Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially
considering the guidance the AIM offers)?

FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
maintain those communications while within that airspace.


Here's the plain text of an applicable FAR, what do you infer from it?


FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand. 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.

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.

[snip]

Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
Class C airspace.


Also correct, if you had read the thread from the beginning you'd know there
was an explicit "remain clear" in this case.

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.

Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
just waving your hands furiously?

I have provided applicable documentation.

No. You have not. You have mentioned a FAR clause that doesn't speak to the
question. You have not offered anything that clearly supports your claim.

91.123 applies broadly. 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. However, "November 1234, where ya goin?"
contains no ATC instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication.

[snip]

The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
two-way radio communication".

If the FAR isn't clear enough, the AIM certainly is.

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.


No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
communication. See my excerpt above.


Are you saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft to remain outside of
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. 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.

No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.

In this case the communication did include "remain clear".

Not the one that was the basis for heading in...


Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
permitting entry into the airspace.


Are you saying ATC instructions are valid only until the next communications
exchange? What do you base that on?

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.

[snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
unsupportable position by Steve]

If you had read the entire thread you'd have seen I did provide supporting
documentation.

I've read the thread. I have not see supporting documentation. I've seen
unsupported references to some mysterious ATC phraseology that no one has
articulated. I've seen the assertion of an interpretation that would make
it impossible to ever enter a Class C once told to "remain clear". I've
seen the assertion that the controller should accept a request for
clearance into a Class C with a clearance despite the fact that there is
no such clearance.

I stand by my summary.

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/