![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Mountain flying instruction: McCall, Idaho, Colorado too! | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | March 26th 04 11:24 PM |
Windshields - tint or clear? | Roger Long | Piloting | 7 | February 10th 04 02:41 AM |
Is a BFR instruction? | Roger Long | Piloting | 11 | December 11th 03 09:58 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |