Howdy!

In article k.net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Non sequitur.


No, a non sequitur is a statement that does not follow logically from what
preceded it.

Yep. And in the material you elided, you committed non sequitur, literally,
"that does not follow".


I don't believe that anyone has asserted that ATC cannot
instruct one to remain clear of Class C airspace.

You've stated that aircraft that are so instructed may enter Class C
airspace. What's the difference?

Quite a bit, I'm afraid. In fact, you attribute to me statements I have
not made.

At no time have I claimed that a controller response that includes an
instruction to "remain clear" authorizes entry to Class C airspace.
I have repeatedly, as supported by citations from the FARs and FAAO
7110.65P, asserted that a subsequent response that does not include such
an instruction does clearly authorize such entry.

What you contend,
without justification, is that that instruction, once givenn, must
be explicitly and overtly overriden with some sort of instruction --
examples of which are not found in the AIM, nor in any other official
source. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.


Actually, I have cited the AIM, the FARs, and FAAO 7110.65. What you
contend, without justification and contrary to simple logic, is that that
instruction, once given, does not require aircraft to remain outside of
Class C airspace. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.

You have mentioned those documents, but have not _cited_ sections (and
relevant text) that says what you claim is the case.

If it were true that, once a "remain clear" instruction was given, explicit
instructions were required to authorize entry in to Class C airspace, one
might expect FAAO 7110.65 to include suggested or required phraseology.
Certainly such is offered in many other places.

Since you assert this to be the way things work, please tell me where,
in the relevant documents, I can see for myself the wording that says
this. I don't think you can do this.



91.130(c)1 defines how one is authorized to enter Class C airspace. You
then insist that once a communication using the tail number is made that
includes a "remain clear" instructionn, that instruction remains in force
in the face of subsequent communications such as "N1234, standby".

That is correct.

....that you claim such...not that your assertion is valid.

I posited a scenario that fits your conditions; you asserted that entry
would be permitted in my scenario -- a clear contradiction without an
explicit acknowledgement of such. You are allowed to change your story,
but you don't get to do so silently.

Is this what you're referring to?

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

In this scenario two-way radio communications are established and the
aircraft is NOT instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace. No
contradiction here.

....but the pilot was instructed to remain clear in the first communication
and not instructed otherwise in the second. You contradict yourself.

When I place the two exchanges on consecutive lines, you assert that
entry has not been authorized, yet in the scenario above, which involves
exactly (and only) the same exchanges, you say entry has been authorized.

How, as a pilot trying to be diligent and responsible, am I to discern
the difference between the two? What regulation tells me both answers?

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/