"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Peter" wrote in message
news:bQC0c.155274$uV3.704538@attbi_s51...

Not the "Stand by," but the "N1234, standby."


Did you miss that the controller had already instructed N1234 to remain
outside Charlie airspace?



And what might lead someone
to believe that is the direct quote from 7110.65, Sect. 7-8-4 above:
"If the controller responds to a radio call with, '(a/c call sign)
standby,' radio communications have been established and the pilot can
enter Class C airspace."


Yes, but communications had already been established in this case. Once
you've been instructed to remain outside of Class C airspace you must
receive specific instruction that authorizes entry.


Not exactly specific instructions. Since there is no such thing as a
clearance into class C airspace, we'll use the documented method which is to
"establish two-way radio communication." Something like "N1234, state your
intentions" from the controller will do.




It also specifies that if the controller feels conditions at that time
are
such that the aircraft should not enter Class C space he is to
explicitly
state:
"PHRASEOLOGY-
(A/c call sign) REMAIN OUTSIDE CHARLIE AIRSPACE AND
STANDBY."


Yes, and in this case the aircraft was instructed to remain outside when
communications was established.

And then, when the controller has time to deal it, he calls up and says
"(A/c call sign) squawk 0541" or "(A/c call sign) where were you going?" or
any other question or piece of information with the aircraft's tail number
in it. Having heard this and responded, the pilot has authority to enter the
class C.




So based on my reading of the 7110.65 handbook it seems clear that if
the controller responds to a radio call with the a/c call sign but
without
the explicit statement to "remain outside charlie airspace" then he has
allowed the pilot to proceed through the Class C airspace.


Then you did not understand what you read.



Steven, I have a lot of respect for your opinion but I am having trouble
with your insistance that this is a cut and dried issue. You, me, and others
are quoting the same pieces of the regs and drawing opposite conclusions. It
is a simple question but the answer is just not clear from the regs.

Your responses that indicate that we are unable to interpret the regs
correctly or that we are not able to understand simple logic does not help
make your case. This has been a healthy debate between people who care
deeply about doing the right thing. Belittling our intelligence has no place
here.

None of the text quoted clearly supports your case - nor mine. Your claims
that simple logic dictates that an explicit clearance is required after a
"remain clear" has been issued are not sufficient.

I believe that you are an experienced controller. I believe that you will do
your job to the best of your ability. I hope that you will have patience
with me, if I ever approach your airspace and ask for clarification before
entering.
-------------------------------
Travis