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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Howdy!
In article et, 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/ |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"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". |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |