"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

You cleverly omitted the context for that remark. You said:

Actually, the issue is cut and dried. From the direction this thread's
taken it's clear that some pilots have a poor understanding of
regulations and procedures with regard to Class C airspace.

Since you didn't get it the first time, let me be blunt:


There is nothing about this issue I don't get.



I place you at the head of the class you describe -- pilots with a
poor understanding of FAR 91.130. I'm not a pilot. I'm a pilot
wannabe without the time or spare money to do anything about it.


Oh? What part of FAR 91.130 do you think I don't understand?

So not only are you not able to provide any documentation supporting your
position, you don't even have any experience with Class C airspace. I, on
the other hand, am not only a pilot that bases his aircraft near Class C
airspace, I'm a controller that's worked Class C airspace since the day it
was established in the US. So which of us do you think might be in a bit
better position with regard to knowledge of Class C airspace?

If you ever hope to learn anything towards becoming a pilot you'll have to
change your attitude.



I can read the FARs, apparently better than you.


Well, you may read them, but you sure don't understand them.




As I've said a number of times, FAR 91.130.c.1 authorizes entry upon
the establishment of two-way radio communication. In the case at hand,
the pilot did not enter Class C airspace until he had received
communication from ATC that included his tail number and that did NOT
include an instruction to "remain clear". Thus 91.130.c.1 was satisfied,
and 91.123(b) was not violated.


Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it it's just as wrong as
the first time you said it. Communications are established just once per
flight, with the first communications exchange, and the instruction to
remain clear is not cancelled by subsequent unrelated communications.