"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