FAR 91.130 and the Definite Article

"G Farris" wrote in message
...

I've done that too - I would certainly not enter a Class C under the
pretext that I was talking to Center. However I've never had the
unpleasant surprise of not getting handed off in time. If I did, I would
tell Center something like "remaining clear of class charlie until
established with approach" or something like that, while drawing circles
in the sky.


Why tell Center anything? Just leave his frequency and call approach.

In article .net,
says...



"G Farris" wrote in message
...

I've done that too - I would certainly not enter a Class C under the
pretext that I was talking to Center. However I've never had the
unpleasant surprise of not getting handed off in time. If I did, I would
tell Center something like "remaining clear of class charlie until
established with approach" or something like that, while drawing circles
in the sky.


Why tell Center anything? Just leave his frequency and call approach.


Because of this:
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html#4-1-14
Once you're with them they don't expect you to "just leave".

"G Farris" wrote in message
...

Because of this:
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html#4-1-14
Once you're with them they don't expect you to "just leave".


They've forgotten about you. If they knew you were still with them they'd
have either terminated radar services or transferred communications before
you were so far inside approach control airspace.

In article .com,
says...


The instructor has us do a
180 so as not to intrude on the Class C improperly.


BTW - Hope you did another 180 to get back, after establishing contact
- or did you just go back where you came from? :-)

GF

wrote:



That pretty much established the rules to me; I believe you could be
busted.

No way.

I guess the question is whether a controller's failure to comply with
..65 in any way effects a VFR pilot's reponsbility to comply with
91.130.

In article .com,
"Mike Granby" wrote:

I guess the question is whether a controller's failure to comply with
.65 in any way effects a VFR pilot's reponsbility to comply with
91.130.

The pilot is complying with 91.130 if he's talking to Center. I don't
see where the FARs nor the AIM specifies that "ATC" is defined as the
Class C ATC facility.

The Centers "own" all of the airspace and delegate via LOA or other
arrangement to the facilities that make up Class B, C, D, etc. The real
question is how the LOAs are structured, and pilots cannot be expected
to know the details of the LOAs. Thus, the controllers are required to
do the hand-off or terminate. I hardly see how a pilot is in a position
to question whether ATC has the authority to give him the clearance or
instruction that ATC issues.



JKG

I don't see where the FARs nor the AIM specifies
that "ATC" is defined as the Class C ATC facility.

The depends on whether you think the use of the definite article is
relevant or simply an accident of drafting.

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...

The pilot is complying with 91.130 if he's talking to Center.


Negative. FAR 91.130 requires the pilot to establish communications with
approach control.



I don't see where the FARs nor the AIM specifies that "ATC" is defined as
the
Class C ATC facility.


You'll find it in FAR 91.130(c)(1).

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

I guess the question is whether a controller's failure to comply with
.65 in any way effects a VFR pilot's reponsbility to comply with
91.130.


What controller's failure to comply with .65?