Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand.

Why not?

keep reading...

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.

Where, in "N1234, radar contact." is there a "remain clear" instruction?

Conversation:

N1234: Podunk, I want to go through your Class C.

Podunk: N1234, remain clear.

(N1234 toodles along remaining clear)

Podunk: N1234, what are you intentions?

(N1234 heads into Class C)


Now, I'm not specifying how much time elapses between the two transmissions
from Podunk. I'll posit that N1234 did not land during that time.

I think this is really close to the original poster's scenario.


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

Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
told to remain clear, under your interpretation. If specific phrasing were
needed, one would expect to find it addressed in the controllers handbook.
Pray give the relevant citation that provides this guidance to controllers.
After all, they are expected to be conversant with this kind of stuff.

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?

I say that the instruction to "remain clear" in reference to Class C (and
probably Class D as well) airspace is voided by subsequent transmissions.
I don't have a specific reference for that, but you have no provided a
reference that specifically supports your contention.

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?"

Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.

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.

You have not offered citations that support your specific claim. You refer
vaguely to documents, but you don't cite chapter and verse that support you.
In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.

91.123 applies broadly.

I thought you said it didn't apply at all?

I said that it was not relevant to the specific question. Please read my
words with greater care and attention.

[snip have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife non-question]

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

Correct. What's your point?

Which part of "establish two-way radio communication" escaped your notice?


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.

Yep. I've never said otherwise, despite your persistent attempt to insinuate
the contrary.

....and ATC can also elect to simply not respond to a radio call..

If ATC does respond with the tail number, they establish two-way radio
communications. If they want the aircraft to remain clear, they have to
say so each time they talk.

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?

It's not absurd. If it doesn't work the way I claim, then how does one get
authorization to enter once a remain clear instruction has been given? FAR
91.130(c)1 simply requires the establishment of two-way radio communications.

There is no hint of the mechanism by which one would be released from a
"remain clear" instruction if it survived subsequent two-way radio communications.


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.

Pray back you expertise with specific citations (not broad references to
whole documents). I've bothered to cite what appears to be the relevant
clause of the relevant FAR section...

[snip further asertion of violation followed by "I know you are but what am I"]

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.

I saw hand-waving and unsupported assertions. I didn't see specific citations
of supporting documentation that spoke clearly to the matter at hand.

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/