when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

"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.

"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.

"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

"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?

"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

In article . net,
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.

"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

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)

(Arden Prinz) wrote in message . com...
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.

"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