![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael Houghton" wrote in message ... That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand. Why not? 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. 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 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? 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?" 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. 91.123 applies broadly. I thought you said it didn't apply at all? In the context of 91.130, it provides a way for a controller to establish two-way radio communication without allowing an airplane into the Class C airspace. Make up your mind. Can ATC issue an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace or not? However, "November 1234, where ya goin?" contains no ATC instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication. Correct. What's your point? 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. 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? 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. Not the one that was the basis for heading in... There was no communication that formed the basis for heading in. The pilot screwed up. I'm saying that the "remain clear" instruction only lasts until the next communication that does not also include a "remain clear". I'm not generalizing to other instructions -- strictly the "remain clear" one. That's ridiculous. What led you to that absurd conclusion? 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Mountain flying instruction: McCall, Idaho, Colorado too! | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | March 26th 04 11:24 PM |
Windshields - tint or clear? | Roger Long | Piloting | 7 | February 10th 04 02:41 AM |
Is a BFR instruction? | Roger Long | Piloting | 11 | December 11th 03 09:58 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |