View Single Post
  #4  
Old March 1st 04, 04:25 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

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


We've been over this already. The instruction to remain clear was in the
first exchange.



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.


Were you trying to make a point?



Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
told to remain clear, under your interpretation.


Why not?



If specific phrasing were needed, one would expect to find it
addressed in the controllers handbook.


Why would one expect that? Are all possible phrases which can be used in
ATC addressed in the controller's handbook?



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.


Your contention is illogical, I have provided specific references from the
FARs, the AIM, and FAAO 7110.65.



Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.


Are you playing some kind of game here or are you really that stupid?



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.


There is no chapter and verse that says an aircraft instructed to remain
clear of Class C airspace must remain clear until it receives an instruction
that permits it to enter Class C airspace. That is understood simply
because it can be no other way.



In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.


Ya think? What materials, specifically, rebut me. Cite chapter and verse.



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


Please explain why it is not relevant to the specific question.



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


None of it. What's your point with regard to the matter under discussion?



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


Well, if you didn't, someone else is using your system.

At 15:54:28 PST on 2004-02-20 the following message was posted by Michael
Houghton ):




Howdy!

In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Take a good look in the mirror, Steve.


For what?


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:

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.
I can read the FARs, apparently better than you.

You're absolutely right. The pilot in the original message had satisfied
the conditions required for entry into Class C airspace. No violation
of ATC instruction occurred.


The pilot in the original message was issued the instruction "after
departure remain clear of the class C airspace" by ATC. After departure he
proceeded to enter Class C airspace. Please explain how the pilot did not
violate that instruction and FAR 91.123(b).


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.

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/




...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.


Where did you get the idea that ATC instructions are cancelled if not
restated in subsequent unrelated communications? Please cite chapter and
verse.



It's not absurd.


It is absurd and you haven't answered the question.



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?


Via radio, in the form of an instruction that permits entry. I've stated
that several times in this thread.



FAR 91.130(c)1 simply requires the establishment of two-way
radio communications.


And FAR 91.123(b) says no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC
instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised, except in
an emergency. So if you establish two-way radio communications but are
instructed to remain outside Class C airspace you must remain outside Class
C airspace until told otherwise. That is a very simple concept, yet it
seems beyond your ability to understand. What is your education level? How
old are you?



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 mechanism is an instruction to the contrary. What else could it be?



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...


You've provided nothing that supports your illogical assertion that an
instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace is cancelled by subsequent
unrelated communications.



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


Why do you believe the illogical position unsupported by specific citations
holds sway over the logical position unsupported by specific citations?