when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...


As I commented, I don't see specific phrase in the AIM for the
controller to use for clearing an aircraft into the Class C after being
told to stand clear - and it might be a good idea...


Specific phrases for controller usage are found in FAA Order 7110.65, but
there is no phrase like "cancel your last instruction and now comply with
this instruction", nor should there be. Previous instructions are simply
overridden by subsequent instructions. For example, an aircraft may have
been instructed to "fly heading 360", and a bit later is instructed to
"turn
right heading 020". The 360 heading isn't cancelled prior to the issuance
of the 020 heading, the 360 heading is simply overridden by the 020
heading.




So, on the first call the pilot was told, "Aircraft calling remain clear
of Charlie?, or "November 1234 remain clear of Class Charlie.",
or words to that effect... Fine, we all agree he is to remain clear...
Now the controller calls a bit later and says something to the effect,
"November 1234, radar contact 8 miles east of xyz, altimeter 30
point 00", or some variation and shuts up - because he has
established radio contact which is 'the clearance to enter'...


Wrong. Radio contact was established when the controller said, "November
1234 remain clear of Class Charlie."



So, I asked both, 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..


Yes, if nothing else is said that is correct. But in this case the
aircraft
was instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace and that instruction
remains in effect until some instruction is issued that permits entry.



Steven, just as you said that the previous instructions would not be
explicitly cancelled, so too is the "remain clear." Using the tail number -
especially with the phrase "radar contact" - definitely makes it for me. I
would enter the Class C.

I would expect the following phrases to keep me clear of the Class C - 1)
"aircraft calling NE of class C, where did you say you wanted to go?" or 2)
Cessna 1234, continue to remain clear of the class C airspace. What are your
intentions?"

I would find this one confusing "Cessna 1234, where did you say you wanted
to go?" It uses the tail number which is enough but indicates that the
controller is still trying to figure out what to do with me. I would
question whether that establishes radio contact to enter the Class C.

The point should be that this isn't a game to try to fool the controller
into saying something that unknowingly grants permission. When in doubt,
double check.

-------------------------------
Travis

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
ink.net...

Steven, just as you said that the previous instructions would not be
explicitly cancelled, so too is the "remain clear." Using the tail
number - especially with the phrase "radar contact" - definitely
makes it for me. I would enter the Class C.


Then you would be operating an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an
area in which air traffic control is exercised and thus be in violation of
FAR 91.123(b). An instruction to "remain clear" is implicitly overridden by
an instruction that requires or permits entry of the Class C airspace. "Fly
heading 110, vector for traffic" would do it, so would "proceed on course"
or "enter a right base for runway 32", but "radar contact" would not.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
ink.net...

Steven, just as you said that the previous instructions would not be
explicitly cancelled, so too is the "remain clear." Using the tail
number - especially with the phrase "radar contact" - definitely
makes it for me. I would enter the Class C.


Then you would be operating an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in
an
area in which air traffic control is exercised and thus be in violation of
FAR 91.123(b). An instruction to "remain clear" is implicitly overridden
by
an instruction that requires or permits entry of the Class C airspace.
"Fly
heading 110, vector for traffic" would do it, so would "proceed on course"
or "enter a right base for runway 32", but "radar contact" would not.



I don't think so. From the AIM 3-2-4,
3. Arrival or Through Flight Entry Requirements. ...

NOTE-
1. If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(aircraft callsign)
standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot can enter
the Class C airspace.

2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of
Class C services, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside the
Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.

3. It is important to understand that if the controller responds to the
initial radio call without using the aircraft identification, radio
communications have not been established and the pilot may not enter the
Class C airspace.

EXAMPLE-
1. [Aircraft callsign] "remain outside the Class Charlie airspace and
standby."

2. "Aircraft calling Dulles approach control, standby."

I think that this makes it pretty clear that any acknowledgement of a
specific aircraft without a specific caution to remain clear is sufficient
radio contact to allow clearance into a Class C. Using your example of a
subsequent instruction implicitly canceling a previous instruction applies
here as well.


-------------------------------
Travis

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
ink.net...

I don't think so. From the AIM 3-2-4,
3. Arrival or Through Flight Entry Requirements. ...

NOTE-
1. If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(aircraft
callsign)
standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot can
enter
the Class C airspace.

2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of
Class C services, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside
the
Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.

3. It is important to understand that if the controller responds to
the
initial radio call without using the aircraft identification, radio
communications have not been established and the pilot may not enter the
Class C airspace.

EXAMPLE-
1. [Aircraft callsign] "remain outside the Class Charlie airspace and
standby."

2. "Aircraft calling Dulles approach control, standby."


The material you quoted does not support your position.



I think that this makes it pretty clear that any acknowledgement of a
specific aircraft without a specific caution to remain clear is sufficient
radio contact to allow clearance into a Class C.


Yes, but that's not the case here. In this case there was acknowledgement
of a specific aircraft with a specific instruction to remain clear of the
Class C airspace.



Using your example of a subsequent instruction implicitly
canceling a previous instruction applies here as well.


It doesn't apply in this case because the instruction to remain clear of the
Class C airspace was the only instruction issued.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
ink.net...

I don't think so. From the AIM 3-2-4,
3. Arrival or Through Flight Entry Requirements. ...

NOTE-
1. If the controller responds to a radio call with, "(aircraft
callsign)
standby," radio communications have been established and the pilot can
enter
the Class C airspace.

2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of
Class C services, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside
the
Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.

3. It is important to understand that if the controller responds to
the
initial radio call without using the aircraft identification, radio
communications have not been established and the pilot may not enter the
Class C airspace.

EXAMPLE-
1. [Aircraft callsign] "remain outside the Class Charlie airspace
and
standby."

2. "Aircraft calling Dulles approach control, standby."


The material you quoted does not support your position.

Sure it does. My position is that radio contact where the controller uses
your tail number and lacking an explicit "remain clear" grants permission to
enter the class C. Note 1 above says this. You seem to be saying that once a
"remain clear" has been issued that the only way to reverse that is with an
explicit "cleared to enter the class C." The AIM doesn't really address this
sequence of events but does not refer to a specific clearance to enter the
class C either.




I think that this makes it pretty clear that any acknowledgement of a
specific aircraft without a specific caution to remain clear is
sufficient
radio contact to allow clearance into a Class C.


Yes, but that's not the case here. In this case there was acknowledgement
of a specific aircraft with a specific instruction to remain clear of the
Class C airspace.

I think it is the case as presented by the original poster. He had received
a "remain clear" prior to take off. After departure, he had a radio exchange
that included his tail number and took that as permission to enter the class
C.




Using your example of a subsequent instruction implicitly
canceling a previous instruction applies here as well.


It doesn't apply in this case because the instruction to remain clear of
the
Class C airspace was the only instruction issued.



Again, after departure, the pilot had a radio exchange where the controller
used his tail number. That grants permission to enter the class C.

I am based at a class C airport. I have heard "remain clear" many times. I
have never heard "cleared to enter." Subsequent radio contact that uses my
tail number is enough to rescind the "remain clear" instruction.

-------------------------------
Travis

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
ink.net...

Sure it does. My position is that radio contact where the controller uses
your tail number and lacking an explicit "remain clear" grants permission
to enter the class C. Note 1 above says this.


It doesn't. You stated that subsequent use of the tail number of an
aircraft, that had previously established communications and been told to
remain clear, especially with the phrase "radar contact", permitted entry to
the Class C airspace. The AIM does not support that viewpoint. ATC can
instruct aircraft that have established communications to remain outside of
Class C airspace.


FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 8. Class C Service- Terminal

7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS

Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio communications
before entering Class C airspace. 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. If workload or traffic conditions
prevent immediate provision of Class C services, inform the pilot to remain
outside Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to be
provided.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(A/c call sign) REMAIN OUTSIDE CHARLIE AIRSPACE AND STANDBY.



You seem to be saying that once a "remain clear" has been issued
that the only way to reverse that is with an explicit "cleared to enter
the class C." The AIM doesn't really address this sequence of events
but does not refer to a specific clearance to enter the class C either.


I'm saying that an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace issued to
an aircraft that has established two-way radio communications remains in
effect until another instruction is issued that permits that aircraft to
enter Class C airspace. That is not my opinion, that is a simple fact.



I think it is the case as presented by the original poster. He had
received a "remain clear" prior to take off. After departure, he
had a radio exchange that included his tail number and took that
as permission to enter the class C.


Yes. He erred. That radio exchange was not permission to enter Class C
airspace. His instruction to remain clear was still in effect because no
instruction permitting entry had been issued.



Again, after departure, the pilot had a radio exchange where the
controller used his tail number. That grants permission to enter
the class C.


And again, that is not the case. A subsequent radio exchange after
communications have been established does not, by itself, override the
instruction to remain clear. I don't know who told you otherwise but
whoever it was does not have a correct understanding of Class C airspace.



I am based at a class C airport.


Which only proves that one can be based in Class C airspace without
understanding it.



I have heard "remain clear" many times. I have never heard "cleared
to enter."


As you gain experience you probably will.



Subsequent radio contact that uses my
tail number is enough to rescind the "remain clear" instruction.


I'm sure you believe that. That statement is unsupported by any
documentation and is completely illogical. I've explained this as simply as
I can and you still don't understand. I don't think you're even trying to
understand. Fine. Believe whatever you choose.

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I'm saying that an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace issued to
an aircraft that has established two-way radio communications remains in
effect until another instruction is issued that permits that aircraft to
enter Class C airspace. That is not my opinion, that is a simple fact.

So Stephen, what specifically would constitute another instruction that
permits entry, and don't try and tell me that it would have to include
"cleared to enter" because that would be incorrect phraseology with
respect to Class C airspace.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
ink.net...

It doesn't. You stated that subsequent use of the tail number of an
aircraft, that had previously established communications and been told to
remain clear, especially with the phrase "radar contact", permitted entry
to
the Class C airspace. The AIM does not support that viewpoint. ATC can
instruct aircraft that have established communications to remain outside
of
Class C airspace.

To enter class C airspace, the FARs say that you have to establish two-way
radio communication. The AIM provides a few examples which indicate that no
explicit clearance is required. I agree that ATC can establish communication
but instruct the pilot to remain clear. It is what can happen next that we
have been debating.

From the FARs, the AIM , and my experiences, the acknowledgement of a
particular plane by ATC establishes two-way radio communication and is
sufficient for the plane to enter the class C - even after the issuance of a
"remain clear."



You seem to be saying that once a "remain clear" has been issued
that the only way to reverse that is with an explicit "cleared to enter
the class C." The AIM doesn't really address this sequence of events
but does not refer to a specific clearance to enter the class C either.


I'm saying that an instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace issued
to
an aircraft that has established two-way radio communications remains in
effect until another instruction is issued that permits that aircraft to
enter Class C airspace. That is not my opinion, that is a simple fact.

It does seem to be your opinion and it is far from a simple fact. There is
no language in the FARs or AIM that clearly supports either of our opinions.
There is no text that says anything about what must happen after a "remain
clear" has been issued for class C.


I think it is the case as presented by the original poster. He had
received a "remain clear" prior to take off. After departure, he
had a radio exchange that included his tail number and took that
as permission to enter the class C.


Yes. He erred. That radio exchange was not permission to enter Class C
airspace. His instruction to remain clear was still in effect because no
instruction permitting entry had been issued.

There is no such thing as an instruction to permit entry into class C.


Again, after departure, the pilot had a radio exchange where the
controller used his tail number. That grants permission to enter
the class C.


And again, that is not the case. A subsequent radio exchange after
communications have been established does not, by itself, override the
instruction to remain clear. I don't know who told you otherwise but
whoever it was does not have a correct understanding of Class C airspace.

The FARs say that two-way radio communication is sufficient. The AIM says
that two-way radio communication is sufficient. Where does it say otherwise?

If the controller intended for the pilot to remain clear that he would have
simply ignored the pilot's radio calls or would have repeated the "remain
clear."

For the scenario described by the original poster, the departure controller
instructed him to remain clear of the class C. Once in the air, the radio
exchange that occured established two-way radio communication and was
sufficient for him to enter the class C.


I am based at a class C airport.


Which only proves that one can be based in Class C airspace without
understanding it.

Or, that I'm right.


I have heard "remain clear" many times. I have never heard "cleared
to enter."


As you gain experience you probably will.

I'll agree with that. I'm sure some day that a class C or D controller will
say something like "cleared to enter ..." but it is not necessary and I
don't need to hear it whether or not I have been told to remain clear.


Subsequent radio contact that uses my
tail number is enough to rescind the "remain clear" instruction.


I'm sure you believe that. That statement is unsupported by any
documentation and is completely illogical. I've explained this as simply
as
I can and you still don't understand. I don't think you're even trying to
understand. Fine. Believe whatever you choose.

There is no documentation to support your point of view either. My position
is consistent with the documentation that does exist. It is consistent with
my experiences at class C and D airports. It is not completely illogical. I
would suggest that having this ambiguity about a clearance to enter the
class C/D in the FARs in the first place is illogical.

You have explained it very simply and I do think that I understand what you
are saying. Let me summarize to be sure. You claim that once a controller
has issued a "remain clear" for a class C or D airspace that an explicit
"cleared into the class C or D airpspace" or some instruction that requires
entry is necessary before the pilot should enter.

I disagree with you. I am trying to map what you are saying to the
documentation and to my experiences. They don't seem to agree.

-------------------------------
Travis

I would find this one confusing "Cessna 1234, where did you say you wanted
to go?" It uses the tail number which is enough but indicates that the
controller is still trying to figure out what to do with me. I would
question whether that establishes radio contact to enter the Class C.


Radio contact has been established. You have pemission to enter. It is not an
entry requirment that the controller know where you are or where you want to
go. See and avoid is not superceded. While it is sorted out, you may proceed
in.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Radio contact has been established. You have pemission to enter.


No. Radio contact has been established and the pilot has been instructed to
remain clear of the Class C airspace. You do not have permission to enter.



It is not an entry requirment that the controller know where you are
or where you want to go. See and avoid is not superceded. While
it is sorted out, you may proceed in.


True dat.