![]() |
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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
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 |