not be
> > explicitly cancelled, so too is the "remain clear." Using the tail
> > number - especially with the phrase "radar contact" - definitely
> > makes it for me. I would enter the Class C.
> >
>
> Then you would be operating an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in
an
> area in which air traffic control is exercised and thus be in violation of
> FAR 91.123(b). An instruction to "remain clear" is implicitly overridden
by
> an instruction that requires or permits entry of the Class C airspace.
"Fly
> heading 110, vector for traffic" would do it, so would "proceed on course"
> or "enter a right base for runway 32", but "radar contact" would not.
>
>

I don't think so. From the AIM 3-2-4,
3. Arrival or Through Flight Entry Requirements. ...

NOTE-
1. If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(aircraft callsign)
standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot can enter
the Class C airspace.

2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of
Class C services, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside the
Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.

3. It is important to understand that if the controller responds to the
initial radio call without using the aircraft identification, radio
communications have not been established and the pilot may not enter the
Class C airspace.

EXAMPLE-
1. [Aircraft callsign] "remain outside the Class Charlie airspace and
standby."

2. "Aircraft calling Dulles approach control, standby."

I think that this makes it pretty clear that any acknowledgement of a
specific aircraft without a specific caution to remain clear is sufficient
radio contact to allow clearance into a Class C. Using your example of a
subsequent instruction implicitly canceling a previous instruction applies
here as well.


-------------------------------
Travis

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:6idXb.310621$na.463020@attbi_s04...
> >
> > Well, suppose the pilot returns tomorrow and establishes two-way
> > communication with the Class C controller. Yesterday's remain-clear
> > instruction still has not been explicitly rescinded. So is it still in
> > effect, or can the pilot now enter the Class C?
> >
>
> What happened yesterday? Why didn't the pilot respond to the controller's
> calls?

Who said the pilot didn't respond? ATC: "Cessna 12345, remain clear of
Class C". N12345: "Roger". N12345 flies around the Class C to some
destination, then returns the following day and establishes the requisite
two-way communication before entering Class C. Is yesterday's "remain
clear" instruction still in effect? If not, when did it expire?

--Gary

[Travis Marlatte]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:uGLXb.186249$U%5.916363@attbi_s03...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > news:6idXb.310621$na.463020@attbi_s04...
> > >
> > > Well, suppose the pilot returns tomorrow and establishes two-way
> > > communication with the Class C controller. Yesterday's remain-clear
> > > instruction still has not been explicitly rescinded. So is it still
in
> > > effect, or can the pilot now enter the Class C?
> > >
> >
> > What happened yesterday? Why didn't the pilot respond to the
controller's
> > calls?
>
> Who said the pilot didn't respond? ATC: "Cessna 12345, remain clear of
> Class C". N12345: "Roger". N12345 flies around the Class C to some
> destination, then returns the following day and establishes the requisite
> two-way communication before entering Class C. Is yesterday's "remain
> clear" instruction still in effect? If not, when did it expire?
>
> --Gary
>
>

It doesn't matter but conceptually, the "remain clear" does not expire. The
next day, the pilot will again make contact to gain entry to the class C.
The pilot will say, "Cessna 1234, 8 NE, landing Big City, with information
Echo." The controller will respond with "Cessna 1234, standby" - which is a
clearance to enter the class C, negating any previous instructions to remain
clear. Hearing no acknowledgement, or an explicit "remain clear" is a new
instruction to remain clear.

Whether it is a few minutes later, later the same day, the next day,
whatever, there is no explicit cancelation of the "remain clear" necessary.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Teacherjh]

>>
I would find this one confusing "Cessna 1234, where did you say you wanted
to go?" It uses the tail number which is enough but indicates that the
controller is still trying to figure out what to do with me. I would
question whether that establishes radio contact to enter the Class C.
<<

Radio contact has been established. You have pemission to enter. It is not an
entry requirment that the controller know where you are or where you want to
go. See and avoid is not superceded. While it is sorted out, you may proceed
in.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:uGLXb.186249$U%5.916363@attbi_s03...
>
> Who said the pilot didn't respond?
>

I did.


>
> ATC: "Cessna 12345, remain clear
> of Class C". N12345: "Roger". N12345 flies around the Class C to
> some destination,
>

So the pilot changed his mind about entering the Class C airspace?

[Rob Perkins]

"John Harlow" > wrote:

>> time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
>> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace".
>
>Lol - in my experience, either the airspace is too busy - or you sound like
>you could be a nuisance.

No, I get that instruction all the time, transitioning from PDX's two
close-in airports (Evergreen and Pearson). They issue a transponder
code, instruct you to remain clear until identified, and contact on
another frequency when airborne.

Rob

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:40:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>
>> So, I asked both, wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to
>> enter the C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no
>> confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing
>> radio contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM..
>>
>
>Yes, if nothing else is said that is correct. But in this case the aircraft
>was instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace and that instruction
>remains in effect until some instruction is issued that permits entry.

If the controller who issued the "remain clear of Class C" instruction
was not the controller responsible for operations inside of the Class
C airspace, it would seem that radio contact with the controller who
is would grant permission to enter. In any event, to bring the issue
to the fore, I would have said, "<facility name> approach, Cessna 1234
<location> <altitude> _restricted_outside_Class_C, request..."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I don't think so. From the AIM 3-2-4,
> 3. Arrival or Through Flight Entry Requirements. ...
>
> NOTE-
> 1. If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(aircraft
callsign)
> standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot can
enter
> the Class C airspace.
>
> 2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of
> Class C services, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside
the
> Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.
>
> 3. It is important to understand that if the controller responds to
the
> initial radio call without using the aircraft identification, radio
> communications have not been established and the pilot may not enter the
> Class C airspace.
>
> EXAMPLE-
> 1. [Aircraft callsign] "remain outside the Class Charlie airspace and
> standby."
>
> 2. "Aircraft calling Dulles approach control, standby."
>

The material you quoted does not support your position.


>
> I think that this makes it pretty clear that any acknowledgement of a
> specific aircraft without a specific caution to remain clear is sufficient
> radio contact to allow clearance into a Class C.
>

Yes, but that's not the case here. In this case there was acknowledgement
of a specific aircraft with a specific instruction to remain clear of the
Class C airspace.


>
> Using your example of a subsequent instruction implicitly
> canceling a previous instruction applies here as well.
>

It doesn't apply in this case because the instruction to remain clear of the
Class C airspace was the only instruction issued.

[BTIZ]

remain clear instructions end.. when you receive a "cleared through or
cleared to enter" instruction... just asking questions to figure out where
you are going.. does not indicate permission to enter

"did not assign any vectors".. fist clue
"did not repeat the remain clear".. why repeat a clearance you are already
complying with.. that's radio congestion

presumed "understanding" is like assuming.. not good

BT

"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
om...
> Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
> was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
> (which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
> the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
> was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
> to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
> time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
> after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
> area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
> me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
> can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
> turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
> class C to the surface airspace. A fellow pilot was with me, and he
> later mentioned that thought I might have violated the controller's
> instructions. Hmmmm... That brings up a question --- when does the
> "remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end? I figured that
> since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
> me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
> clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
> didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
>
> Thank-you.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:uGLXb.186249$U%5.916363@attbi_s03...
> >
> > Who said the pilot didn't respond?
> >
>
> I did.
>
>
> >
> > ATC: "Cessna 12345, remain clear
> > of Class C". N12345: "Roger". N12345 flies around the Class C to
> > some destination,
> >
>
> So the pilot changed his mind about entering the Class C airspace?

The pilot was told not to enter the Class C, so he went around it, with no
further relevant communication with ATC. Then he came back the next day and
again established two-way communication. Did the remain-clear instruction
expire in the meantime? If so, when?

--Gary

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message >...
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I've had this happen to me a few times. After a "remain clear"
> > instruction, the controller would say something like "cancel previous
> > restriction, proceed on course". The "remain clear" instruction does
> > not expire until the controller explicitly cancels it.
> >
> Except in this case, the "remain clear" was issued before a VFR departure
> and is meaningless. Conversely, if the ATC and the pilot established radio
> contact with tail number ID included *just before departure*, it does not
> mean that the pilot is cleared to depart and enter the Class C. That radio
> contact and it's implied clearance is equally meaningless. The
> communications aren't meaningful until the pilot is in flight.
>
>
> .

I don't think so. When tower clears an aircraft for takeoff (at the
primary class C airport or from a satellite airport), the aircraft is
cleared for entering the Class C airspace.

[Tom Fleischman]

In article <IkSXb.18910$IF1.1264@fed1read01>, BTIZ
> wrote:

> remain clear instructions end.. when you receive a "cleared through or
> cleared to enter" instruction... just asking questions to figure out where
> you are going.. does not indicate permission to enter

You should never hear a controller utter the words "Cleared to enter
(or cleared through)the Class C airspace". You do not need a clearance
to enter Class C, only establishment of two-way radio communications
and a Mode C transponder.

[Travis Marlatte]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:IkSXb.18910$IF1.1264@fed1read01...
> remain clear instructions end.. when you receive a "cleared through or
> cleared to enter" instruction... just asking questions to figure out where
> you are going.. does not indicate permission to enter
>
> "did not assign any vectors".. fist clue
> "did not repeat the remain clear".. why repeat a clearance you are already
> complying with.. that's radio congestion
>
> presumed "understanding" is like assuming.. not good
>
> BT

This is not true. An explicit clearance to enter a class C is not
necessary - only radio contact. If, after having said "remain clear" the
controller comes back with "Cessna 1234, where did you want to go?" that is
an implicit clearance to enter the class C. All that is required is radio
contact.

Controller's know the rules. If they don't want you in their airspace, they
will ignore you or repeat the "remain clear" instruction.

-------------------------------
Travis


>
> "Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Recently I was departing a small airport (with no control tower) which
> > was underneath the class C shelf area of a somewhat larger airport
> > (which is an air force base). Immediately before departing, I called
> > the approach controller for the class C airspace and told him that I
> > was departing and would like flight following. I was actually hoping
> > to fly straight over the larger airport (they weren't busy due to the
> > time). The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> > told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
> > after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
> > area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
> > me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> > exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> > aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
> > can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
> > turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
> > class C to the surface airspace. A fellow pilot was with me, and he
> > later mentioned that thought I might have violated the controller's
> > instructions. Hmmmm... That brings up a question --- when does the
> > "remain clear of class C airspace" instruction end? I figured that
> > since he called my by tail number and was clearly communicating with
> > me and didn't assign any vectors or repeat his direction to remain
> > clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
> > didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
> > to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
> > to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
> >
> > Thank-you.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> You should never hear a controller utter the words "Cleared to enter
> (or cleared through)the Class C airspace". You do not need a clearance
> to enter Class C, only establishment of two-way radio communications
> and a Mode C transponder.
>

But pilots request clearance through Class C (and Class D) airspace anyway.
What would you have the controller do, tell the pilot "unable clearance
through Class C airspace"? It's simpler just to "clear" the guy.

[Travis Marlatte]

Not true. A "remain clear" prior to departure is no different than one in
the air. After departure, if the controller of the class C airspace makes
radio contact, that is clearance to enter.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > These are both right. Using the tail number is enough to establish radio
> > contact and grants permission to enter the Class C. That is exactly why
> > the extra "remain clear of the Class C" was included in the departure
> > clearance. If the tail number were not enough, then that would not be
> > necessary.
> >
> > After departure, the tail number and a radar contact are enough radio
> > contact to enter the class C. If the controller needed something
> different,
> > it would be added as a "Cessna 1234, radar contact, remain clear of the
> > class C."
> >
>
> The "remain clear of the Class C" applies only after departure and remains
> in effect until overridden by an instruction that permits or requires
entry.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:g2TXb.40634$yE5.152096@attbi_s54...
>
> The pilot was told not to enter the Class C, so he went around it, with no
> further relevant communication with ATC.
>

Right. The pilot left the frequency so did not hear several calls from the
controller. The controller saw the target proceeding around the Class C
airspace, concluded the pilot no longer wished to transit Class C airspace,
so he discarded the strip.


>
> Then he came back the next day and
> again established two-way communication. Did the remain-clear
> instruction expire in the meantime? If so, when?
>

The pilot changed his mind about Class C services. The controller discarded
the strip. Nothing was carried forward to the next day. The next day's
request had nothing to do with the previous day's.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> If, after having said "remain clear" the controller comes back with
> "Cessna 1234, where did you want to go?" that is an implicit
> clearance to enter the class C.
>

No, it is not. I don't know where you got that idea but it is simply not
correct. There is nothing in "Cessna 1234, where did you want to go?" that
implies authorization to enter Class C airspace when previously told to
remain clear.


>
> Controller's know the rules. If they don't want you in their airspace,
they
> will ignore you or repeat the "remain clear" instruction.
>

If the pilot acknowledged the first instruction to remain clear there's no
need to repeat it.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > I don't think so. From the AIM 3-2-4,
> > 3. Arrival or Through Flight Entry Requirements. ...
> >
> > NOTE-
> > 1. If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(aircraft
> callsign)
> > standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot can
> enter
> > the Class C airspace.
> >
> > 2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of
> > Class C services, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside
> the
> > Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.
> >
> > 3. It is important to understand that if the controller responds to
> the
> > initial radio call without using the aircraft identification, radio
> > communications have not been established and the pilot may not enter the
> > Class C airspace.
> >
> > EXAMPLE-
> > 1. [Aircraft callsign] "remain outside the Class Charlie airspace
and
> > standby."
> >
> > 2. "Aircraft calling Dulles approach control, standby."
> >
>
> The material you quoted does not support your position.

Sure it does. My position is that radio contact where the controller uses
your tail number and lacking an explicit "remain clear" grants permission to
enter the class C. Note 1 above says this. You seem to be saying that once a
"remain clear" has been issued that the only way to reverse that is with an
explicit "cleared to enter the class C." The AIM doesn't really address this
sequence of events but does not refer to a specific clearance to enter the
class C either.

>
>
> >
> > I think that this makes it pretty clear that any acknowledgement of a
> > specific aircraft without a specific caution to remain clear is
sufficient
> > radio contact to allow clearance into a Class C.
> >
>
> Yes, but that's not the case here. In this case there was acknowledgement
> of a specific aircraft with a specific instruction to remain clear of the
> Class C airspace.

I think it is the case as presented by the original poster. He had received
a "remain clear" prior to take off. After departure, he had a radio exchange
that included his tail number and took that as permission to enter the class
C.

>
>
> >
> > Using your example of a subsequent instruction implicitly
> > canceling a previous instruction applies here as well.
> >
>
> It doesn't apply in this case because the instruction to remain clear of
the
> Class C airspace was the only instruction issued.
>
>

Again, after departure, the pilot had a radio exchange where the controller
used his tail number. That grants permission to enter the class C.

I am based at a class C airport. I have heard "remain clear" many times. I
have never heard "cleared to enter." Subsequent radio contact that uses my
tail number is enough to rescind the "remain clear" instruction.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Not true. A "remain clear" prior to departure is no different than one in
> the air. After departure, if the controller of the class C airspace makes
> radio contact, that is clearance to enter.
>

Wrong. I don't know who told you that but it is simply not correct. It is
illogical and unsupported by any documentation. Once instructed to remain
clear of Class C airspace you must remain clear until you receive an
instruction that permits or requires entry. That is not my opinion, that is
a fact.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > You should never hear a controller utter the words "Cleared to enter
> > (or cleared through)the Class C airspace". You do not need a clearance
> > to enter Class C, only establishment of two-way radio communications
> > and a Mode C transponder.
> >
>
> But pilots request clearance through Class C (and Class D) airspace
anyway.
> What would you have the controller do, tell the pilot "unable clearance
> through Class C airspace"? It's simpler just to "clear" the guy.
>
>

You lost me. If a pilot requests to transition a class C, the controller has
several options: 1) ignore the call. 2) "aircraft calling, remain clear of
the class C." 3) "Cessna 1234, remain clear of the class C." 4) "Cessna
1234, standby" 5) "Cessna 1234, roger." 6) "Cessna 1234, altimeter setting
30.04." or even 7) "Cessna 1234 transition approved."

1, 2, and 3 are indications that the tranistion is not approved. 4, 5, 6 and
7 are clearances to enter. I agree with Tom that you will probably not hear
"cleared to enter the class C" but, more to the point, you certainly don't
to hear it before entering the class C.

Why would you say it is simpler to just clear the guy? The simplest thing to
do would be to ignore the call.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > If, after having said "remain clear" the controller comes back with
> > "Cessna 1234, where did you want to go?" that is an implicit
> > clearance to enter the class C.
> >
>
> No, it is not. I don't know where you got that idea but it is simply not
> correct. There is nothing in "Cessna 1234, where did you want to go?"
that
> implies authorization to enter Class C airspace when previously told to
> remain clear.

It is correct. It is radio contact which is documented as permission to
enter the class C.

>
>
> >
> > Controller's know the rules. If they don't want you in their airspace,
> they
> > will ignore you or repeat the "remain clear" instruction.
> >
>
> If the pilot acknowledged the first instruction to remain clear there's no
> need to repeat it.
>
>

If the contoller wanted the pilot to remain clear, he would have simply
ignored him. The fact that the controller took the time to establish radio
contact - to ask a question or to provide information - is sufficient
acknowledgment (according to the AIM) that the pilot may enter the class C.

-----------------------------
Travis

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Not true. A "remain clear" prior to departure is no different than one
in
> > the air. After departure, if the controller of the class C airspace
makes
> > radio contact, that is clearance to enter.
> >
>
> Wrong. I don't know who told you that but it is simply not correct. It
is
> illogical and unsupported by any documentation. Once instructed to remain
> clear of Class C airspace you must remain clear until you receive an
> instruction that permits or requires entry. That is not my opinion, that
is
> a fact.
>
>

It is common practice and expected behavior. The casual appearance of
clearance to enter the class C is documented in the AIM. The paricular
sequence of events is not.

It is no more illogical than having the controller respond with "Cessna
1234, standby" - which is explicitly documented as clearance to enter class
C airspace.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
> > rthlink.net...
> > >
> > > You should never hear a controller utter the words "Cleared to enter
> > > (or cleared through)the Class C airspace". You do not need a clearance
> > > to enter Class C, only establishment of two-way radio communications
> > > and a Mode C transponder.
> > >
> >
> > But pilots request clearance through Class C (and Class D) airspace
> anyway.
> > What would you have the controller do, tell the pilot "unable clearance
> > through Class C airspace"? It's simpler just to "clear" the guy.
> >
> >
>
> You lost me. If a pilot requests to transition a class C, the controller
has
> several options: 1) ignore the call. 2) "aircraft calling, remain clear of
> the class C." 3) "Cessna 1234, remain clear of the class C." 4) "Cessna
> 1234, standby" 5) "Cessna 1234, roger." 6) "Cessna 1234, altimeter setting
> 30.04." or even 7) "Cessna 1234 transition approved."
>

But the pilot didn't request transition through the Class C airspace, the
pilot requested clearance through the Class C airspace.


>
> 1, 2, and 3 are indications that the tranistion is not approved. 4, 5, 6
and
> 7 are clearances to enter. I agree with Tom that you will probably not
hear
> "cleared to enter the class C" but, more to the point, you certainly don't
> to hear it before entering the class C.
>
> Why would you say it is simpler to just clear the guy? The simplest thing
to
> do would be to ignore the call.
>

Because responding "Cessna 1234 cleared through Class C airspace" is simpler
than explaining to the guy that there are no clearances for VFR transition
of Class C airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> It is correct. It is radio contact which is documented as permission to
> enter the class C.
>

It is documented that radio contact and an instruction to remain clear of
Class C airspace is not permission to enter the Class C.


>
> If the contoller wanted the pilot to remain clear, he would have simply
> ignored him. The fact that the controller took the time to establish radio
> contact - to ask a question or to provide information - is sufficient
> acknowledgment (according to the AIM) that the pilot may enter the
> class C.
>

You need to review the AIM. The AIM states, "If workload or traffic
conditions prevent immediate provision of Class C services, the controller
will inform the pilot to remain outside the Class C airspace until
conditions permit the services to be provided."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> It is common practice and expected behavior. The casual appearance of
> clearance to enter the class C is documented in the AIM. The paricular
> sequence of events is not.
>
> It is no more illogical than having the controller respond with "Cessna
> 1234, standby" - which is explicitly documented as clearance to enter
class
> C airspace.
>

You're not even trying to understand this.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> It doesn't matter but conceptually, the "remain clear" does not expire.
> The next day, the pilot will again make contact to gain entry to the
> class C. The pilot will say, "Cessna 1234, 8 NE, landing Big City,
> with information Echo." The controller will respond with "Cessna
> 1234, standby" - which is a clearance to enter the class C, negating
> any previous instructions to remain clear.
>

You're right that he can enter Class C airspace but for the wrong reason.
The instruction to remain clear was not carried forward to the next day.
The controller tried to contact the aircraft again a couple of times, the
pilot didn't respond, the controller watched his target proceed around the
Class C airspace, so he concluded the pilot no longer wanted to enter the
airspace and discarded the strip. The call the following day is a new
flight unrelated to the previous.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Radio contact has been established. You have pemission to enter.
>

No. Radio contact has been established and the pilot has been instructed to
remain clear of the Class C airspace. You do not have permission to enter.


>
> It is not an entry requirment that the controller know where you are
> or where you want to go. See and avoid is not superceded. While
> it is sorted out, you may proceed in.
>

True dat.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the controller who issued the "remain clear of Class C" instruction
> was not the controller responsible for operations inside of the Class
> C airspace, it would seem that radio contact with the controller who
> is would grant permission to enter.
>

Entry is based on establishing two-way radio communications with the ATC
facility, not with a specific controller.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Sure it does. My position is that radio contact where the controller uses
> your tail number and lacking an explicit "remain clear" grants permission
> to enter the class C. Note 1 above says this.
>

It doesn't. You stated that subsequent use of the tail number of an
aircraft, that had previously established communications and been told to
remain clear, especially with the phrase "radar contact", permitted entry to
the Class C airspace. The AIM does not support that viewpoint. ATC can
instruct aircraft that have established communications to remain outside of
Class C airspace.


FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 8. Class C Service- Terminal

7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS

Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio communications
before entering Class C airspace. If the controller responds to a radio call
with, "(a/c call sign) standby," radio communications have been established
and the pilot can enter Class C airspace. If workload or traffic conditions
prevent immediate provision of Class C services, inform the pilot to remain
outside Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be
provided.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(A/c call sign) REMAIN OUTSIDE CHARLIE AIRSPACE AND STANDBY.


>
> You seem to be saying that once a "remain clear" has been issued
> that the only way to reverse that is with an explicit "cleared to enter
> the class C." The AIM doesn't really address this sequence of events
> but does not refer to a specific clearance to enter the class C either.
>

I'm saying that an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace issued to
an aircraft that has established two-way radio communications remains in
effect until another instruction is issued that permits that aircraft to
enter Class C airspace. That is not my opinion, that is a simple fact.


>
> I think it is the case as presented by the original poster. He had
> received a "remain clear" prior to take off. After departure, he
> had a radio exchange that included his tail number and took that
> as permission to enter the class C.
>

Yes. He erred. That radio exchange was not permission to enter Class C
airspace. His instruction to remain clear was still in effect because no
instruction permitting entry had been issued.


>
> Again, after departure, the pilot had a radio exchange where the
> controller used his tail number. That grants permission to enter
> the class C.
>

And again, that is not the case. A subsequent radio exchange after
communications have been established does not, by itself, override the
instruction to remain clear. I don't know who told you otherwise but
whoever it was does not have a correct understanding of Class C airspace.


>
> I am based at a class C airport.
>

Which only proves that one can be based in Class C airspace without
understanding it.


>
> I have heard "remain clear" many times. I have never heard "cleared
> to enter."
>

As you gain experience you probably will.


>
> Subsequent radio contact that uses my
> tail number is enough to rescind the "remain clear" instruction.
>

I'm sure you believe that. That statement is unsupported by any
documentation and is completely illogical. I've explained this as simply as
I can and you still don't understand. I don't think you're even trying to
understand. Fine. Believe whatever you choose.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Right. The pilot left the frequency so did not hear several calls from
the
> controller.

What "several calls"? It is hypothetically possible that the controller
never called back. I certainly have no shortage of instances where ATC
simply forgot I exist, even when I was flying on an instrument flight plan.

It's not your hypothetical situation; you don't get to pick and choose the
specifics. The person posing the hypothetical situation does.

> The controller saw the target proceeding around the Class C
> airspace, concluded the pilot no longer wished to transit Class C
airspace,
> so he discarded the strip.

Says who? Who knows what the controller did or did not do, except that
controller?

> The pilot changed his mind about Class C services. The controller
discarded
> the strip. Nothing was carried forward to the next day. The next day's
> request had nothing to do with the previous day's.

So your claim is that the question of whether two-way radio contact suffices
to allow entry into the Class C hinges on whether there's a flight strip?
How in the world is the pilot to know whether a flight strip exists or not?
That's not the sort of thing ATC is regularly reporting to us.

What about the pilot who is told to remain clear, but who never gets a
flight strip in the first place? What if the strip is discarded (for
whatever reason) before two-way radio contact is made? Even if only a short
period of time has passed? How is the pilot to know that they may enter the
Class C, since they won't know the status of the flight strip, whether it
ever existed, and whether it still exists?

There is no way for the pilot to know whether a flight strip still exists,
therefore the existence of the flight strip is completely irrelevant to the
question of whether the pilot may enter the Class C or not. A controller
might think it's completely black and white -- since after all, they have
the strip right in front of them or they don't -- but that controller would
be an idiot for thinking so, failing to comprehend that they only have half
the equation.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> What "several calls"?
>

The several calls to the aircraft from the controller he had established
communications with and who had told him to remain clear. Once the workload
or traffic conditions that had prevent immediate provision of Class C
services were under control the controller would have called the aircraft so
he could provide the requested services. Those calls.


>
> It's not your hypothetical situation; you don't get to pick and choose the
> specifics. The person posing the hypothetical situation does.
>

Sorry. I assumed it was a realistic hypothetical. My mistake.


>
> Says who?
>

Says me.


>
> Who knows what the controller did or did not do, except that
> controller?
>

I know what controllers do.


>
> So your claim is that the question of whether two-way radio
> contact suffices to allow entry into the Class C hinges on whether
> there's a flight strip?
>

Nope.


>
> How in the world is the pilot to know whether a flight strip exists or
not?
>

He wouldn't, nor is it relevant to the pilot.


>
> That's not the sort of thing ATC is regularly reporting to us.
>

As far as you understand.


>
> What about the pilot who is told to remain clear, but who never gets a
> flight strip in the first place?
>

What about him?


>
> What if the strip is discarded (for whatever reason) before two-way
> radio contact is made? Even if only a short period of time has passed?
> How is the pilot to know that they may enter the Class C, since they
> won't know the status of the flight strip, whether it
> ever existed, and whether it still exists?
>

The pilot should know that he may not enter Class C airspace because radio
contact has not been made.


>
> There is no way for the pilot to know whether a flight strip still exists,
> therefore the existence of the flight strip is completely irrelevant to
the
> question of whether the pilot may enter the Class C or not.
>

Exactly.


>
> A controller
> might think it's completely black and white -- since after all, they have
> the strip right in front of them or they don't -- but that controller
would
> be an idiot for thinking so, failing to comprehend that they only have
half
> the equation.
>

Why are you fixated on the strip? The strip has nothing to do with entering
Class C airspace. What made you think it did?

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sorry. I assumed it was a realistic hypothetical. My mistake.

There's nothing unrealistic about a controller forgetting about traffic.
Happens all the time.

> > Says who?
>
> Says me.

That was rhetorical. You don't have the authority to set the parameters for
the hypothetical situation, since you didn't pose the situation.

> I know what controllers do.

You know what you'd like all controllers to do always. But they don't
comply.

> Why are you fixated on the strip? The strip has nothing to do with
entering
> Class C airspace. What made you think it did?

Your claim that the absence of a strip is why the "remain clear" is no
longer valid the next day.

Either the strip is important or it's not. If it's not (as you are now
saying), then its absence the next day is completely irrelevant to the
question of whether the "remain clear" is still in effect.

Pete

[Tom Fleischman]

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> I'm saying that an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace issued to
> an aircraft that has established two-way radio communications remains in
> effect until another instruction is issued that permits that aircraft to
> enter Class C airspace. That is not my opinion, that is a simple fact.

So Stephen, what specifically would constitute another instruction that
permits entry, and don't try and tell me that it would have to include
"cleared to enter" because that would be incorrect phraseology with
respect to Class C airspace.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> It doesn't. You stated that subsequent use of the tail number of an
> aircraft, that had previously established communications and been told to
> remain clear, especially with the phrase "radar contact", permitted entry
to
> the Class C airspace. The AIM does not support that viewpoint. ATC can
> instruct aircraft that have established communications to remain outside
of
> Class C airspace.

To enter class C airspace, the FARs say that you have to establish two-way
radio communication. The AIM provides a few examples which indicate that no
explicit clearance is required. I agree that ATC can establish communication
but instruct the pilot to remain clear. It is what can happen next that we
have been debating.

From the FARs, the AIM , and my experiences, the acknowledgement of a
particular plane by ATC establishes two-way radio communication and is
sufficient for the plane to enter the class C - even after the issuance of a
"remain clear."

>
> >
> > You seem to be saying that once a "remain clear" has been issued
> > that the only way to reverse that is with an explicit "cleared to enter
> > the class C." The AIM doesn't really address this sequence of events
> > but does not refer to a specific clearance to enter the class C either.
> >
>
> I'm saying that an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace issued
to
> an aircraft that has established two-way radio communications remains in
> effect until another instruction is issued that permits that aircraft to
> enter Class C airspace. That is not my opinion, that is a simple fact.

It does seem to be your opinion and it is far from a simple fact. There is
no language in the FARs or AIM that clearly supports either of our opinions.
There is no text that says anything about what must happen after a "remain
clear" has been issued for class C.

> >
> > I think it is the case as presented by the original poster. He had
> > received a "remain clear" prior to take off. After departure, he
> > had a radio exchange that included his tail number and took that
> > as permission to enter the class C.
> >
>
> Yes. He erred. That radio exchange was not permission to enter Class C
> airspace. His instruction to remain clear was still in effect because no
> instruction permitting entry had been issued.

There is no such thing as an instruction to permit entry into class C.

> >
> > Again, after departure, the pilot had a radio exchange where the
> > controller used his tail number. That grants permission to enter
> > the class C.
> >
>
> And again, that is not the case. A subsequent radio exchange after
> communications have been established does not, by itself, override the
> instruction to remain clear. I don't know who told you otherwise but
> whoever it was does not have a correct understanding of Class C airspace.

The FARs say that two-way radio communication is sufficient. The AIM says
that two-way radio communication is sufficient. Where does it say otherwise?

If the controller intended for the pilot to remain clear that he would have
simply ignored the pilot's radio calls or would have repeated the "remain
clear."

For the scenario described by the original poster, the departure controller
instructed him to remain clear of the class C. Once in the air, the radio
exchange that occured established two-way radio communication and was
sufficient for him to enter the class C.

> >
> > I am based at a class C airport.
> >
>
> Which only proves that one can be based in Class C airspace without
> understanding it.

Or, that I'm right.

> >
> > I have heard "remain clear" many times. I have never heard "cleared
> > to enter."
> >
>
> As you gain experience you probably will.

I'll agree with that. I'm sure some day that a class C or D controller will
say something like "cleared to enter ..." but it is not necessary and I
don't need to hear it whether or not I have been told to remain clear.

> >
> > Subsequent radio contact that uses my
> > tail number is enough to rescind the "remain clear" instruction.
> >
>
> I'm sure you believe that. That statement is unsupported by any
> documentation and is completely illogical. I've explained this as simply
as
> I can and you still don't understand. I don't think you're even trying to
> understand. Fine. Believe whatever you choose.

There is no documentation to support your point of view either. My position
is consistent with the documentation that does exist. It is consistent with
my experiences at class C and D airports. It is not completely illogical. I
would suggest that having this ambiguity about a clearance to enter the
class C/D in the FARs in the first place is illogical.

You have explained it very simply and I do think that I understand what you
are saying. Let me summarize to be sure. You claim that once a controller
has issued a "remain clear" for a class C or D airspace that an explicit
"cleared into the class C or D airpspace" or some instruction that requires
entry is necessary before the pilot should enter.

I disagree with you. I am trying to map what you are saying to the
documentation and to my experiences. They don't seem to agree.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Teacherjh]

Ok Steven. New hypothetical.

Manly Piper 54321 calls approach from the ground desiring to enter Class C
airspace after takeoff. Ralph at approach says "Piper 54321after takeoff
remain clear of the class C" Ralph then goes off shift.

Manly Piper takes off and begins to maneuver around the class C. He calls
approach, and George annswers "Piper 54321 say direction of flight"

Is Manly Piper permitted to enter the class C?
What bearing toes Ralphs instruction have?
What bearing does George's instruction have?
Does the Manly Piper need to know whether it's Ralph or George?
Does George need to know that Ralph told the Manly Piper to stay clear, or does
George get to start with a clean slate and make his own evaluation?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Mark]

(Arden Prinz) wrote in message >...
> The approach controller assigned me a transponder code and
> told me "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". So
> after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the class C
> area that extended to the surface. Well, the controller then called
> me by my tail number and asked some questions (I don't remember
> exactly what -- it might have been my expected cruising altitude and
> aircraft type, I think he may have also said radar contact, although I
> can't remember the specifics right now). As soon as this happened, I
> turned and headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the
> class C to the surface airspace. >
> Thank-you.

Sorry to bust you like this, but I think you need to spend a little
more time understanding what your responsibilities are as a Pilot. If
the controller says "Remain clear is Class C" then you stay out of
class C. Jezzzz, What gave you the idea you can violate his
instructions? Hate to say it, but your lack of understanding is why
we are having pilots violate TFR's and other special use airspace. Get
with a instructor and review airspace and the FAR's. Also, tell your
pilot friend that he should have pointed out your mistake. If he was a
CFI, then his ass would also be subject for FAA actions.

Again, sorry to bust you like this. However I feel if you had the
balls to write this obvious lack of judgement in your flying skill,
then you open yourself up to my wrath.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The pilot changed his mind about Class C services. The controller
discarded
> the strip. Nothing was carried forward to the next day. The next day's
> request had nothing to do with the previous day's.

You still haven't answered the question of *when* you claim the remain-clear
instruction expires (in the sense that it no longer need be explicitly
rescinded in order for subsequent two-way communication to constitute
permission to enter). Is it when the pilot changes his mind? When the
controller discards the strip? After ten minutes? At midnight, when the
next day starts? Or when?

You acknowledge that the remain-clear doesn't carry forward forever. But if
there's no way to say when it stops, then (as others have proposed) a
plausible alternative interpretation is that it stops immediately, in the
sense that *any* subsequent call-sign "handshake" with ATC establishes
permission to enter (unless the remain-clear is then repeated).

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Mark" > wrote in message
om...
> [...]
> Again, sorry to bust you like this. However I feel if you had the
> balls to write this obvious lack of judgement in your flying skill,
> then you open yourself up to my wrath.

Your "wrath"? LOL! That's all the wrath you've got? I've seen mice with
more wrath.

In any case, it should be clear enough to you from the direction the
thread's taken that the issue isn't quite as clear, cut, and dried as you
think it is. Perhaps you failed to notice that the original "remain clear"
instruction was given by a different controller, while the airplane was
still on the ground?

Pete

[Mark]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Mark" > wrote in message
> om...
> > [...]
> > Again, sorry to bust you like this. However I feel if you had the
> > balls to write this obvious lack of judgement in your flying skill,
> > then you open yourself up to my wrath.
>
> Your "wrath"? LOL! That's all the wrath you've got? I've seen mice with
> more wrath.
>
> In any case, it should be clear enough to you from the direction the
> thread's taken that the issue isn't quite as clear, cut, and dried as you
> think it is. Perhaps you failed to notice that the original "remain clear"
> instruction was given by a different controller, while the airplane was
> still on the ground?
>
> Pete

Pete:
I was trying to be a little nice, but I guess you expected more?

It's nice to have a NG forum to debate these issues AFTER the fact,
however in the cockpit you don't have the luxery of debating the issue
and looking up every nuance in the FAR's. The pilot was told "after
departure remain clear of the class C airspace". Then "After
departure" he was call with some trivial info and then "I turned and
headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the class C to
the surface airspace.". If a different controller told him to cross
into class C, then it's legal to ENTER class C. However I simple call
by this pilot with the phrase "Can I enter Class Charlie?" would have
done wonders to clear things up between the pilot and the new
controller.

I teach students that yes, you follow the FAR's. However when in
doubt or confused, TALK TO THE CONTROLLER AND CLEAR IT UP! You have a
brain, use it. There has been many accidents where lack of
communication was the cause. Most students want to act professional
and DON'T ask questions on the radio. However MORE private pilots
THINK since they have a license they don't NEED to ask questions.
This problem is compounded when flying with a fellow pilot, they don't
want to look stupid in front of a peer. I have more respect for a
pilot that will put their ego aside and ask a question over one that
pretends they are Mr. Right Stuff.

All this debate BS above is nice for the day after. However you need
to remember to teach the proper responce when you don't have the
luxery of time to think a problem through. Aviate, Navigate and
Communicate.

[gross_arrow]

Tom Fleischman > wrote in message nk.net>...
> In article et>,
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> > I'm saying that an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace issued to
> > an aircraft that has established two-way radio communications remains in
> > effect until another instruction is issued that permits that aircraft to
> > enter Class C airspace. That is not my opinion, that is a simple fact.
>
> So Stephen, what specifically would constitute another instruction that
> permits entry, and don't try and tell me that it would have to include
> "cleared to enter" because that would be incorrect phraseology with
> respect to Class C airspace.


how 'bout "resume own navigation"

[Tom Fleischman]

In article >,
gross_arrow > wrote:

> Tom Fleischman > wrote in message
> nk.net>...
> > In article et>,
> > Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm saying that an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace issued
> > > to
> > > an aircraft that has established two-way radio communications remains in
> > > effect until another instruction is issued that permits that aircraft to
> > > enter Class C airspace. That is not my opinion, that is a simple fact.
> >
> > So Stephen, what specifically would constitute another instruction that
> > permits entry, and don't try and tell me that it would have to include
> > "cleared to enter" because that would be incorrect phraseology with
> > respect to Class C airspace.
>
>
> how 'bout "resume own navigation"

Sure that would work, along with something like, "N123AB, radar
contact, say destination and type aircraft", which was probably close
to what the original poster heard (my read of what he alluded to in his
original post).

[Travis Marlatte]

"Mark" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Pete:
> I was trying to be a little nice, but I guess you expected more?
>
> It's nice to have a NG forum to debate these issues AFTER the fact,
> however in the cockpit you don't have the luxery of debating the issue
> and looking up every nuance in the FAR's. The pilot was told "after
> departure remain clear of the class C airspace". Then "After
> departure" he was call with some trivial info and then "I turned and
> headed directly toward my destination, taking me across the class C to
> the surface airspace.". If a different controller told him to cross
> into class C, then it's legal to ENTER class C. However I simple call
> by this pilot with the phrase "Can I enter Class Charlie?" would have
> done wonders to clear things up between the pilot and the new
> controller.
>
> I teach students that yes, you follow the FAR's. However when in
> doubt or confused, TALK TO THE CONTROLLER AND CLEAR IT UP! You have a
> brain, use it. There has been many accidents where lack of
> communication was the cause. Most students want to act professional
> and DON'T ask questions on the radio. However MORE private pilots
> THINK since they have a license they don't NEED to ask questions.
> This problem is compounded when flying with a fellow pilot, they don't
> want to look stupid in front of a peer. I have more respect for a
> pilot that will put their ego aside and ask a question over one that
> pretends they are Mr. Right Stuff.
>
> All this debate BS above is nice for the day after. However you need
> to remember to teach the proper responce when you don't have the
> luxery of time to think a problem through. Aviate, Navigate and
> Communicate.

I take it that your capitals are directed at those of us continuing the
debate beyond its useful life. Otherwise, I pitty your poor students.

You are correct that, when unsure, we should not be affraid to ask for
clarification. In this case, the flying pilot wasn't unsure. He did what he
thought was permissible. He had no reason to ask for clarification from the
controller.

If the non-flying pilot thought it was wrong, he should have said so. Maybe
the CRM wasn't what it should be. Maybe it didn't occur to him until he was
on the ground. For whatever reason, the non-flying pilot must not have been
sure enough of himself to question it in the air. He was right to voice it
at some time, for his own education.

I happen to believe that the pilot was correct, did not need to ask for
permission and was free to enter the class C. But, thanks to all this debate
BS, I at least now know that it may not be clear cut. The next time I talk
to the controllers at my home base, I'll ask them.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Mark]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message et>...
> I take it that your capitals are directed at those of us continuing the
> debate beyond its useful life. Otherwise, I pitty your poor students.


When instructing I usually end a comment like that with a Howard Dean
"AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHH".

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>>
[snip]
>>
>> But I could still be wrong, so I just polled both the Supervisor of a
>> Class C airspace, and I polled the supervisor of the Michigan FSDO...
>> Both agree that the AIM is correct... A pilot is cleared into the class
>> C when the controller establishes radio contact using the tail number;
>> and does not instruct him to remain clear... Nothing more is required...
>>
>That's true, but that's not what happened in this case. In this case the
>pilot was instructed to remain clear of the Class C airspace.
>>
>> So, on the first call the pilot was told, "Aircraft calling remain clear
>> of Charlie?, or "November 1234 remain clear of Class Charlie.",
>> or words to that effect... Fine, we all agree he is to remain clear...
>> Now the controller calls a bit later and says something to the effect,
>> "November 1234, radar contact 8 miles east of xyz, altimeter 30
>> point 00", <or some variation> and shuts up - because he has
>> established radio contact which is 'the clearance to enter'...
>>
>Wrong. Radio contact was established when the controller said, "November
>1234 remain clear of Class Charlie."

....and once again with "November 1234, radar contact..." Where, in that
"radar contact" communication, does the controller say "remain clear..."?

If N1234 was to remain clear, the controller needed to say so. If the
"remain clear" instruction was to remain in place, what approved phraseology
would the controller then use to remove the restriction? You keep insinuating
that there must be some magic phrase, but you don't tell us what it is.
>>
>> So, I asked both, wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to
>> enter the C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no
>> confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing
>> radio contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM..
>>
>Yes, if nothing else is said that is correct. But in this case the aircraft
>was instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace and that instruction
>remains in effect until some instruction is issued that permits entry.

And what would that instruction be, if "November 1234, radar contact..."
were not sufficient (as clearly laid out in the AIM)? Pray enlighten us.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
om...
>>
[snip]
>> clear, that it was now understood that I could enter. The controller
>> didn't give any indication that I had done anything wrong, but I want
>> to be sure that I understand this for the future. So ... if I'm told
>> to remain clear in the future, WHEN does that end?
>>
>
>It ends upon receipt of ATC instructions that permit entry.
>
....such as "November 1234, radar contact..."

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
>message
>> > rthlink.net...
>> > >
[snip]
>>
>> You lost me. If a pilot requests to transition a class C, the controller
>has
>> several options: 1) ignore the call. 2) "aircraft calling, remain clear of
>> the class C." 3) "Cessna 1234, remain clear of the class C." 4) "Cessna
>> 1234, standby" 5) "Cessna 1234, roger." 6) "Cessna 1234, altimeter setting
>> 30.04." or even 7) "Cessna 1234 transition approved."
>
>But the pilot didn't request transition through the Class C airspace, the
>pilot requested clearance through the Class C airspace.

Baloney.

The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.

[snip]
>
>Because responding "Cessna 1234 cleared through Class C airspace" is simpler
>than explaining to the guy that there are no clearances for VFR transition
>of Class C airspace.
>
....so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect phraseology is
how you would handle this?

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's nothing unrealistic about a controller forgetting about traffic.
> Happens all the time.
>

Actually, it's pretty rare. What does happen fairly often is pilots miss
radio calls shipping them to another frequency. These pilots don't realize
they've missed a few radio calls and wrongly assume ATC forgot about them.


>
> That was rhetorical. You don't have the authority to set the
> parameters for the hypothetical situation, since you didn't pose
> the situation.
>

I set no parameters. I simply assumed Mr. Drescher was asking a real-world
hypothetical question.


>
> You know what you'd like all controllers to do always. But they don't
> comply.
>

I know what all controllers are supposed to do, you aren't in a position to
know if they comply with requirements.


>
> Your claim that the absence of a strip is why the "remain clear" is no
> longer valid the next day.
>

I didn't make such a claim.


>
> Either the strip is important or it's not. If it's not (as you are now
> saying), then its absence the next day is completely irrelevant to the
> question of whether the "remain clear" is still in effect.
>

The strip is a part of it. It is the record of the contact. The strip was
placed in the discard pile when the controller concluded he no longer wanted
Class C services.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> So Stephen, what specifically would constitute another instruction that
> permits entry, and don't try and tell me that it would have to include
> "cleared to enter" because that would be incorrect phraseology with
> respect to Class C airspace.
>

As I said in several previous messages in this thread, an instruction to
remain clear of Class C airspace issued to an aircraft that has established
two-way radio communications remains in effect until another instruction is
issued that permits that aircraft to enter Class C airspace. That assumes,
of course, that the pilot still wants Class C services and remains on the
frequency. Examples would be "proceed on course", "fly heading XXX, vector
for sequencing", "enter right base for runway XX", etc.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> To enter class C airspace, the FARs say that you have to establish
> two-way radio communication.
>

Yes, but the FARs also say that except in an emergency, no person may
operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air
traffic control is exercised. Class C airspace is an area in which air
traffic control is exercised, so a pilot that has established two-way radio
communications and been instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace must
remain outside until further advised.


>
> The AIM provides a few examples which indicate that no
> explicit clearance is required. I agree that ATC can establish
> communication but instruct the pilot to remain clear. It is what
> can happen next that we have been debating.
>
> From the FARs, the AIM , and my experiences, the
> acknowledgement of a particular plane by ATC establishes
> two-way radio communication and is sufficient for the plane to
> enter the class C - even after the issuance of a "remain clear."
>

The FARs and AIM indicate just the opposite, and you don't have any
experience to the contrary, you just misinterpreted the situation.


>
> It does seem to be your opinion and it is far from a simple fact.
>

Actually, it is an indisputable fact. It can be no other way.


>
> There is no language in the FARs or AIM that clearly supports either of
> our opinions.
>

The FARs and AIM support what I've been saying and indicate that you're
wrong.


>
> There is no text that says anything about what must happen after a
> "remain clear" has been issued for class C.
>

What text says what must happen after any ATC instruction is issued?


>
> There is no such thing as an instruction to permit entry into class C.
>

Why? Because all ATC instructions are listed in the AIM and there is no
such instruction mentioned?


>
> The FARs say that two-way radio communication is sufficient. The AIM >
says that two-way radio communication is sufficient. Where does it say
> otherwise?
>

In FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an
ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.


By the way, you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you wrote; "I agree that
ATC can establish communication but instruct the pilot to remain clear."
Now you're saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft that has established
radio communications to remain outside Class C airspace.


>
> If the controller intended for the pilot to remain clear that he would
> have simply ignored the pilot's radio calls or would have repeated
> the "remain clear."
>

If the controller didn't intend for the pilot to remain clear he wouldn't
have told him "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". Why
would the controller need to repeat that instruction?


>
> For the scenario described by the original poster, the departure
> controller instructed him to remain clear of the class C. Once in
> the air, the radio exchange that occured established two-way
> radio communication and was sufficient for him to enter the class C.
>

Wrong. Two-way radio communications were established just once, when the
aircraft was on the ground, at the same time the instruction to remain
outside Class C airspace was issued. Communications are not established
with every communications exchange, just the first one.


>
> Or, that I'm right.
>

The AIM, FARs, FAA Order 7110.65, and simple logic indicate you're wrong.




>
> I'll agree with that. I'm sure some day that a class C or D controller
> will say something like "cleared to enter ..." but it is not necessary and
I
> don't need to hear it whether or not I have been told to remain clear.
>

But once you've been told to remain outside Class C airspace you do have to
hear something that indicates you can enter.


>
> There is no documentation to support your point of view either.
>

All pertinent documentation supports my position.


>
> My position is consistent with the documentation that does exist.
>

Your position is contrary to all pertinent documentation, you simply do not
understand the documentation.


>
> It is consistent with my experiences at class C and D airports.
>

Impossible, as you cannot experience that which does not occur.


>
> It is not completely illogical.
>

Actually, it is. You're just not thinking logically.


>
> I would suggest that having this ambiguity about a clearance to
> enter the class C/D in the FARs in the first place is illogical.
>

What ambiguity?


>
> You have explained it very simply and I do think that I understand
> what you are saying. Let me summarize to be sure. You claim that
> once a controller has issued a "remain clear" for a class C or D
> airspace that an explicit "cleared into the class C or D airpspace" or
> some instruction that requires entry is necessary before the pilot
> should enter.
>

"Cleared" would be incorrect, but otherwise that's a reasonable facsimile.


>
> I disagree with you.
>

Right. It's like I'm saying "two plus two equals four", and you're saying
"I disagree, in my experience two plus two equals five".


>
> I am trying to map what you are saying to the
> documentation and to my experiences. They don't seem to agree.
>

That's because you've misinterpreted the documents and drawn incorrect
conclusions from your experience.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok Steven. New hypothetical.
>
> Manly Piper 54321 calls approach from the ground desiring to
> enter Class C airspace after takeoff. Ralph at approach says
> "Piper 54321after takeoff remain clear of the class C" Ralph
> then goes off shift.
>
> Manly Piper takes off and begins to maneuver around the class
> C. He calls approach, and George annswers "Piper 54321 say
> direction of flight"
>
> Is Manly Piper permitted to enter the class C?
>

No.


>
> What bearing toes Ralphs instruction have?
>

It isn't Ralph's instruction personally, it's approach's instruction. It
remains in effect until an instruction is issued that permits entry to Class
C airspace.


>
> What bearing does George's instruction have?
>

George didn't issue an instruction.


>
> Does the Manly Piper need to know whether it's Ralph or George?
>

No.


>
> Does George need to know that Ralph told the Manly Piper to
> stay clear, or does George get to start with a clean slate and
> make his own evaluation?
>

George need to know that Ralph told the Piper to stay clear, it would have
been part of the relief briefing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> In any case, it should be clear enough to you from the direction the
> thread's taken that the issue isn't quite as clear, cut, and dried as you
> think it is.
>

Actually, the issue is cut and dried. From the direction this thread's
taken it's clear that some pilots have a poor understanding of regulations
and procedures with regard to Class C airspace.


>
> Perhaps you failed to notice that the original "remain clear"
> instruction was given by a different controller, while the airplane was
> still on the ground?
>

Nothing in the original message indicates the original "remain clear"
instruction was given by a different controller, and it wouldn't matter if
it had.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> To enter class C airspace, the FARs say that you have to establish
>> two-way radio communication.
>>
>
>Yes, but the FARs also say that except in an emergency, no person may
>operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air
>traffic control is exercised. Class C airspace is an area in which air
>traffic control is exercised, so a pilot that has established two-way radio
>communications and been instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace must
>remain outside until further advised.
>
How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially considering
the guidance the AIM offers)?

FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
maintain those communications while within that airspace.

I also note that it never speaks of "clearance", but "ATC authorization".

Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
Class C airspace.

Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
just waving your hands furiously?
>
[snip]
>>
>> From the FARs, the AIM , and my experiences, the
>> acknowledgement of a particular plane by ATC establishes
>> two-way radio communication and is sufficient for the plane to
>> enter the class C - even after the issuance of a "remain clear."
>>
>
>The FARs and AIM indicate just the opposite, and you don't have any
>experience to the contrary, you just misinterpreted the situation.

Pray tell which FARs you are reading that say what you seem to think
they say?

[snip]
>>
>> There is no language in the FARs or AIM that clearly supports either of
>> our opinions.
>>
>
>The FARs and AIM support what I've been saying and indicate that you're
>wrong.

The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
two-way radio communication".


>
>
>>
>> There is no text that says anything about what must happen after a
>> "remain clear" has been issued for class C.
>>
>
>What text says what must happen after any ATC instruction is issued?
>
>
>>
>> There is no such thing as an instruction to permit entry into class C.
>>
>
>Why? Because all ATC instructions are listed in the AIM and there is no
>such instruction mentioned?

No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
communication. See my excerpt above.
>
>
>>
>> The FARs say that two-way radio communication is sufficient. The AIM >
>says that two-way radio communication is sufficient. Where does it say
>> otherwise?
>>
>
>In FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
>
>b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an
>ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
>
>
>By the way, you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you wrote; "I agree that
>ATC can establish communication but instruct the pilot to remain clear."
>Now you're saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft that has established
>radio communications to remain outside Class C airspace.

No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.

[snip]
>
>If the controller didn't intend for the pilot to remain clear he wouldn't
>have told him "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". Why
>would the controller need to repeat that instruction?

Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
permitting entry into the airspace.

[snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
unsupportable position by Steve]

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In any case, it should be clear enough to you from the direction the
>> thread's taken that the issue isn't quite as clear, cut, and dried as you
>> think it is.
>>
>
>Actually, the issue is cut and dried. From the direction this thread's
>taken it's clear that some pilots have a poor understanding of regulations
>and procedures with regard to Class C airspace.

Take a good look in the mirror, Steve.
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps you failed to notice that the original "remain clear"
>> instruction was given by a different controller, while the airplane was
>> still on the ground?
>>
>
>Nothing in the original message indicates the original "remain clear"
>instruction was given by a different controller, and it wouldn't matter if
>it had.
>
You're absolutely right. The pilot in the original message had satisfied the
conditions required for entry into Class C airspace. No violation of ATC
instruction occurred.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:vo8Yb.330189$xy6.1616439@attbi_s02...
>
> You still haven't answered the question of *when* you claim the
> remain-clear instruction expires (in the sense that it no longer need
> be explicitly rescinded in order for subsequent two-way
> communication to constitute permission to enter).
>

How could subsequent two-way communication constitute permission to enter?


>
> Is it when the pilot changes his mind? When the
> controller discards the strip? After ten minutes? At midnight,
> when the next day starts? Or when?
>

What difference does it make? Once the pilot decides to forego Class C
services it's a moot point.


>
> You acknowledge that the remain-clear doesn't carry forward
> forever. But if there's no way to say when it stops, then (as
> others have proposed) a plausible alternative interpretation is
> that it stops immediately, in the sense that *any* subsequent
> call-sign "handshake" with ATC establishes permission to enter
> (unless the remain-clear is then repeated).
>

Doesn't the request for anything expire the instant that something is no
longer requested? In this case, from the pilot's viewpoint, it expired when
he decided to leave the frequency and go around the Class C airspace. From
the controller's viewpoint, it expired when the aircraft didn't respond to
subsequent calls and he observed the aircraft change to a 1200 code.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gross_arrow" > wrote in message
om...
>
> how 'bout "resume own navigation"
>

That's used after completion of a radar vector or when radar contact is lost
while the aircraft is being radar vectored. It wouldn't be appropriate in
this case as the aircraft was never vectored.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> Sure that would work, along with something like, "N123AB, radar
> contact, say destination and type aircraft", which was probably close
> to what the original poster heard (my read of what he alluded to in his
> original post).
>

"Resume own navigation" isn't appropriate in this case because the aircraft
was never vectored. The query "N123AB, radar contact, say destination and
type aircraft" accomplishes nothing by itself. Once the pilot answers the
controller might respond with "proceed on course", that would do it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I happen to believe that the pilot was correct, did not need to ask for
> permission and was free to enter the class C.
>

You've made it very clear that is what you believe, what you haven't
explained is why you believe it.


>
> But, thanks to all this debate BS, I at least now know that it may
> not be clear cut. The next time I talk to the controllers at my
> home base, I'll ask them.
>

What makes you think they'd know anything about it?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> ...and once again with "November 1234, radar contact..." Where, in that
> "radar contact" communication, does the controller say "remain clear..."?
>

Nowhere. Where in that "radar contact" communication does the controller
say anything that overrides the instruction to "remain clear of Class
Charlie"?


>
> If N1234 was to remain clear, the controller needed to say so.
>

The controller DID say so, what do you think "November 1234 remain clear of
Class Charlie" means?


>
> If the "remain clear" instruction was to remain in place, what
> approved phraseology would the controller then use to remove
> the restriction?
>

Where do you people get this idea that ATC instructions last only until the
next exchange of communications, whatever that exchange may be?

For the third or fourth time now, the controller would have to issue an
instruction that permitted or required entry into Class C airspace.
Examples are, "proceed on course", "fly heading XXX, vector for sequencing",
enter right base for runway XX", etc.


>
> You keep insinuating that there must be some magic phrase, but
> you don't tell us what it is.
>

I never said or implied that there was any specific "magic phrase".


>
> And what would that instruction be, if "November 1234, radar contact..."
> were not sufficient (as clearly laid out in the AIM)? Pray enlighten us.
>

Where does the AIM say that "radar contact" allows an aircraft to enter
Class C airspace that had established radio communications and been
instructed to remain outside of it? Pray, enlighten me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> ...such as "November 1234, radar contact..."
>

An instruction is an authoritative direction to be obeyed. What part of
"November 1234, radar contact..." do you consider to be an instruction?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Baloney.
>
> The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
> through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.
>

Follow the thread, I wasn't referring to the original poster. Pilots DO
request clearance through Class C airspace.


>
> ...so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect
> phraseology is how you would handle this?
>

Let's see; I could say that I cannot issue a clearance through Class C
airspace, or I could provide a rather lengthy dissertation on Class C
procedures while ignoring other traffic, or I could just grant the request
for clearance. Which do you think is best?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially
> considering the guidance the AIM offers)?
>
> FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.
>
> (c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
> airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
> requirements:
>
> (1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
> communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
> of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
> traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
> maintain those communications while within that airspace.
>

Here's the plain text of an applicable FAR, what do you infer from it?


FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.


>
> I also note that it never speaks of "clearance", but "ATC authorization".
>

Correct.


>
> Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
> explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
> Class C airspace.
>

Also correct, if you had read the thread from the beginning you'd know there
was an explicit "remain clear" in this case.


>
> Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
> just waving your hands furiously?
>

I have provided applicable documentation.


>
> Pray tell which FARs you are reading that say what you seem to think
> they say?
>

FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.


>
> The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
> defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
> two-way radio communication".
>

If the FAR isn't clear enough, the AIM certainly is.


>
> No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
> a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
> communication. See my excerpt above.
>

Are you saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft to remain outside of
Class C airspace?


>
> No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
> enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
> the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.
>

In this case the communication did include "remain clear".


>
> Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
> permitting entry into the airspace.
>

Are you saying ATC instructions are valid only until the next communications
exchange? What do you base that on?


>
> [snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
> unsupportable position by Steve]
>

If you had read the entire thread you'd have seen I did provide supporting
documentation.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Ignore Steve, he's on a jihad... He is only looking for someone to
browbeat...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Take a good look in the mirror, Steve.
>

For what?


>
> You're absolutely right. The pilot in the original message had satisfied
> the conditions required for entry into Class C airspace. No violation
> of ATC instruction occurred.
>

The pilot in the original message was issued the instruction "after
departure remain clear of the class C airspace" by ATC. After departure he
proceeded to enter Class C airspace. Please explain how the pilot did not
violate that instruction and FAR 91.123(b).

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially
>> considering the guidance the AIM offers)?
>>
>> FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.
>>
>> (c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
>> airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
>> requirements:
>>
>> (1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
>> communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
>> of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
>> traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
>> maintain those communications while within that airspace.
>>
>
>Here's the plain text of an applicable FAR, what do you infer from it?
>
>
>FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
>
>(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
>to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand. Two-way radio communication
is established by the controller's use of the aircraft's N-number (for whatever
value of "N" obtains). That establishment authorized entry into the Class C
airspace per 91.130.c.1. If the controller includes the instruction "remain clear"
in the communication, then the pilot has been given a specific instruction
to follow. Absent that instruction, the two-way communication authorizes
entry into the Class C.

Under your interpretation, there would be no way to enter the airspace once
a "remain clear" instruction was given, since there is no specific phrasing
or instruction express or implied that would affirmatively authorize entry.
That is nonsensical.
>
[snip]

>> Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
>> explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
>> Class C airspace.
>>
>
>Also correct, if you had read the thread from the beginning you'd know there
>was an explicit "remain clear" in this case.

One communication said "remain clear". A subsequent communication did not.
That second communication offered no instructions preventing the pilot from
entering per 91.123.c.1. Thus, the entry was in accordance with the FARs.
>>
>> Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
>> just waving your hands furiously?
>>
>I have provided applicable documentation.

No. You have not. You have mentioned a FAR clause that doesn't speak to the
question. You have not offered anything that clearly supports your claim.

91.123 applies broadly. In the context of 91.130, it provides a way for a
controller to establish two-way radio communication without allowing an
airplane into the Class C airspace. However, "November 1234, where ya goin?"
contains no ATC instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication.

[snip]
>>
>> The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
>> defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
>> two-way radio communication".
>>
>If the FAR isn't clear enough, the AIM certainly is.

I believe the AIM clearly articulates that using the N-number is the secret
handshake that formally established two-way radio communication. 91.130 is
(quite reasonably) silent on that point.

>>
>> No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
>> a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
>> communication. See my excerpt above.
>>
>
>Are you saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft to remain outside of
>Class C airspace?

No. I never said that. I repeat: each communication with the N-number
constitutes two-way radio communication that authorized entry unless it
includes explicit instruction to the contrary. The alternative is to
require ATC to explicitly and formally authorized entry (they can't
"clear" you - it isn't a "clearance"). What is the approved phraseology
for doing that? I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware of any such.
>
>> No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
>> enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
>> the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.
>
>In this case the communication did include "remain clear".

Not the one that was the basis for heading in...
>
>>
>> Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
>> permitting entry into the airspace.
>>
>
>Are you saying ATC instructions are valid only until the next communications
>exchange? What do you base that on?

I'm saying that the "remain clear" instruction only lasts until the next
communication that does not also include a "remain clear". I'm not
generalizing to other instructions -- strictly the "remain clear" one.
>
>> [snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
>> unsupportable position by Steve]
>
>If you had read the entire thread you'd have seen I did provide supporting
>documentation.
>
I've read the thread. I have not see supporting documentation. I've seen
unsupported references to some mysterious ATC phraseology that no one has
articulated. I've seen the assertion of an interpretation that would make
it impossible to ever enter a Class C once told to "remain clear". I've
seen the assertion that the controller should accept a request for
clearance into a Class C with a clearance despite the fact that there is
no such clearance.

I stand by my summary.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> ...and once again with "November 1234, radar contact..." Where, in that
>> "radar contact" communication, does the controller say "remain clear..."?
>>
>
>Nowhere. Where in that "radar contact" communication does the controller
>say anything that overrides the instruction to "remain clear of Class
>Charlie"?
>
Where in that "radar contact" communication is an instruction to "remain clear"?
No instruction means authorization to enter.
>>
>> If N1234 was to remain clear, the controller needed to say so.
>>
>
>The controller DID say so, what do you think "November 1234 remain clear of
>Class Charlie" means?

The pilot in question did remain clear until authorized by a subsequent
communication that did not instruct him to remain clear.
>
>> If the "remain clear" instruction was to remain in place, what
>> approved phraseology would the controller then use to remove
>> the restriction?
>>
>Where do you people get this idea that ATC instructions last only until the
>next exchange of communications, whatever that exchange may be?

Because, in the case of entering Class C or Class D airspace, the "remain
clear" instruction is not very durable in the face of continuing two-way
radio communication. If ATC wants the airplane to stay out, they can either
refuse to communicate or issue the instruction to "remain clear". Failing
that, they authorize entry. Where do you get the idea that "remain clear"
persists so?

>For the third or fourth time now, the controller would have to issue an
>instruction that permitted or required entry into Class C airspace.
>Examples are, "proceed on course", "fly heading XXX, vector for sequencing",
>enter right base for runway XX", etc.
>
"November 1234, radar contact" also suffices.

>> You keep insinuating that there must be some magic phrase, but
>> you don't tell us what it is.
>>
>
>I never said or implied that there was any specific "magic phrase".

You keep insting that "remain clear" continues in force despite subsequent
two-way radio communication, yet you offer no documentary support for
that claim.

Consider the following scenario.

You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are
instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination,
and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the
desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they
reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not?
I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
attempts to transit.
>
>> And what would that instruction be, if "November 1234, radar contact..."
>> were not sufficient (as clearly laid out in the AIM)? Pray enlighten us.
>
>Where does the AIM say that "radar contact" allows an aircraft to enter
>Class C airspace that had established radio communications and been
>instructed to remain outside of it? Pray, enlighten me.

It's not the "radar contact" part, it's the "November 1234" part, in the
absence of specific instructions in the communication.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> ...such as "November 1234, radar contact..."
>>
>
>An instruction is an authoritative direction to be obeyed. What part of
>"November 1234, radar contact..." do you consider to be an instruction?
>
My bad. Your postulate was invalid. "November 1234, radar contact."
is not an instruction. It does, however, "establish two-way radio
communication" which authorizes entry into Class C airspace.
Entry into Class C airspace does not require affirmative instructions,
unlike Class B airspace which requires an affirmative clearance.
If ATC wants you to remain clear, they have to keep saying so if they
are going to communicate using your tail number.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Baloney.
>>
>> The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
>> through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.
>>
>Follow the thread, I wasn't referring to the original poster. Pilots DO
>request clearance through Class C airspace.

There is no such animal as a "clearance into Class C airspace".

If a pilot requests one, he is exhibiting ignorance of proper
radio procedure.
>
>> ...so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect
>> phraseology is how you would handle this?
>
>Let's see; I could say that I cannot issue a clearance through Class C
>airspace, or I could provide a rather lengthy dissertation on Class C
>procedures while ignoring other traffic, or I could just grant the request
>for clearance. Which do you think is best?
>
Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
responses.

If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
quick reminder that you don't do clearances.

In any case, "November 1234, come on down" would avoid giving
a clearance where one cannot, but would establish communications
authorizing entry. Yeah, it's probably not in the official
phrasebook, but it doesn't say things it shouldn't.

If you were to "clear" someone into Class C airspace, what
sort of clearance would you give? Please be explicit, and
explain how it would be a valid clearance.

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article t>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Take a good look in the mirror, Steve.
>>
>
>For what?

You cleverly omitted the context for that remark. You said:

>Actually, the issue is cut and dried. From the direction this thread's
>taken it's clear that some pilots have a poor understanding of regulations
>and procedures with regard to Class C airspace.

Since you didn't get it the first time, let me be blunt:

I place you at the head of the class you describe -- pilots with a
poor understanding of FAR 91.130. I'm not a pilot. I'm a pilot
wannabe without the time or spare money to do anything about it.
I can read the FARs, apparently better than you.
>>
>> You're absolutely right. The pilot in the original message had satisfied
>> the conditions required for entry into Class C airspace. No violation
>> of ATC instruction occurred.
>>
>
>The pilot in the original message was issued the instruction "after
>departure remain clear of the class C airspace" by ATC. After departure he
>proceeded to enter Class C airspace. Please explain how the pilot did not
>violate that instruction and FAR 91.123(b).

As I've said a number of times, FAR 91.130.c.1 authorizes entry upon
the establishment of two-way radio communication. In the case at hand,
the pilot did not enter Class C airspace until he had received
communication from ATC that included his tail number and that did NOT
include an instruction to "remain clear". Thus 91.130.c.1 was satisfied,
and 91.123(b) was not violated.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > I happen to believe that the pilot was correct, did not need to ask for
> > permission and was free to enter the class C.
> >
>
> You've made it very clear that is what you believe, what you haven't
> explained is why you believe it.

Oh, sure I have. Authorization to enter the class C is defined by two-way
radio communication lacking instructions to remain clear. The AIM provides
the simple phrase "Cessna 1234, standby" as an example defining two-way
radio communication. There is no FAR or AIM description that says that once
a "remain clear" has been issued that a more explicit instruction to enter
is required.

>
>
> >
> > But, thanks to all this debate BS, I at least now know that it may
> > not be clear cut. The next time I talk to the controllers at my
> > home base, I'll ask them.
> >
>
> What makes you think they'd know anything about it?
>
>

'Cause they control the class D around my home airport.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Travis Marlatte]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:39:46 -0000, (Michael
> Houghton) wrote:
>
> >Howdy!
> >
> >In article . net>,
> >Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >>
> >>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>> ...and once again with "November 1234, radar contact..." Where, in
that
> >>> "radar contact" communication, does the controller say "remain
clear..."?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Nowhere. Where in that "radar contact" communication does the
controller
> >>say anything that overrides the instruction to "remain clear of Class
> >>Charlie"?
> >>
> >Where in that "radar contact" communication is an instruction to "remain
clear"?
> >No instruction means authorization to enter.
>
> So your contention is that during a dialog that may span multiple
> transmissions involving multiple aircraft over several minutes, every
> time the controller says anything to the aircraft in question the
> controller also has to say "by the way, stay out of my C"?

In theory, yes. But it doesn't happen that way. It's just not that
complicated. They are not trying to block airplanes out of the airspace,
just make sure that they know where they are and where they are going.
Typically, there is no "remain clear" or if there is, it is only for 30
seconds to a minute while they focus on something else. If they are really,
really busy, they'll ignore you from the very first radio call.

-------------------------------
Travis

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Baloney.
> >
> > The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
> > through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.
> >
>
> Follow the thread, I wasn't referring to the original poster. Pilots DO
> request clearance through Class C airspace.

But they do not have to be given anything thing that sounds like a clearance
to have the authorization to enter it.

>
>
> >
> > ...so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect
> > phraseology is how you would handle this?
> >
>
> Let's see; I could say that I cannot issue a clearance through Class C
> airspace, or I could provide a rather lengthy dissertation on Class C
> procedures while ignoring other traffic, or I could just grant the request
> for clearance. Which do you think is best?
>
>


-------------------------------
Travis

[Travis Marlatte]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
> Howdy!
>
> In article . net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >
> >"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Baloney.
> >>
> >> The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
> >> through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.
> >>
> >Follow the thread, I wasn't referring to the original poster. Pilots DO
> >request clearance through Class C airspace.
>
> There is no such animal as a "clearance into Class C airspace".
>
> If a pilot requests one, he is exhibiting ignorance of proper
> radio procedure.
> >
> >> ...so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect
> >> phraseology is how you would handle this?
> >
> >Let's see; I could say that I cannot issue a clearance through Class C
> >airspace, or I could provide a rather lengthy dissertation on Class C
> >procedures while ignoring other traffic, or I could just grant the
request
> >for clearance. Which do you think is best?
> >
> Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
> responses.
>
> If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
> quick reminder that you don't do clearances.
>
> In any case, "November 1234, come on down" would avoid giving
> a clearance where one cannot, but would establish communications
> authorizing entry. Yeah, it's probably not in the official
> phrasebook, but it doesn't say things it shouldn't.
>
> If you were to "clear" someone into Class C airspace, what
> sort of clearance would you give? Please be explicit, and
> explain how it would be a valid clearance.

The best response I've heard is "Cessna 1234, proceed as requested" or
"Cessna 1234, tranisition approved." It goes beyond what they need to say
but is concise and clear. Even a "Cessna 1234, roger" would do (regardless
of whether a "remain clear" had been issued prior).

>
> yours,
> Michael
> --
> Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
> | White Wolf and the Phoenix
> Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
> | http://www.radix.net/~herveus/


-------------------------------
Travis

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand.
>

Why not?


>
> Two-way radio communication is established by the controller's
> use of the aircraft's N-number (for whatever value of "N" obtains).
> That establishment authorized entry into the Class C airspace per
> 91.130.c.1. If the controller includes the instruction "remain clear"
> in the communication, then the pilot has been given a specific instruction
> to follow. Absent that instruction, the two-way communication authorizes
> entry into the Class C.
>

That's correct, and since the controller in this case included an
instruction to "remain clear" the aircraft is not authorized to enter Class
C airspace.


>
> Under your interpretation, there would be no way to enter the
> airspace once a "remain clear" instruction was given, since there is no
> specific phrasing or instruction express or implied that would
> affirmatively authorize entry.
> That is nonsensical.
>

Let's see, you say specific phrasing is needed to override an instruction to
remain clear, no such specific phrase exists, so therefore aircraft cannot
be instructed to remain clear. Is that about right? So why, then, does the
AIM say that aircraft can be instructed to remain clear?


>
> One communication said "remain clear". A subsequent communication
> did not. That second communication offered no instructions preventing
> the pilot from entering per 91.123.c.1. Thus, the entry was in
> accordance with the FARs.
>

So you're saying that ATC instructions given in one transmission are
cancelled in subsequent instructions unless they are restated. Do you have
a reference for that?


>
> No. You have not. You have mentioned a FAR clause that doesn't
> speak to the question.
>

Right. The FAR about ATC instructions that doesn't speak to the question
before us, which is "when does a 'remain clear' instruction end?"


>
> You have not offered anything that clearly
> supports your claim.
>

I've offered portions of the FARs, the AIM, and FAA Order 7110.65. If those
documents don't pertain to this issue no document does.


>
> 91.123 applies broadly.
>

I thought you said it didn't apply at all?


>
> In the context of 91.130, it provides a way for a
> controller to establish two-way radio communication without allowing an
> airplane into the Class C airspace.
>

Make up your mind. Can ATC issue an instruction to remain clear of Class C
airspace or not?


>
> However, "November 1234, where ya goin?" contains no ATC
> instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication.
>

Correct. What's your point?


>
> I believe the AIM clearly articulates that using the N-number is the
> secret handshake that formally established two-way radio
> communication. 91.130 is (quite reasonably) silent on that point.
>

The AIM also clearly articulates that if workload or traffic conditions
prevent immediate provision of Class C services, the controller can instruct
the pilot to remain outside the Class C airspace.

>
> No. I never said that. I repeat: each communication with the N-number
> constitutes two-way radio communication that authorized entry unless it
> includes explicit instruction to the contrary.
>

That's ridiculous. What led you to that absurd conclusion?


>
> The alternative is to
> require ATC to explicitly and formally authorized entry (they can't
> "clear" you - it isn't a "clearance"). What is the approved phraseology
> for doing that? I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware of any such.
>

Well, as it happens, I am an expert. Review my previous statements on this
matter for the answer.


>
> Not the one that was the basis for heading in...
>

There was no communication that formed the basis for heading in. The pilot
screwed up.


>
> I'm saying that the "remain clear" instruction only lasts until the next
> communication that does not also include a "remain clear". I'm not
> generalizing to other instructions -- strictly the "remain clear" one.
>

That's ridiculous. What led you to that absurd conclusion?



>
> I've read the thread. I have not see supporting documentation.
>

Those statements are mutually exclusive. The documentation is there, if you
didn't see it you didn't read the entire thread.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where in that "radar contact" communication is an instruction to
> "remain clear"? No instruction means authorization to enter.
>

The instruction to remain clear was in the first communications exchange,
the one that established two-way radio communications. That instruction
remains in effect until overridden by an instruction that permits entry. It
did not need to be restated when the aircraft was told "radar contact".


>
> The pilot in question did remain clear until authorized by a subsequent
> communication that did not instruct him to remain clear.
>

There was no subsequent communication that overrode the instruction to
remain clear.



>
> Because, in the case of entering Class C or Class D airspace, the "remain
> clear" instruction is not very durable in the face of continuing two-way
> radio communication. If ATC wants the airplane to stay out, they can
> either refuse to communicate or issue the instruction to "remain clear".
> Failing that, they authorize entry.
>

But the controller did issue the instruction to remain clear and you claim
that entry is authorized regardless. Apparently the "remain clear"
instruction is not very durable only because Michael Houghton says so. Can
you cite ANYTHING that supports your position?


>
> Where do you get the idea that "remain clear" persists so?
>

You're being absurd. The guy was instructed to remain clear. An ATC
instruction is not affected by subsequent communications that are unrelated
to it. If they were ATC would have to reissue full IFR clearances every
time they issued a traffic advisory or altimeter setting.


>
> "November 1234, radar contact" also suffices.
>

Because the phrase "radar contact" means "proceed on course"?


>
> You keep insting that "remain clear" continues in force despite subsequent
> two-way radio communication, yet you offer no documentary support for
> that claim.
>

I offered the AIM, the FARs, FAA Order 7110.65, and simple logic. It's time
for you provide some documentary support for your position that the
instruction to remain clear is cancelled by subsequent unrelated
communications.


>
> Consider the following scenario.
>
> You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are
> instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination,
> and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the
> desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they
> reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not?
>

You can go in.


>
> I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
> attempts to transit.
>

Right. It's a different flight, unrelated to the first.


>
> It's not the "radar contact" part, it's the "November 1234" part, in the
> absence of specific instructions in the communication.
>

How so? "November 1234" doesn't override the instruction to remain clear
any more than "radar contact" does.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> My bad. Your postulate was invalid. "November 1234, radar contact."
> is not an instruction. It does, however, "establish two-way radio
> communication" which authorizes entry into Class C airspace.
>

Negative. Communications are established only once per flight, that was
done with the first communications exchange.


>
> Entry into Class C airspace does not require affirmative instructions,
> unlike Class B airspace which requires an affirmative clearance.
> If ATC wants you to remain clear, they have to keep saying so if they
> are going to communicate using your tail number.
>

No. ATC only has to issue any given instruction once. It remains in effect
until overridden by another instruction or the original request is dropped.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is no such animal as a "clearance into Class C airspace".
>

Correct.


>
> If a pilot requests one, he is exhibiting ignorance of proper
> radio procedure.
>

Correct.


>
> Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
> responses.
>

Like what?


> If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
> quick reminder that you don't do clearances.
>

That's the second choice I listed.


>
> In any case, "November 1234, come on down" would avoid giving
> a clearance where one cannot, but would establish communications
> authorizing entry. Yeah, it's probably not in the official
> phrasebook, but it doesn't say things it shouldn't.
>

"Come on down"? That may be in the official "Price is Right" phrasebook, it
doesn't mean anything in ATC.


>
> If you were to "clear" someone into Class C airspace, what
> sort of clearance would you give? Please be explicit, and
> explain how it would be a valid clearance.
>

Waco 9876Z calls approach: "Podunk approach, Waco 9876Z 15 west, request
clearance through Class C airspace". ATC responds; "Waco 9876Z, squawk
0340, cleared through Podunk Class C airspace, Podunk altimeter 29.96."

Yes, I know, there are no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C
airspace. Nobody knows that better than I do. But I'm not going to argue
with the pilot, if he insists on a "clearance" I give him a "clearance".

[Peter]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Consider the following scenario.
>>
>>You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are
>>instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination,
>>and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the
>>desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they
>>reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not?
>>
>
>
> You can go in.
>
>
>
>>I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
>>attempts to transit.
>>
>
>
> Right. It's a different flight, unrelated to the first.

What makes it a "different flight"? He didn't land in between, just flew
around for about an hour and came back. Would flying around for half an
hour and then returning be sufficient to make it a "different flight" and
thereby cancel the effects of the 'remain clear' instruction? How about 15
minutes? Doing a 360?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> You cleverly omitted the context for that remark. You said:
>
> > Actually, the issue is cut and dried. From the direction this thread's
> > taken it's clear that some pilots have a poor understanding of
> > regulations and procedures with regard to Class C airspace.
>
> Since you didn't get it the first time, let me be blunt:
>

There is nothing about this issue I don't get.


>
> I place you at the head of the class you describe -- pilots with a
> poor understanding of FAR 91.130. I'm not a pilot. I'm a pilot
> wannabe without the time or spare money to do anything about it.
>

Oh? What part of FAR 91.130 do you think I don't understand?

So not only are you not able to provide any documentation supporting your
position, you don't even have any experience with Class C airspace. I, on
the other hand, am not only a pilot that bases his aircraft near Class C
airspace, I'm a controller that's worked Class C airspace since the day it
was established in the US. So which of us do you think might be in a bit
better position with regard to knowledge of Class C airspace?

If you ever hope to learn anything towards becoming a pilot you'll have to
change your attitude.


>
> I can read the FARs, apparently better than you.
>

Well, you may read them, but you sure don't understand them.



>
> As I've said a number of times, FAR 91.130.c.1 authorizes entry upon
> the establishment of two-way radio communication. In the case at hand,
> the pilot did not enter Class C airspace until he had received
> communication from ATC that included his tail number and that did NOT
> include an instruction to "remain clear". Thus 91.130.c.1 was satisfied,
> and 91.123(b) was not violated.
>

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it it's just as wrong as
the first time you said it. Communications are established just once per
flight, with the first communications exchange, and the instruction to
remain clear is not cancelled by subsequent unrelated communications.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Oh, sure I have. Authorization to enter the class C is defined by two-way
> radio communication lacking instructions to remain clear. The AIM
> provides the simple phrase "Cessna 1234, standby" as an example
> defining two-way radio communication.
>

Right, but you haven't explained why the aircraft cannot be required to
remain clear of Class C airspace.


>
> There is no FAR or AIM description that says that once
> a "remain clear" has been issued that a more explicit instruction to enter
> is required.
>

There doesn't need to be. An instruction to remain clear is understood to
remain in effect until an instruction is issued that permits entry. That is
such a simple concept, how is it you cannot grasp it?


>
> 'Cause they control the class D around my home airport.
>

But we're talking about Class C airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> It's just not that complicated.
>

Incredible.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> But they do not have to be given anything thing that sounds like
> a clearance to have the authorization to enter it.
>

Correct, but they don't understand that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> The best response I've heard is "Cessna 1234, proceed as requested" or
> "Cessna 1234, tranisition approved." It goes beyond what they need to
> say but is concise and clear. Even a "Cessna 1234, roger" would do
> (regardless of whether a "remain clear" had been issued prior).
>

If the aircraft had previously been instructed to remain clear of Class C
airspace, "Cessna 1234, proceed as requested" or "Cessna 1234, transition
approved" would permit entry, but "Cessna 1234, roger" would not.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > Oh, sure I have. Authorization to enter the class C is defined by
two-way
> > radio communication lacking instructions to remain clear. The AIM
> > provides the simple phrase "Cessna 1234, standby" as an example
> > defining two-way radio communication.
> >
>
> Right, but you haven't explained why the aircraft cannot be required to
> remain clear of Class C airspace.
>
>
> >
> > There is no FAR or AIM description that says that once
> > a "remain clear" has been issued that a more explicit instruction to
enter
> > is required.
> >
>
> There doesn't need to be. An instruction to remain clear is understood to
> remain in effect until an instruction is issued that permits entry. That
is
> such a simple concept, how is it you cannot grasp it?
>
>
> >
> > 'Cause they control the class D around my home airport.
> >
>
> But we're talking about Class C airspace.
>
>

Same requirements.
------------------------------
Travis

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter" > wrote in message
news:yFAZb.365213$xy6.1918853@attbi_s02...
>
> What makes it a "different flight"?
>

The first "flight" ended from ATC's perspective when the pilot dropped his
request for Class C services.

[Teacherjh]

>>
The first "flight" ended from ATC's perspective when the pilot dropped his
request for Class C services.
<<

When did the pilot drop his request? The pilot said nothing cancelling his
request.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Peter" > wrote in message
>news:yFAZb.365213$xy6.1918853@attbi_s02...
>>
>> What makes it a "different flight"?
>>
>
>The first "flight" ended from ATC's perspective when the pilot dropped his
>request for Class C services.
>
How, pray tell, does one do that? What is the correct phraseology?

Please cite chapter and verse.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> Oh, sure I have. Authorization to enter the class C is defined by two-way
>> radio communication lacking instructions to remain clear. The AIM
>> provides the simple phrase "Cessna 1234, standby" as an example
>> defining two-way radio communication.
>>
>
>Right, but you haven't explained why the aircraft cannot be required to
>remain clear of Class C airspace.

Non sequitur. I don't believe that anyone has asserted that ATC cannot
instruct one to remain clear of Class C airspace. What you contend,
without justification, is that that instruction, once givenn, must
be explicitly and overtly overriden with some sort of instruction --
examples of which are not found in the AIM, nor in any other official
source. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.

>>
>> There is no FAR or AIM description that says that once
>> a "remain clear" has been issued that a more explicit instruction to enter
>> is required.
>>
>
>There doesn't need to be. An instruction to remain clear is understood to
>remain in effect until an instruction is issued that permits entry. That is
>such a simple concept, how is it you cannot grasp it?

91.130(c)1 defines how one is authorized to enter Class C airspace. You
then insist that once a communication using the tail number is made that
includes a "remain clear" instructionn, that instruction remains in force
in the face of subsequent communications such as "N1234, standby".

I posited a scenario that fits your conditions; you asserted that entry
would be permitted in my scenario -- a clear contradiction without an
explicit acknowledgement of such. You are allowed to change your story,
but you don't get to do so silently.
>
>
>>
>> 'Cause they control the class D around my home airport.
>>
>
>But we're talking about Class C airspace.

In the matter at hand, how do Class D and Class C airspace differ?

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
[snip]
>>
>> Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
>> responses.
>>
>
>Like what?
>
>
>> If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
>> quick reminder that you don't do clearances.
>>
>
>That's the second choice I listed.

No. You posited a lengthy lecture/dissertation that tied up a busy
comm channel. Naturally, you were trying to post a patently absurd
choice, to make your other option look good. Logical fallacy. Bad
rhetoric. No biscuit.
>
>
>>
>> In any case, "November 1234, come on down" would avoid giving
>> a clearance where one cannot, but would establish communications
>> authorizing entry. Yeah, it's probably not in the official
>> phrasebook, but it doesn't say things it shouldn't.
>>
>
>"Come on down"? That may be in the official "Price is Right" phrasebook, it
>doesn't mean anything in ATC.

....neither does "cleared into the Class C airspace", and it has the
benefit of not conveying formal meaning it shouldn't, unlike a
clearance.
>>
>> If you were to "clear" someone into Class C airspace, what
>> sort of clearance would you give? Please be explicit, and
>> explain how it would be a valid clearance.
>
>Waco 9876Z calls approach: "Podunk approach, Waco 9876Z 15 west, request
>clearance through Class C airspace". ATC responds; "Waco 9876Z, squawk
>0340, cleared through Podunk Class C airspace, Podunk altimeter 29.96."
>
>Yes, I know, there are no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C
>airspace. Nobody knows that better than I do. But I'm not going to argue
>with the pilot, if he insists on a "clearance" I give him a "clearance".
>
You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance. Podunk
approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z can't figure
out what to do, he can ask. He might even learn something. Just issuing
a bogus clearance only perpetuates that ignorance.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand.
>>
>Why not?

keep reading...
>>
>> Two-way radio communication is established by the controller's
>> use of the aircraft's N-number (for whatever value of "N" obtains).
>> That establishment authorized entry into the Class C airspace per
>> 91.130.c.1. If the controller includes the instruction "remain clear"
>> in the communication, then the pilot has been given a specific instruction
>> to follow. Absent that instruction, the two-way communication authorizes
>> entry into the Class C.
>
>That's correct, and since the controller in this case included an
>instruction to "remain clear" the aircraft is not authorized to enter Class
>C airspace.

Where, in "N1234, radar contact." is there a "remain clear" instruction?

Conversation:

N1234: Podunk, I want to go through your Class C.

Podunk: N1234, remain clear.

(N1234 toodles along remaining clear)

Podunk: N1234, what are you intentions?

(N1234 heads into Class C)


Now, I'm not specifying how much time elapses between the two transmissions
from Podunk. I'll posit that N1234 did not land during that time.

I think this is really close to the original poster's scenario.

>>
>> Under your interpretation, there would be no way to enter the
>> airspace once a "remain clear" instruction was given, since there is no
>> specific phrasing or instruction express or implied that would
>> affirmatively authorize entry.
>> That is nonsensical.
>>
>
>Let's see, you say specific phrasing is needed to override an instruction to
>remain clear, no such specific phrase exists, so therefore aircraft cannot
>be instructed to remain clear. Is that about right? So why, then, does the

Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
told to remain clear, under your interpretation. If specific phrasing were
needed, one would expect to find it addressed in the controllers handbook.
Pray give the relevant citation that provides this guidance to controllers.
After all, they are expected to be conversant with this kind of stuff.

>AIM say that aircraft can be instructed to remain clear?
>
>> One communication said "remain clear". A subsequent communication
>> did not. That second communication offered no instructions preventing
>> the pilot from entering per 91.123.c.1. Thus, the entry was in
>> accordance with the FARs.
>
>So you're saying that ATC instructions given in one transmission are
>cancelled in subsequent instructions unless they are restated. Do you have
>a reference for that?

I say that the instruction to "remain clear" in reference to Class C (and
probably Class D as well) airspace is voided by subsequent transmissions.
I don't have a specific reference for that, but you have no provided a
reference that specifically supports your contention.
>>
>> No. You have not. You have mentioned a FAR clause that doesn't
>> speak to the question.
>
>Right. The FAR about ATC instructions that doesn't speak to the question
>before us, which is "when does a 'remain clear' instruction end?"
>
Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.
>>
>> You have not offered anything that clearly
>> supports your claim.
>
>I've offered portions of the FARs, the AIM, and FAA Order 7110.65. If those
>documents don't pertain to this issue no document does.
>
You have not offered citations that support your specific claim. You refer
vaguely to documents, but you don't cite chapter and verse that support you.
In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.
>>
>> 91.123 applies broadly.
>
>I thought you said it didn't apply at all?

I said that it was not relevant to the specific question. Please read my
words with greater care and attention.

[snip have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife non-question]
>>
>> However, "November 1234, where ya goin?" contains no ATC
>> instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication.
>
>Correct. What's your point?
>
Which part of "establish two-way radio communication" escaped your notice?
>
>>
>> I believe the AIM clearly articulates that using the N-number is the
>> secret handshake that formally established two-way radio
>> communication. 91.130 is (quite reasonably) silent on that point.
>>
>
>The AIM also clearly articulates that if workload or traffic conditions
>prevent immediate provision of Class C services, the controller can instruct
>the pilot to remain outside the Class C airspace.

Yep. I've never said otherwise, despite your persistent attempt to insinuate
the contrary.

....and ATC can also elect to simply not respond to a radio call..

If ATC does respond with the tail number, they establish two-way radio
communications. If they want the aircraft to remain clear, they have to
say so each time they talk.
>>
>> No. I never said that. I repeat: each communication with the N-number
>> constitutes two-way radio communication that authorized entry unless it
>> includes explicit instruction to the contrary.
>
>That's ridiculous. What led you to that absurd conclusion?

It's not absurd. If it doesn't work the way I claim, then how does one get
authorization to enter once a remain clear instruction has been given? FAR
91.130(c)1 simply requires the establishment of two-way radio communications.

There is no hint of the mechanism by which one would be released from a
"remain clear" instruction if it survived subsequent two-way radio communications.

>>
>> The alternative is to
>> require ATC to explicitly and formally authorized entry (they can't
>> "clear" you - it isn't a "clearance"). What is the approved phraseology
>> for doing that? I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware of any such.
>>
>
>Well, as it happens, I am an expert. Review my previous statements on this
>matter for the answer.

Pray back you expertise with specific citations (not broad references to
whole documents). I've bothered to cite what appears to be the relevant
clause of the relevant FAR section...

[snip further asertion of violation followed by "I know you are but what am I"]
>>
>> I've read the thread. I have not see supporting documentation.
>>
>
>Those statements are mutually exclusive. The documentation is there, if you
>didn't see it you didn't read the entire thread.
>
I saw hand-waving and unsupported assertions. I didn't see specific citations
of supporting documentation that spoke clearly to the matter at hand.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> My bad. Your postulate was invalid. "November 1234, radar contact."
>> is not an instruction. It does, however, "establish two-way radio
>> communication" which authorizes entry into Class C airspace.
>>
>
>Negative. Communications are established only once per flight, that was
>done with the first communications exchange.

How do you arrive at the interpretation? Please cite specific documents
that support your definition.
>
>> Entry into Class C airspace does not require affirmative instructions,
>> unlike Class B airspace which requires an affirmative clearance.
>> If ATC wants you to remain clear, they have to keep saying so if they
>> are going to communicate using your tail number.
>
>No. ATC only has to issue any given instruction once. It remains in effect
>until overridden by another instruction or the original request is dropped.
>
Oh? Consider this exchange:

N1234: Podunk center, N1234.

Podunk: N1234, go ahead.


Assuming that Podunk center controls a Class C airspace, that exchange
authorizes N1234 to enter. No request. Just communications. Suppose Podunk
had included a "remain clear of the Class C" instruction. How would N1234
"drop the original request"?


yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
[snip]

>
>So not only are you not able to provide any documentation supporting your
>position, you don't even have any experience with Class C airspace. I, on
>the other hand, am not only a pilot that bases his aircraft near Class C
>airspace, I'm a controller that's worked Class C airspace since the day it
>was established in the US. So which of us do you think might be in a bit
>better position with regard to knowledge of Class C airspace?

I've provided better citations of documents than you have.

If you are a controller, then I presume you have access to the documents
that prescribe the phraseology you are to use, and perhaps define the terms.
Pray cite them as they support your claim.

If you can't or won't, you imply that you have no case.

[snip]

>> As I've said a number of times, FAR 91.130.c.1 authorizes entry upon
>> the establishment of two-way radio communication. In the case at hand,
>> the pilot did not enter Class C airspace until he had received
>> communication from ATC that included his tail number and that did NOT
>> include an instruction to "remain clear". Thus 91.130.c.1 was satisfied,
>> and 91.123(b) was not violated.
>>
>
>Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it it's just as wrong as
>the first time you said it. Communications are established just once per
>flight, with the first communications exchange, and the instruction to
>remain clear is not cancelled by subsequent unrelated communications.

Pray cite your source for that claim.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Arden Prinz]

Hi Steven,

You've indicated that a "remain clear" stays in effect until ATC
issues a subsequent communication that permits or requires entry into
the class C airspace. This sounds reasonable. The real question is
knowing what communications permit or require entry into the class C
airspace and which ones do not so that when I'm in the air and hear a
communication I can know whether that communication suffices.

You wrote:
> For the third or fourth time now, the controller would have to issue an
> instruction that permitted or required entry into Class C airspace.
> Examples are, "proceed on course", "fly heading XXX, vector for sequencing",
> enter right base for runway XX", etc.

I'm not sure where you got this list.
Does "proceed on course" always permit entry, or does it depend upon
the relative positions of the airplane, class C airspace, and route of
flight? For example, if I'm headed away from the class C airspace
toward an intermediate waypoint and I hear the "proceed on course",
can I then go through the class C?

Thank-you!
Arden

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Arden Prinz > wrote:
>Hi Steven,
>
>You've indicated that a "remain clear" stays in effect until ATC
>issues a subsequent communication that permits or requires entry into
>the class C airspace. This sounds reasonable. The real question is
>knowing what communications permit or require entry into the class C
>airspace and which ones do not so that when I'm in the air and hear a
>communication I can know whether that communication suffices.

The ATC handbook (7110.65) includes:

7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS

Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio
communications before entering Class C airspace. If the controller
responds to a radio call with, "(a/c call sign) standby," radio
communications have been established and the pilot can enter Class C
airspace. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision
of Class C services, inform the pilot to remain outside Class C
airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.

Thus, the sequence:

N1234: Podunk tower, N1234...<rest of stuff in initial callup>
Podunk: N1234, remain outside Charlie airspace and standby.
N1234: Podunk tower, N1234.
Podunk: N1234, standby.

authorized entry. The second exchange did not instruct the pilot to
remain clear. Steve has insisted the contrary, and even claimed to
be a controller working Class C airspace, and claimed to reference
7110.65. I quote what I found on the FAA website. Steve has declined
to rebut with actual citations. His sudden silence on this matter
would seem to be a concession that perhaps he misspoke.
>
>You wrote:
>> For the third or fourth time now, the controller would have to issue an
>> instruction that permitted or required entry into Class C airspace.
>> Examples are, "proceed on course", "fly heading XXX, vector for sequencing",
>> enter right base for runway XX", etc.
>
>I'm not sure where you got this list.
>Does "proceed on course" always permit entry, or does it depend upon
>the relative positions of the airplane, class C airspace, and route of
>flight? For example, if I'm headed away from the class C airspace
>toward an intermediate waypoint and I hear the "proceed on course",
>can I then go through the class C?
>
7110.65, the order prescribing air traffic control procedures and
phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services,
offers no special phraseology for the (hypothetical) instruction Steve
insists must be given.

At least, I can find no such reference in 7110.65P, the version that
took effect February 19, 2004.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> When did the pilot drop his request?
>

From an ATC perspective, when he did not respond to the controller's
transmissions.


>
> The pilot said nothing cancelling his request.
>

No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller
conclude?

[Peter]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>When did the pilot drop his request?
>>
>
>
> From an ATC perspective, when he did not respond to the controller's
> transmissions.
>
>
>
>>The pilot said nothing cancelling his request.
>>
>
>
> No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller
> conclude?
>

You seem to be assuming things that were never part of the stated scenario
- specifically that there were additional controller transmissions to the
pilot and that the pilot did not respond to them. Here was Michael's post
initiating this discussion:

"Consider the following scenario.

You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are
instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination,
and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the
desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they
reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not?
I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
attempts to transit."

[Teacherjh]

>>
>
> The pilot said nothing cancelling his request.
>

No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller
conclude?
<<

That's the same reasoning that leads the pilot to think "when the controller
does not reiterate 'remain clear' when I establish communications again, what
else can the pilot conclude?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> How, pray tell, does one do that?
>

By deciding to go around Class C airspace instead of through and leaving the
approach frequency.


>
> What is the correct phraseology?
>

The correct phraseology for not responding to a call from ATC is:


>
> Please cite chapter and verse.
>

FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 1. Introduction

Section 1. General

1-1-1. PURPOSE

This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology
for use by persons providing air traffic control services. Controllers are
required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to
their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if
they encounter situations that are not covered by it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Non sequitur.
>

No, a non sequitur is a statement that does not follow logically from what
preceded it.


>
> I don't believe that anyone has asserted that ATC cannot
> instruct one to remain clear of Class C airspace.
>

You've stated that aircraft that are so instructed may enter Class C
airspace. What's the difference?


>
> What you contend,
> without justification, is that that instruction, once givenn, must
> be explicitly and overtly overriden with some sort of instruction --
> examples of which are not found in the AIM, nor in any other official
> source. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.
>

Actually, I have cited the AIM, the FARs, and FAAO 7110.65. What you
contend, without justification and contrary to simple logic, is that that
instruction, once given, does not require aircraft to remain outside of
Class C airspace. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.


>
> 91.130(c)1 defines how one is authorized to enter Class C airspace. You
> then insist that once a communication using the tail number is made that
> includes a "remain clear" instructionn, that instruction remains in force
> in the face of subsequent communications such as "N1234, standby".
>

That is correct.


>
> I posited a scenario that fits your conditions; you asserted that entry
> would be permitted in my scenario -- a clear contradiction without an
> explicit acknowledgement of such. You are allowed to change your story,
> but you don't get to do so silently.
>

Is this what you're referring to?

"Consider the following scenario."

"You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are
instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination,
and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the
desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they
reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not?
I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
attempts to transit."

In this scenario two-way radio communications are established and the
aircraft is NOT instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace. No
contradiction here.


>
> In the matter at hand, how do Class D and Class C airspace differ?
>

That's not the point. Travis is seeking "expert advice" about Class C
airspace from controllers at a field with Class D airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> No. You posited a lengthy lecture/dissertation that tied up a busy
> comm channel.
>

Right. It was actually the first choice I listed. My mistake.


>
> ...neither does "cleared into the Class C airspace", and it has the
> benefit of not conveying formal meaning it shouldn't, unlike a
> clearance.
>

Sure it does. To a pilot who mistakenly believes he needs a clearance to
enter US Class C airspace it means he can enter the Class C airspace. "Come
on down" means nothing.


>
> You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance.
>

No, Michael, I didn't explain how this is a valid clearance. That was
because it isn't a valid clearance. What part of; "Yes, I know, there are
no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C airspace. Nobody knows that
better than I do. But I'm not going to argue with the pilot, if he insists
on a 'clearance' I give him a 'clearance.', did you not understand?


>
> Podunk
> approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z
> can't figure out what to do, he can ask.
>

And that's what he'll do, ask questions on an already congested frequency.
The reason for simply "clearing" him into Class C airspace was to avoid
adding to the congestion on the frequency.


>
> He might even learn
> something. Just issuing a bogus clearance only perpetuates that
> ignorance.
>

Well, you're certainly the expert on perpetuating ignorance.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where, in "N1234, radar contact." is there a "remain clear" instruction?
>

We've been over this already. The instruction to remain clear was in the
first exchange.


>
> Conversation:
>
> N1234: Podunk, I want to go through your Class C.
>
> Podunk: N1234, remain clear.
>
> (N1234 toodles along remaining clear)
>
> Podunk: N1234, what are you intentions?
>
> (N1234 heads into Class C)
>
>
> Now, I'm not specifying how much time elapses between the two
> transmissions from Podunk. I'll posit that N1234 did not land
> during that time.
>
> I think this is really close to the original poster's scenario.
>

Were you trying to make a point?


>
> Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
> told to remain clear, under your interpretation.
>

Why not?


>
> If specific phrasing were needed, one would expect to find it
> addressed in the controllers handbook.
>

Why would one expect that? Are all possible phrases which can be used in
ATC addressed in the controller's handbook?


>
> I say that the instruction to "remain clear" in reference to Class C (and
> probably Class D as well) airspace is voided by subsequent
> transmissions.
> I don't have a specific reference for that, but you have no provided a
> reference that specifically supports your contention.
>

Your contention is illogical, I have provided specific references from the
FARs, the AIM, and FAAO 7110.65.


>
> Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.
>

Are you playing some kind of game here or are you really that stupid?


>
> You have not offered citations that support your specific claim. You
> refer vaguely to documents, but you don't cite chapter and verse that
> support you.
>

There is no chapter and verse that says an aircraft instructed to remain
clear of Class C airspace must remain clear until it receives an instruction
that permits it to enter Class C airspace. That is understood simply
because it can be no other way.


>
> In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.
>

Ya think? What materials, specifically, rebut me. Cite chapter and verse.


>
> I said that it was not relevant to the specific question. Please read my
> words with greater care and attention.
>

Please explain why it is not relevant to the specific question.


>
> Which part of "establish two-way radio communication" escaped
> your notice?
>

None of it. What's your point with regard to the matter under discussion?


>
> Yep. I've never said otherwise, despite your persistent attempt
> to insinuate the contrary.
>

Well, if you didn't, someone else is using your system.

At 15:54:28 PST on 2004-02-20 the following message was posted by Michael
Houghton ):




Howdy!

In article t>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Take a good look in the mirror, Steve.
>>
>
>For what?

You cleverly omitted the context for that remark. You said:

>Actually, the issue is cut and dried. From the direction this thread's
>taken it's clear that some pilots have a poor understanding of regulations
>and procedures with regard to Class C airspace.

Since you didn't get it the first time, let me be blunt:

I place you at the head of the class you describe -- pilots with a
poor understanding of FAR 91.130. I'm not a pilot. I'm a pilot
wannabe without the time or spare money to do anything about it.
I can read the FARs, apparently better than you.
>>
>> You're absolutely right. The pilot in the original message had satisfied
>> the conditions required for entry into Class C airspace. No violation
>> of ATC instruction occurred.
>>
>
>The pilot in the original message was issued the instruction "after
>departure remain clear of the class C airspace" by ATC. After departure he
>proceeded to enter Class C airspace. Please explain how the pilot did not
>violate that instruction and FAR 91.123(b).

As I've said a number of times, FAR 91.130.c.1 authorizes entry upon
the establishment of two-way radio communication. In the case at hand,
the pilot did not enter Class C airspace until he had received
communication from ATC that included his tail number and that did NOT
include an instruction to "remain clear". Thus 91.130.c.1 was satisfied,
and 91.123(b) was not violated.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/



>
> ...and ATC can also elect to simply not respond to a radio call..
>
> If ATC does respond with the tail number, they establish two-way radio
> communications. If they want the aircraft to remain clear, they have to
> say so each time they talk.
>

Where did you get the idea that ATC instructions are cancelled if not
restated in subsequent unrelated communications? Please cite chapter and
verse.


>
> It's not absurd.
>

It is absurd and you haven't answered the question.


>
> If it doesn't work the way I claim, then how does one get
> authorization to enter once a remain clear instruction has been given?
>

Via radio, in the form of an instruction that permits entry. I've stated
that several times in this thread.


>
> FAR 91.130(c)1 simply requires the establishment of two-way
> radio communications.
>

And FAR 91.123(b) says no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC
instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised, except in
an emergency. So if you establish two-way radio communications but are
instructed to remain outside Class C airspace you must remain outside Class
C airspace until told otherwise. That is a very simple concept, yet it
seems beyond your ability to understand. What is your education level? How
old are you?


>
> There is no hint of the mechanism by which one would be released from a
> "remain clear" instruction if it survived subsequent two-way radio
> communications.
>

The mechanism is an instruction to the contrary. What else could it be?


>
> Pray back you expertise with specific citations (not broad references to
> whole documents). I've bothered to cite what appears to be the relevant
> clause of the relevant FAR section...
>

You've provided nothing that supports your illogical assertion that an
instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace is cancelled by subsequent
unrelated communications.


>
> I saw hand-waving and unsupported assertions. I didn't see
> specific citations of supporting documentation that spoke clearly
> to the matter at hand.
>

Why do you believe the illogical position unsupported by specific citations
holds sway over the logical position unsupported by specific citations?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you arrive at the interpretation?
>

Because that's what "established" means, of course.


>
> Please cite specific documents that support your definition.
>

I cite the dictionary.


es·tab·lish
tr.v. es·tab·lished, es·tab·lish·ing, es·tab·lish·es

1.
a. To set up; found.
b. To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.

2.
a. To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They
established me in my own business.
b. To make firm or secure.

3. To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established
his reputation.

4. To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.

5. To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established
the innocence of the accused.

6. To make a state institution of (a church).

Synonyms: found, create, institute, organize. These verbs mean to bring
something into existence and set it in operation: founded a colony; created
a trust fund; establishing a business; instituted an annual benefit concert;
organizing a field trip.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

established

Establish \Es*tab"lish\, v. t. [OE. establissen, OF. establir, F. ['e]tablir, fr. L.
stabilire, fr. stabilis firm, steady, stable. See Stable, a., -ish, and cf.
Stablish.] 1. To make stable or firm; to fix immovably or firmly; to set (a
thing) in a place and make it stable there; to settle; to confirm.

So were the churches established in the faith. --Acts xvi. 5.

The best established tempers can scarcely forbear being borne down. --Burke.

Confidence which must precede union could be established only by consummate
prudence and self-control. --Bancroft.

2. To appoint or constitute for permanence, as officers, laws, regulations,
etc.; to enact; to ordain.

By the consent of all, we were established The people's magistrates. --Shak.

Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not
changed. --Dan. vi. 8.

3. To originate and secure the permanent existence of; to found; to
institute; to create and regulate; -- said of a colony, a state, or other
institutions.

He hath established it [the earth], he created it not in vain, he formed it
to be inhabited. --Is. xlv. 18.

Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and establisheth a city by
iniquity! --Hab. ii. 12.

4. To secure public recognition in favor of; to prove and cause to be
accepted as true; as, to establish a fact, usage, principle, opinion,
doctrine, etc.

At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the
matter be established. --Deut. xix. 15.

5. To set up in business; to place advantageously in a fixed condition; --
used reflexively; as, he established himself in a place; the enemy
established themselves in the citadel.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

established

adj 1: brought about or set up or accepted; especially long established;
"the established social order"; "distrust of established authority"; "a team
established as a member of a major league"; "enjoyed his prestige as an
established writer"; "an established precedent"; "the established Church"
[ant: unestablished] 2: securely established; "an established reputation";
"holds a firm position as the country's leading poet" [syn: firm] 3: settled
securely and unconditionally; "that smoking causes health problems is an
accomplished fact" [syn: accomplished, effected] 4: conforming with accepted
standards; "a conventional view of the world" [syn: conventional] 5: shown
to be valid beyond a reasonable doubt; "the established facts in the case"
6: introduced from another region and persisting without cultivation [syn:
naturalized]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[i]
>
> Oh? Consider this exchange:
>
> N1234: Podunk center, N1234.
>
> Podunk: N1234, go ahead.
>
>
> Assuming that Podunk center controls a Class C airspace, that exchange
> authorizes N1234 to enter. No request. Just communications.
>

No Center controls Class C airspace in the US.


>
> Suppose Podunk had included a "remain clear of the Class C"
> instruction. How would N1234 "drop the original request"?
>

By saying something like, "never mind, Podunk, we'll just go around", or
just leaving the frequency and going around.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've provided better citations of documents than you have.
>

You haven't cited any document that supports your position.


>
> If you are a controller, then I presume you have access to the documents
> that prescribe the phraseology you are to use, and perhaps define the
> terms.
> Pray cite them as they support your claim.
>
> If you can't or won't, you imply that you have no case.
>

You're right. There is no prescribed phraseology to authorize entry to
Class C airspace once an aircraft has been instructed to remain clear.
Therefore once an aircraft has been instructed to remain outside it can
never enter that Class C airspace.

(You've demonstrated you do not understand logic, one wonders if you
understand sarcasm.)


>
> Pray cite your source for that claim.
>

The definition of "established" and simple logic.

[Peter]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
> ...

>>Suppose Podunk had included a "remain clear of the Class C"
>>instruction. How would N1234 "drop the original request"?
>>
> By saying something like, "never mind, Podunk, we'll just go around", or
> just leaving the frequency and going around.

Sounds just like what Arden (the original poster) did; after his initial
contact with ATC and being told to stay clear he stopped transmitting (left
the frequency), took off, and flew a course that avoided entering the Class
C. "So after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the
class C area that extended to the surface."

So by your words, we can assume the original request had then been dropped.
Later he said that "Well, the controller then called me by my tail number
and asked some questions ..." So a new communication was established which
therefore implicitly allows entrance to the Class C according to
the regulations that you and others have cited.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Arden Prinz" > wrote in message
om...
>
> You've indicated that a "remain clear" stays in effect until ATC
> issues a subsequent communication that permits or requires entry into
> the class C airspace. This sounds reasonable. The real question is
> knowing what communications permit or require entry into the class C
> airspace and which ones do not so that when I'm in the air and hear a
> communication I can know whether that communication suffices.
>

Any instruction where compliance permits or requires entry to the Class C
airspace.


>
> I'm not sure where you got this list.
>

I wrote it.


>
> Does "proceed on course" always permit entry, or does it depend upon
> the relative positions of the airplane, class C airspace, and route of
> flight?
>

If the controller knows your desired course and your desired course transits
Class C airspace and he tells you to "proceed on course" then "proceed on
course" permits entry. If the controller doesn't know your desired course
and he tells you to "proceed on course" then "proceed on course" permits
entry.


>
> For example, if I'm headed away from the class C airspace
> toward an intermediate waypoint and I hear the "proceed on course",
> can I then go through the class C?
>

If a controller isn't aware of your course but still tells you to "proceed
on course" it means he has determined you can safely enter Class C airspace
on any course. But why would you go out of your way to enter Class C
airspace?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>
> The ATC handbook (7110.65) includes:
>
> 7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS
>
> Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio
> communications before entering Class C airspace. If the controller
> responds to a radio call with, "(a/c call sign) standby," radio
> communications have been established and the pilot can enter Class C
> airspace. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision
> of Class C services, inform the pilot to remain outside Class C
> airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.
>
> Thus, the sequence:
>
> N1234: Podunk tower, N1234...<rest of stuff in initial callup>
> Podunk: N1234, remain outside Charlie airspace and standby.
> N1234: Podunk tower, N1234.
> Podunk: N1234, standby.
>
> authorized entry.
>

What led you to believe the phrase "Stand by" means "authorization to enter
Class C airspace is now granted"?


>
> The second exchange did not instruct the pilot to
> remain clear.
>

The second exchange included no instruction at all, the instruction to
remain outside Class C airspace was not altered in any way.


>
> Steve has insisted the contrary,
>

Sure, that's just simple logic.


>
> and even claimed to
> be a controller working Class C airspace, and claimed to reference
> 7110.65. I quote what I found on the FAA website. Steve has declined
> to rebut with actual citations. His sudden silence on this matter
> would seem to be a concession that perhaps he misspoke.
>

Nope, Steve didn't misspeak. Steve is exactly correct.


>
> 7110.65, the order prescribing air traffic control procedures and
> phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services,
> offers no special phraseology for the (hypothetical) instruction Steve
> insists must be given.
>

There are many things that FAAO 7110.65 does not say. For example, it does
not say that "stand by" or "radar contact" authorizes entry for an aircraft
that had previously been instructed to remain outside Class C airspace. Nor
does it say that not repeating the instruction to remain outside in every
subsequent exchange authorizes entry. Why do you suppose that is?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter" > wrote in message
news:Ras%b.127906$jk2.539687@attbi_s53...
>
> You seem to be assuming things that were never part of the stated
> scenario - specifically that there were additional controller
> transmissions to the pilot and that the pilot did not respond to them.
>

I just assume a real-world scenario, what else can I do?


>
> Here was Michael's post initiating this discussion:
>
> "Consider the following scenario.
>
> You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are
> instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination,
> and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the
> desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they
> reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not?
> I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
> attempts to transit."
>

Right. The aircraft was instructed to remain clear. That's done when
workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of Class C
services. If the controller didn't anticipate being able to provide those
services in a short time he wouldn't have established communications.

So a short time later the controller will call the aircraft again. If the
airplane responds, he will get the desired services.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's the same reasoning that leads the pilot to think "when the
> controller does not reiterate 'remain clear' when I establish
> communications again, what else can the pilot conclude?
>

When you establish communications again? Communications are established
just once for any arrival or through flight, thereafter those communications
are maintained.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter" > wrote in message
news:iHz0c.152146$jk2.593189@attbi_s53...
>
> Sounds just like what Arden (the original poster) did; after his initial
> contact with ATC and being told to stay clear he stopped
> transmitting (left the frequency), took off, and flew a course that
> avoided entering the Class C. "So after I took of, I started flying a
> route taking me around the class C area that extended to the surface."
>

No, Arden maintained communications with ATC after they were established.
He was on the frequency when the controller called him after departure.


>
> So by your words, we can assume the original request had then
> been dropped.
>

Not by my words. I suggest you review Arden's original message.


>
> Later he said that "Well, the controller then called me by my tail number
> and asked some questions ..." So a new communication was established
> which therefore implicitly allows entrance to the Class C according to
> the regulations that you and others have cited.
>

How is that a new communication?

[Peter]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> news:iHz0c.152146$jk2.593189@attbi_s53...
>
>>Sounds just like what Arden (the original poster) did; after his initial
>>contact with ATC and being told to stay clear he stopped
>>transmitting (left the frequency), took off, and flew a course that
>>avoided entering the Class C. "So after I took of, I started flying a
>>route taking me around the class C area that extended to the surface."
>>
> No, Arden maintained communications with ATC after they were established.
> He was on the frequency when the controller called him after departure.

No, he was receiving only, not actively on the frequency. No communication
on his part took place while he took off and started flying his route as
described. Presumably the controller was communicating with other pilots
during this period.
>
>>So by your words, we can assume the original request had then
>>been dropped.
>>
> Not by my words. I suggest you review Arden's original message.

I obviously did and quoted it as well. His description met all the
requirements you gave in the previous post.
>
>>Later he said that "Well, the controller then called me by my tail number
>>and asked some questions ..." So a new communication was established
>>which therefore implicitly allows entrance to the Class C according to
>>the regulations that you and others have cited.
>
> How is that a new communication?
>
In exactly the same way that if I walk into a room and talk to you, then
walk around talking to various other people - or sit in a corner while you
talk to others, and then eventually come back to talk to you we would be
'establishing a new communication.'

The communication between Arden and the controller was not an ongoing one -
they said a few words then stopped talking to each other and did their
separate tasks for an extended period. When they again started talking to
each other it's a new communication.

[Peter]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The ATC handbook (7110.65) includes:
>>
>>7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS
>>
>>Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio
>>communications before entering Class C airspace. If the controller
>>responds to a radio call with, "(a/c call sign) standby," radio
>>communications have been established and the pilot can enter Class C
>>airspace. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision
>>of Class C services, inform the pilot to remain outside Class C
>>airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.
>>
>>Thus, the sequence:
>>
>>N1234: Podunk tower, N1234...<rest of stuff in initial callup>
>>Podunk: N1234, remain outside Charlie airspace and standby.
>>N1234: Podunk tower, N1234.
>>Podunk: N1234, standby.
>>
>>authorized entry.
>>
>
>
> What led you to believe the phrase "Stand by" means "authorization to enter
> Class C airspace is now granted"?
>

Not the "Stand by," but the "N1234, standby." And what might lead someone
to believe that is the direct quote from 7110.65, Sect. 7-8-4 above:
"If the controller responds to a radio call with, '(a/c call sign)
standby,' radio communications have been established and the pilot can
enter Class C airspace."

It also specifies that if the controller feels conditions at that time are
such that the aircraft should not enter Class C space he is to explicitly
state:
"PHRASEOLOGY-
(A/c call sign) REMAIN OUTSIDE CHARLIE AIRSPACE AND STANDBY."

So based on my reading of the 7110.65 handbook it seems clear that if the
controller responds to a radio call with the a/c call sign but without the
explicit statement to "remain outside charlie airspace" then he has allowed
the pilot to proceed through the Class C airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter" > wrote in message
news:9BB0c.88760$Xp.414365@attbi_s54...
>
> No, he was receiving only, not actively on the frequency.
> No communication on his part took place while he took off
> and started flying his route as described. Presumably the
> controller was communicating with other pilots during this
> period.
>

Maintaining communications does not mean continuously broadcasting. Arden
established two-way radio communications, maintained a listening watch on
the frequency, and responded when the controller called him. That's
maintaining communications.


>
> I obviously did and quoted it as well. His description met all the
> requirements you gave in the previous post.
>

No, Arden did not leave the frequency. He was there when the controller
called him and he responded.


>
> In exactly the same way that if I walk into a room and talk to you, then
> walk around talking to various other people - or sit in a corner while you
> talk to others, and then eventually come back to talk to you we would be >
'establishing a new communication.'
>

That's not maintaining communications. What you describe is akin to leaving
the frequency for a while and returning to it later. Arden established
communications and remained on the frequency without broadcasting for a
time. Like you might if you were engaged in a conversation with a group of
people but only listened for a while. You're not speaking, but you're still
a party to the conversation.

[Teacherjh]

>>
When you establish communications again? Communications are established
just once for any arrival or through flight, thereafter those communications
are maintained.
<<

Well, if some time passes between one transmission and another, then
communications will need to be re-established. How much time? Well, we can
yak all day about that. Certanly if the first transmission is on the ground
before runup, and the next transmission is in the air, it would be reasonable
to conclude that we are no longer talking about "the same conversation", and
(as per the original scenario) he can enter the class C upon the new
establishment of communications.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter" > wrote in message
news:bQC0c.155274$uV3.704538@attbi_s51...
>
> Not the "Stand by," but the "N1234, standby."
>

Did you miss that the controller had already instructed N1234 to remain
outside Charlie airspace?


>
> And what might lead someone
> to believe that is the direct quote from 7110.65, Sect. 7-8-4 above:
> "If the controller responds to a radio call with, '(a/c call sign)
> standby,' radio communications have been established and the pilot can
> enter Class C airspace."
>

Yes, but communications had already been established in this case. Once
you've been instructed to remain outside of Class C airspace you must
receive specific instruction that authorizes entry.


>
> It also specifies that if the controller feels conditions at that time are
> such that the aircraft should not enter Class C space he is to explicitly
> state:
> "PHRASEOLOGY-
> (A/c call sign) REMAIN OUTSIDE CHARLIE AIRSPACE AND
> STANDBY."
>

Yes, and in this case the aircraft was instructed to remain outside when
communications was established.


>
> So based on my reading of the 7110.65 handbook it seems clear that if
> the controller responds to a radio call with the a/c call sign but without
> the explicit statement to "remain outside charlie airspace" then he has
> allowed the pilot to proceed through the Class C airspace.
>

Then you did not understand what you read.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, if some time passes between one transmission and another, then
> communications will need to be re-established.
>

Why?


>
> How much time? Well, we can yak all day about that. Certanly
> if the first transmission is on the ground before runup, and the next
> transmission is in the air, it would be reasonable to conclude that
> we are no longer talking about "the same conversation", and (as
> per the original scenario) he can enter the class C upon the new
> establishment of communications.
>

But that's not per the original scenario.

Let's say communications have been established and you're transiting Class C
airspace. The controller has spoken with several other aircraft, but hasn't
spoken with you since communications were established. At what point are
you no longer maintaining communications and thus in violation of FAR
91.130(c)(1)?

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> news:bQC0c.155274$uV3.704538@attbi_s51...
> >
> > Not the "Stand by," but the "N1234, standby."
> >
>
> Did you miss that the controller had already instructed N1234 to remain
> outside Charlie airspace?
>
>
> >
> > And what might lead someone
> > to believe that is the direct quote from 7110.65, Sect. 7-8-4 above:
> > "If the controller responds to a radio call with, '(a/c call sign)
> > standby,' radio communications have been established and the pilot can
> > enter Class C airspace."
> >
>
> Yes, but communications had already been established in this case. Once
> you've been instructed to remain outside of Class C airspace you must
> receive specific instruction that authorizes entry.


Not exactly specific instructions. Since there is no such thing as a
clearance into class C airspace, we'll use the documented method which is to
"establish two-way radio communication." Something like "N1234, state your
intentions" from the controller will do.

>
>
> >
> > It also specifies that if the controller feels conditions at that time
are
> > such that the aircraft should not enter Class C space he is to
explicitly
> > state:
> > "PHRASEOLOGY-
> > (A/c call sign) REMAIN OUTSIDE CHARLIE AIRSPACE AND
> > STANDBY."
> >
>
> Yes, and in this case the aircraft was instructed to remain outside when
> communications was established.

And then, when the controller has time to deal it, he calls up and says
"(A/c call sign) squawk 0541" or "(A/c call sign) where were you going?" or
any other question or piece of information with the aircraft's tail number
in it. Having heard this and responded, the pilot has authority to enter the
class C.

>
>
> >
> > So based on my reading of the 7110.65 handbook it seems clear that if
> > the controller responds to a radio call with the a/c call sign but
without
> > the explicit statement to "remain outside charlie airspace" then he has
> > allowed the pilot to proceed through the Class C airspace.
> >
>
> Then you did not understand what you read.
>
>

Steven, I have a lot of respect for your opinion but I am having trouble
with your insistance that this is a cut and dried issue. You, me, and others
are quoting the same pieces of the regs and drawing opposite conclusions. It
is a simple question but the answer is just not clear from the regs.

Your responses that indicate that we are unable to interpret the regs
correctly or that we are not able to understand simple logic does not help
make your case. This has been a healthy debate between people who care
deeply about doing the right thing. Belittling our intelligence has no place
here.

None of the text quoted clearly supports your case - nor mine. Your claims
that simple logic dictates that an explicit clearance is required after a
"remain clear" has been issued are not sufficient.

I believe that you are an experienced controller. I believe that you will do
your job to the best of your ability. I hope that you will have patience
with me, if I ever approach your airspace and ask for clarification before
entering.
-------------------------------
Travis

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

Thanksfully, Steve left in enough context to make sense of his
nonsense reply.

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The ATC handbook (7110.65) includes:
>>
>> 7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS
>>
>> Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio
>> communications before entering Class C airspace. If the controller
>> responds to a radio call with, "(a/c call sign) standby," radio
>> communications have been established and the pilot can enter Class C
>> airspace. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision
>> of Class C services, inform the pilot to remain outside Class C
>> airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.
>>
>> Thus, the sequence:
>>
>> N1234: Podunk tower, N1234...<rest of stuff in initial callup>
>> Podunk: N1234, remain outside Charlie airspace and standby.
>> N1234: Podunk tower, N1234.
>> Podunk: N1234, standby.
>>
>> authorized entry.
>>
>
>What led you to believe the phrase "Stand by" means "authorization to enter
>Class C airspace is now granted"?
>
Plain English comprehension.

7110.65P 7-8-4 says "If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(a/c
call sign) standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot
can enter Class C airspace." In my hypothetical sequence, N1234 made a radio
call and the controller responded using the specific exemplar provided in
the order. The phrase "...and the pilot can enter Class C airspace" is the
key. I'm astonished that you have a problem understanding this, given your
claim to be a controller.
>
>>
>> The second exchange did not instruct the pilot to
>> remain clear.
>>
>
>The second exchange included no instruction at all, the instruction to
>remain outside Class C airspace was not altered in any way.

No, it merely served to establish communications in a manner consistent
with FAAO 7110.65P and FAR 91.130(c)1 and the AIM.
>
>
>>
>> Steve has insisted the contrary,
>>
>
>Sure, that's just simple logic.
>
>
>>
>> and even claimed to
>> be a controller working Class C airspace, and claimed to reference
>> 7110.65. I quote what I found on the FAA website. Steve has declined
>> to rebut with actual citations. His sudden silence on this matter
>> would seem to be a concession that perhaps he misspoke.
>>
>
>Nope, Steve didn't misspeak. Steve is exactly correct.
>
Steve still doesn't offer citations supporting his specific contention
that a "remain clear" instruction, once given, lasts until it is
explicitly countermanded, despite a complete absence of phraseology to
accomplish this in FAAO 7110.65.
>
>>
>> 7110.65, the order prescribing air traffic control procedures and
>> phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services,
>> offers no special phraseology for the (hypothetical) instruction Steve
>> insists must be given.
>>
>
>There are many things that FAAO 7110.65 does not say. For example, it does
>not say that "stand by" or "radar contact" authorizes entry for an aircraft
>that had previously been instructed to remain outside Class C airspace. Nor
>does it say that not repeating the instruction to remain outside in every
>subsequent exchange authorizes entry. Why do you suppose that is?
>
Because what it actually says doesn't mean what you keep insisting it means.
>

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
[snip]

>> ...neither does "cleared into the Class C airspace", and it has the
>> benefit of not conveying formal meaning it shouldn't, unlike a
>> clearance.
>
>Sure it does. To a pilot who mistakenly believes he needs a clearance to
>enter US Class C airspace it means he can enter the Class C airspace. "Come
>on down" means nothing.

"N1234, Come on down." satisfies the requirements for establishing two-way
radio communication that authorize entry into Class C airspace. So does
"N1234, cleared into the Class C airspace", but it [come on down] has the
advantage that it is not issuing a "clearance" where one is neither required
nor appropriate.

Since the controller is supposed to be the expert on how to do things, it is
incumbent on the controller to avoid giving out bogus clearances. Pilots are
more likely to be unclear on what they are to do, but that does not excuse
a controller doing so.

>>
>> You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance.
>>
>No, Michael, I didn't explain how this is a valid clearance. That was
>because it isn't a valid clearance. What part of; "Yes, I know, there are
>no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C airspace. Nobody knows that
>better than I do. But I'm not going to argue with the pilot, if he insists
>on a 'clearance' I give him a 'clearance.', did you not understand?

OK. I think you are quite clear. You place a higher priority on granting an
invalid request with an invalid clearance rather than operate within the
(in this case) clear direction in FAAO 7110.65. You display a disturbing
attitude toward doing a professional job as a controller.
>
>
>>
>> Podunk
>> approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z
>> can't figure out what to do, he can ask.
>>
>
>And that's what he'll do, ask questions on an already congested frequency.
>The reason for simply "clearing" him into Class C airspace was to avoid
>adding to the congestion on the frequency.
>
Tell him to stay clear, if it's that bad. You have no obligation to even
reply to the call, let alone give a bogus reply to a bogus request.

[snip semantic null]

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article .net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>>
>
>No, a non sequitur is a statement that does not follow logically from what
>preceded it.

Yep. And in the material you elided, you committed non sequitur, literally,
"that does not follow".
>
>>
>> I don't believe that anyone has asserted that ATC cannot
>> instruct one to remain clear of Class C airspace.
>
>You've stated that aircraft that are so instructed may enter Class C
>airspace. What's the difference?

Quite a bit, I'm afraid. In fact, you attribute to me statements I have
not made.

At no time have I claimed that a controller response that includes an
instruction to "remain clear" authorizes entry to Class C airspace.
I have repeatedly, as supported by citations from the FARs and FAAO
7110.65P, asserted that a subsequent response that does not include such
an instruction does clearly authorize such entry.
>
>> What you contend,
>> without justification, is that that instruction, once givenn, must
>> be explicitly and overtly overriden with some sort of instruction --
>> examples of which are not found in the AIM, nor in any other official
>> source. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.
>>
>
>Actually, I have cited the AIM, the FARs, and FAAO 7110.65. What you
>contend, without justification and contrary to simple logic, is that that
>instruction, once given, does not require aircraft to remain outside of
>Class C airspace. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.

You have mentioned those documents, but have not _cited_ sections (and
relevant text) that says what you claim is the case.

If it were true that, once a "remain clear" instruction was given, explicit
instructions were required to authorize entry in to Class C airspace, one
might expect FAAO 7110.65 to include suggested or required phraseology.
Certainly such is offered in many other places.

Since you assert this to be the way things work, please tell me where,
in the relevant documents, I can see for myself the wording that says
this. I don't think you can do this.

>
>>
>> 91.130(c)1 defines how one is authorized to enter Class C airspace. You
>> then insist that once a communication using the tail number is made that
>> includes a "remain clear" instructionn, that instruction remains in force
>> in the face of subsequent communications such as "N1234, standby".
>
>That is correct.

....that you claim such...not that your assertion is valid.
>
>> I posited a scenario that fits your conditions; you asserted that entry
>> would be permitted in my scenario -- a clear contradiction without an
>> explicit acknowledgement of such. You are allowed to change your story,
>> but you don't get to do so silently.
>
>Is this what you're referring to?
>
>"Consider the following scenario."
>
>"You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are
>instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination,
>and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the
>desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they
>reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not?
>I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
>attempts to transit."
>
>In this scenario two-way radio communications are established and the
>aircraft is NOT instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace. No
>contradiction here.
>
....but the pilot was instructed to remain clear in the first communication
and not instructed otherwise in the second. You contradict yourself.

When I place the two exchanges on consecutive lines, you assert that
entry has not been authorized, yet in the scenario above, which involves
exactly (and only) the same exchanges, you say entry has been authorized.

How, as a pilot trying to be diligent and responsible, am I to discern
the difference between the two? What regulation tells me both answers?
>
yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I've provided better citations of documents than you have.
>>
>
>You haven't cited any document that supports your position.

You refuse to accept a plain reading of the citations I've provided, and
you have failed to cite any prescriptive documents that support your
position.
>
>>
>> If you are a controller, then I presume you have access to the documents
>> that prescribe the phraseology you are to use, and perhaps define the
>> terms.
>> Pray cite them as they support your claim.
>>
>> If you can't or won't, you imply that you have no case.
>>
>
>You're right. There is no prescribed phraseology to authorize entry to
>Class C airspace once an aircraft has been instructed to remain clear.
>Therefore once an aircraft has been instructed to remain outside it can
>never enter that Class C airspace.
>
>(You've demonstrated you do not understand logic, one wonders if you
>understand sarcasm.)

You do a good job of summarizing your apparent position.
>
>> Pray cite your source for that claim.
>>
>The definition of "established" and simple logic.
>
I didn't see a citation of definitions explaining just how the word is
meant to be construed in the context of its usage in FAR 91.130(c)1. I
did see a lengthy extract from a general dictionary of the English
language. That, however, is not prescriptive, but descriptive. The
dictionary citation lists a number of senses of meaning for the word.
Which one are they using in the FARs and 7110.65?

Quoting the dictionary meaning of a word typically amounts to willful
obfuscation, especially when the quote includes all the various senses.
It does not shed light on the question at hand. It stirs up the mud.

Unfortunately for your claims, 7110.65 is pretty clear. I've cited the
relevant paragraph; you seem to have rejected it. Sad.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Well, if some time passes between one transmission and another, then
> communications will need to be re-established.
>

Why?
<<

Because if "enough" time passes, the controller will die and be replaced by a
machine.

hmmph

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Where, in "N1234, radar contact." is there a "remain clear" instruction?
>
>We've been over this already. The instruction to remain clear was in the
>first exchange.

OK. And the second exchange fully satisfied the terms as laid out in
7110.65. The controller responded to a radio call using the caller's
aircraft number. That plainly, according to the direction given controllers,
permitted entry into the Class C airspace.

Why does the general "follow all instructions" FAR clause supercede a more
specific clause as pertains to entering Class C airspace?
>
>>
>> Conversation:
>>
>> N1234: Podunk, I want to go through your Class C.
>>
>> Podunk: N1234, remain clear.
>>
>> (N1234 toodles along remaining clear)
>>
>> Podunk: N1234, what are you intentions?
>>
>> (N1234 heads into Class C)
>>
>>
>> Now, I'm not specifying how much time elapses between the two
>> transmissions from Podunk. I'll posit that N1234 did not land
>> during that time.
>>
>> I think this is really close to the original poster's scenario.
>>
>Were you trying to make a point?

Yes. One which you seem incapable of grasping, given the manifold
ways it has been presented to you.
>
>
>>
>> Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
>> told to remain clear, under your interpretation.
>>
>
>Why not?
>
>
>>
>> If specific phrasing were needed, one would expect to find it
>> addressed in the controllers handbook.
>>
>
>Why would one expect that? Are all possible phrases which can be used in
>ATC addressed in the controller's handbook?

One finds phraseology sections throughout the controller's handbook. They
offer specimen phrasing. Not having read it completely, it may, at times,
prescribe specific phraseology for certain tasks.

In the case of explictly *permitting* entry into class C, there is no
phraseology offered that contains an instruction to enter. There is an
example of how to instruct an aircraft to remain clear. You assert that
certain conditions require affirmative instruction to enter. Where, in
the controller's handbook, is that claim supported?
>
>
>>
>> I say that the instruction to "remain clear" in reference to Class C (and
>> probably Class D as well) airspace is voided by subsequent
>> transmissions.
>> I don't have a specific reference for that, but you have no provided a
>> reference that specifically supports your contention.
>>
>
>Your contention is illogical, I have provided specific references from the
>FARs, the AIM, and FAAO 7110.65.

No, you have not provided citations. I can amend my assertion based on
actually looking at the controller's handbook. The "remain clear" instruction
has no force after a subsequent call from the aircraft and response from the
controller that includes the calling aircraft's tail number. That's a plain
reading of 7-8-4 (if I remember the reference correctly). That paragraph
does clearly state that the controller must specifically instruct the caller
to remain clear, if they use the tail number in their response.

>>
>> Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.
>>
>Are you playing some kind of game here or are you really that stupid?

You might ask yourself that same question. I'm simply calling you on your
fallacious claims.
>
>
>>
>> You have not offered citations that support your specific claim. You
>> refer vaguely to documents, but you don't cite chapter and verse that
>> support you.
>>
>
>There is no chapter and verse that says an aircraft instructed to remain
>clear of Class C airspace must remain clear until it receives an instruction
>that permits it to enter Class C airspace. That is understood simply
>because it can be no other way.

You keep saying that. Repetition does not make it so. Reread the
controller's handbook carefully, paying close attention to how one
handles Class C airspace.
>
>> In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.
>>
>Ya think? What materials, specifically, rebut me. Cite chapter and verse.
>
---begin citation http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html#7-8-4
FAA Order 7110.65P
Chapter 7. Visual
Section 8. Class C Service- Terminal
7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS

(1) Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio
communications before entering Class C airspace.
(2) If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(a/c call sign)
standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot can
enter Class C airspace.
(3) If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision
of Class C services, inform the pilot to remain outside Class C
airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(A/c call sign) REMAIN OUTSIDE CHARLIE AIRSPACE AND STANDBY.

---end citation http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html#7-8-4

I've taken the liberty of numbering the sentences for clear reference.
Let's consider what it says.

Sentence (1) recites the requirement given in FAR 91.130(c)1 of the
precondition for entry.

Sentence (2) gives a condition ("if the controll responds...with...")
and a consequence of satisfying that condition (communication established
(definition) and entry authorized (action permitted)).

Sentence (3) provides a way for the controller to tell the pilot to
keep out.

Finally, the PHRASEOLOGY annotation "denotes the prescribed words and/or
phrases to be used in communications." (7110.65P 1-2-5.g)


I've made the mistake of assuming that you were a reasoning and
reasonable person, but you persist in asserting conditions that are
clearly not supported by the document that "... prescribes air traffic
control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing air
traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with
the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational
responsibilities..." (7110.65P Foreward [over signatore of David B.
Johnson, Director of Air Traffic])

If I've missed the section that says otherwise, please cite it specifically.
I don't claim to be omniscient.

[snip semantic null non-response]

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Bill Denton]

Sounds like you guys might be running out of things to argue about, so let
me give you something new.

Steven asked: "Let's say communications have been established and you're
transiting Class C airspace. The controller has spoken with several other
aircraft, but hasn't spoken with you since communications were established.
At what point are you no longer maintaining communications and thus in
violation of FAR 91.130(c)(1)?"

Remember that the controller's initial response to the pilot's first call
is: "PODUNK1234, Standby." The key is "standby". In radio-eze this statement
means: "I am aware of your presence, stay on this frequency and monitor for
any communications from me (controller)." Note that this does not preclude
communications initiated by the pilot.

So, communications are "maintained" until they are specifically ended. Under
normal circumstances, this will involve the controller advising the pilot
that he is leaving the controller's airspace and that a frequency change is
approved. At this point communications are explicitly ended.

Don't remember where I read this, probably one of the flying magazines, so I
won't be supplying any cites.

Have fun!


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, if some time passes between one transmission and another, then
> > communications will need to be re-established.
> >
>
> Why?
>
>
> >
> > How much time? Well, we can yak all day about that. Certanly
> > if the first transmission is on the ground before runup, and the next
> > transmission is in the air, it would be reasonable to conclude that
> > we are no longer talking about "the same conversation", and (as
> > per the original scenario) he can enter the class C upon the new
> > establishment of communications.
> >
>
> But that's not per the original scenario.
>
> Let's say communications have been established and you're transiting Class
C
> airspace. The controller has spoken with several other aircraft, but
hasn't
> spoken with you since communications were established. At what point are
> you no longer maintaining communications and thus in violation of FAR
> 91.130(c)(1)?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because if "enough" time passes, the controller will die and be
> replaced by a machine.
>

Class C airspace is 20 miles in diameter at most. How much time is required
for a typical piston single to transit that distance?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sounds like you guys might be running out of things to argue about, so let
> me give you something new.
>

There is nothing new. I'ne covered everything.


>
> Steven asked: "Let's say communications have been established and you're
> transiting Class C airspace. The controller has spoken with several other
> aircraft, but hasn't spoken with you since communications were
established.
> At what point are you no longer maintaining communications and thus in
> violation of FAR 91.130(c)(1)?"
>
> Remember that the controller's initial response to the pilot's first call
> is: "PODUNK1234, Standby."
>

That's not correct. The controller's initial response to the pilot's first
call is: "N1234, remain outside Charlie airspace and standby."

[Bill Denton]

I was referring to an example instance wherein the pilot is not told to
remain outside of the airspace.

The misphrasing is the result of trying to keyboard and talk on the phone at
the same time. It should be "N1234, Standby".

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Sounds like you guys might be running out of things to argue about, so
let
> > me give you something new.
> >
>
> There is nothing new. I'ne covered everything.
>
>
> >
> > Steven asked: "Let's say communications have been established and you're
> > transiting Class C airspace. The controller has spoken with several
other
> > aircraft, but hasn't spoken with you since communications were
> established.
> > At what point are you no longer maintaining communications and thus in
> > violation of FAR 91.130(c)(1)?"
> >
> > Remember that the controller's initial response to the pilot's first
call
> > is: "PODUNK1234, Standby."
> >
>
> That's not correct. The controller's initial response to the pilot's
first
> call is: "N1234, remain outside Charlie airspace and standby."
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was referring to an example instance wherein the pilot is not told to
> remain outside of the airspace.
>

We are not discussing the situation where communications are established and
the pilot is not told to remain outside Class C airspace.

[Bill Denton]

Perhaps you should reread the following portion of your previous post, which
was quoted in my initial post:

Let's say communications have been established and you're transiting Class C
airspace. The controller has spoken with several other aircraft, but hasn't
spoken with you since communications were established. At what point are
you no longer maintaining communications and thus in violation of FAR
91.130(c)(1)?"

So we are, in fact, discussing: "the situation where communications are
established and the pilot is not told to remain outside Class C airspace."


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I was referring to an example instance wherein the pilot is not told to
> > remain outside of the airspace.
> >
>
> We are not discussing the situation where communications are established
and
> the pilot is not told to remain outside Class C airspace.
>
>

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Bill Denton > wrote:
>Sounds like you guys might be running out of things to argue about, so let
>me give you something new.
>
>Steven asked: "Let's say communications have been established and you're
>transiting Class C airspace. The controller has spoken with several other
>aircraft, but hasn't spoken with you since communications were established.
>At what point are you no longer maintaining communications and thus in
>violation of FAR 91.130(c)(1)?"

Never. You need the authorization to *enter* the airspace. Once you have
entered, you are being provided services by the controller until you
depart the controlled airspace.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Teacherjh]

>>
Class C airspace is 20 miles in diameter at most. How much time is required
for a typical piston single to transit that distance?
<<

Four and a half hours. After that, he may run out of fuel. The pilot might be
able to hold out for six or seven, depending on tanks and power settings.

The pilot is not required to transit in a straight line. The controller is not
required to intercede if the pilot is circling inside the ring. The pilot is
not required to inform the controller (unless asked) of his routing. The
controller is not required to ask.

Pilot takes off, calls the controller and is told to remain clear. Pilot
circles the outer ring for four hours and fifteen minutes. Pilot calls again
and the controller responds with:

N1234 stand by.

Can he enter?

What if he landed and took off again sometime in those last four hours.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)