"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Where in that "radar contact" communication is an instruction to
"remain clear"? No instruction means authorization to enter.


The instruction to remain clear was in the first communications exchange,
the one that established two-way radio communications. That instruction
remains in effect until overridden by an instruction that permits entry. It
did not need to be restated when the aircraft was told "radar contact".



The pilot in question did remain clear until authorized by a subsequent
communication that did not instruct him to remain clear.


There was no subsequent communication that overrode the instruction to
remain clear.




Because, in the case of entering Class C or Class D airspace, the "remain
clear" instruction is not very durable in the face of continuing two-way
radio communication. If ATC wants the airplane to stay out, they can
either refuse to communicate or issue the instruction to "remain clear".
Failing that, they authorize entry.


But the controller did issue the instruction to remain clear and you claim
that entry is authorized regardless. Apparently the "remain clear"
instruction is not very durable only because Michael Houghton says so. Can
you cite ANYTHING that supports your position?



Where do you get the idea that "remain clear" persists so?


You're being absurd. The guy was instructed to remain clear. An ATC
instruction is not affected by subsequent communications that are unrelated
to it. If they were ATC would have to reissue full IFR clearances every
time they issued a traffic advisory or altimeter setting.



"November 1234, radar contact" also suffices.


Because the phrase "radar contact" means "proceed on course"?



You keep insting that "remain clear" continues in force despite subsequent
two-way radio communication, yet you offer no documentary support for
that claim.


I offered the AIM, the FARs, FAA Order 7110.65, and simple logic. It's time
for you provide some documentary support for your position that the
instruction to remain clear is cancelled by subsequent unrelated
communications.



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?


You can go in.



I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
attempts to transit.


Right. It's a different flight, unrelated to the first.



It's not the "radar contact" part, it's the "November 1234" part, in the
absence of specific instructions in the communication.


How so? "November 1234" doesn't override the instruction to remain clear
any more than "radar contact" does.