when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

Howdy!

In article k.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/

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/

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)

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/

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
news

"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)?

"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?

"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."

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."

"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.

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.