"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.
|