![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Maule Driver" wrote in message news ![]() I'm sure it is frustrating. But the answer to the original question remained murky to me. So I too went back to the FARs and the AIM. My understanding now is that you are correct Dennis. The pilot was legal but the sequence of communciations from ATC was confusing. And getting to that conclusion was not straightforward. The answer to the original question, "when does the 'remain clear of class C airspace' instruction end?", is clear, it ends when overridden by another instruction. ATC had issued a "remain clear" before departure. And the implication in the original post was the the tail number was used since a squawk code was issued before the departure. Steven stated, "Once told to memain clear you must remain clear until the controller issues an instruction that permits entry." As a practical matter, I would agree. But Dennis goes on to state, "...he has established radio contact which is 'the clearance to enter'...So, I asked both (FAA types), wouldn't you tell the pilot that he is now 'cleared to enter the C', to avoid confusion.. They both replied that there is no confusion... The clearance to enter a Class C airspace is establishing radio contact using the tail number exactly as spelled out in the AIM." I say b*** s*** to the FAA types. Radio contact was established when the aircraft was still on the ground, at the same time the controller said "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". Establishing radio contact without an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace permits entry, establishing radio contact with an instruction to remain clear does not permit entry. I would counter that the AIM is not regulatory and that an ATC communication using your tail number is not always a clearance to enter. An example would be where per the AIM, ATC says "1234Alpha, remain outside Class Charlie and standby". Then follows with a "1234 Alpha traffic 11 oclock 3,000feet". I would maintain that I've been told to remain clear and that the subsequent tail number identified communication *does not* clear me to enter. I would still be waiting for an instruction that permits entry. Exactly. So, if a pilot has been told to remain clear and identified by tail number, then he should remain clear until given an instruction that permits entry. A vector would do the trick. Legally, a 'radar contact and altimeter' would probably keep you out of jail but would be a bit stupid. Radar contact and an altimeter does not override an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace and neither is an entry requirement. But in this case, the key is that the "remain clear" was issued before departure and therefore doesn't play a part in subsequent communications after departure. You've got it backwards. Before departure the aircraft is on the ground outside of Class C airspace. "Remain clear" can only apply after departure. There's no requirement to establish communications from an underlying airport before departure so any radio contact established before departure shouldn't be considered qualification to enter the Class C. Why not? There's no requirement to establish radio contact 40 miles from the Class C boundary but if one does so then one is permitted entry. By the same token, the admonishment to remain clear of Class C issued before departure is meaningless once one has departed. Actually, it is meaningful only after departure. It isn't meaningful before departure because it isn't possible to enter the Class C airspace without departing. If one establishes radio contact after departure, then one is cleared to enter just as the original poster did. Not if one has been instructed to remain clear. It's clear to me now but it certainly isn't clear "according to the most basic of rules". It doesn't sound like it's clear to you yet. |
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 |