when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

"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

Ok Steven. New hypothetical.

Manly Piper 54321 calls approach from the ground desiring to enter Class C
airspace after takeoff. Ralph at approach says "Piper 54321after takeoff
remain clear of the class C" Ralph then goes off shift.

Manly Piper takes off and begins to maneuver around the class C. He calls
approach, and George annswers "Piper 54321 say direction of flight"

Is Manly Piper permitted to enter the class C?
What bearing toes Ralphs instruction have?
What bearing does George's instruction have?
Does the Manly Piper need to know whether it's Ralph or George?
Does George need to know that Ralph told the Manly Piper to stay clear, or does
George get to start with a clean slate and make his own evaluation?

Jose

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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Ok Steven. New hypothetical.

Manly Piper 54321 calls approach from the ground desiring to
enter Class C airspace after takeoff. Ralph at approach says
"Piper 54321after takeoff remain clear of the class C" Ralph
then goes off shift.

Manly Piper takes off and begins to maneuver around the class
C. He calls approach, and George annswers "Piper 54321 say
direction of flight"

Is Manly Piper permitted to enter the class C?


No.



What bearing toes Ralphs instruction have?


It isn't Ralph's instruction personally, it's approach's instruction. It
remains in effect until an instruction is issued that permits entry to Class
C airspace.



What bearing does George's instruction have?


George didn't issue an instruction.



Does the Manly Piper need to know whether it's Ralph or George?


No.



Does George need to know that Ralph told the Manly Piper to
stay clear, or does George get to start with a clean slate and
make his own evaluation?


George need to know that Ralph told the Piper to stay clear, it would have
been part of the relief briefing.

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

To enter class C airspace, the FARs say that you have to establish
two-way radio communication.


Yes, but the FARs also say that except in an emergency, no person may
operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air
traffic control is exercised. Class C airspace is an area in which air
traffic control is exercised, so a pilot that has established two-way radio
communications and been instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace must
remain outside until further advised.



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."


The FARs and AIM indicate just the opposite, and you don't have any
experience to the contrary, you just misinterpreted the situation.



It does seem to be your opinion and it is far from a simple fact.


Actually, it is an indisputable fact. It can be no other way.



There is no language in the FARs or AIM that clearly supports either of
our opinions.


The FARs and AIM support what I've been saying and indicate that you're
wrong.



There is no text that says anything about what must happen after a
"remain clear" has been issued for class C.


What text says what must happen after any ATC instruction is issued?



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


Why? Because all ATC instructions are listed in the AIM and there is no
such instruction mentioned?



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?


In FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an
ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.


By the way, you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you wrote; "I agree that
ATC can establish communication but instruct the pilot to remain clear."
Now you're saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft that has established
radio communications to remain outside Class C airspace.



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."


If the controller didn't intend for the pilot to remain clear he wouldn't
have told him "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". Why
would the controller need to repeat that instruction?



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.


Wrong. Two-way radio communications were established just once, when the
aircraft was on the ground, at the same time the instruction to remain
outside Class C airspace was issued. Communications are not established
with every communications exchange, just the first one.



Or, that I'm right.


The AIM, FARs, FAA Order 7110.65, and simple logic indicate you're wrong.





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.


But once you've been told to remain outside Class C airspace you do have to
hear something that indicates you can enter.



There is no documentation to support your point of view either.


All pertinent documentation supports my position.



My position is consistent with the documentation that does exist.


Your position is contrary to all pertinent documentation, you simply do not
understand the documentation.



It is consistent with my experiences at class C and D airports.


Impossible, as you cannot experience that which does not occur.



It is not completely illogical.


Actually, it is. You're just not thinking logically.



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.


What ambiguity?



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.


"Cleared" would be incorrect, but otherwise that's a reasonable facsimile.



I disagree with you.


Right. It's like I'm saying "two plus two equals four", and you're saying
"I disagree, in my experience two plus two equals five".



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


That's because you've misinterpreted the documents and drawn incorrect
conclusions from your experience.

Howdy!

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

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

To enter class C airspace, the FARs say that you have to establish
two-way radio communication.


Yes, but the FARs also say that except in an emergency, no person may
operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air
traffic control is exercised. Class C airspace is an area in which air
traffic control is exercised, so a pilot that has established two-way radio
communications and been instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace must
remain outside until further advised.

How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially considering
the guidance the AIM offers)?

FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
maintain those communications while within that airspace.

I also note that it never speaks of "clearance", but "ATC authorization".

Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
Class C airspace.

Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
just waving your hands furiously?

[snip]

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."


The FARs and AIM indicate just the opposite, and you don't have any
experience to the contrary, you just misinterpreted the situation.

Pray tell which FARs you are reading that say what you seem to think
they say?

[snip]

There is no language in the FARs or AIM that clearly supports either of
our opinions.


The FARs and AIM support what I've been saying and indicate that you're
wrong.

The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
two-way radio communication".





There is no text that says anything about what must happen after a
"remain clear" has been issued for class C.


What text says what must happen after any ATC instruction is issued?



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


Why? Because all ATC instructions are listed in the AIM and there is no
such instruction mentioned?

No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
communication. See my excerpt above.



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?


In FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an
ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.


By the way, you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you wrote; "I agree that
ATC can establish communication but instruct the pilot to remain clear."
Now you're saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft that has established
radio communications to remain outside Class C airspace.

No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.

[snip]

If the controller didn't intend for the pilot to remain clear he wouldn't
have told him "after departure remain clear of the class C airspace". Why
would the controller need to repeat that instruction?

Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
permitting entry into the airspace.

[snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
unsupportable position by Steve]

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/

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially
considering the guidance the AIM offers)?

FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
maintain those communications while within that airspace.


Here's the plain text of an applicable FAR, what do you infer from it?


FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.



I also note that it never speaks of "clearance", but "ATC authorization".


Correct.



Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
Class C airspace.


Also correct, if you had read the thread from the beginning you'd know there
was an explicit "remain clear" in this case.



Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
just waving your hands furiously?


I have provided applicable documentation.



Pray tell which FARs you are reading that say what you seem to think
they say?


FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.



The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
two-way radio communication".


If the FAR isn't clear enough, the AIM certainly is.



No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
communication. See my excerpt above.


Are you saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft to remain outside of
Class C airspace?



No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.


In this case the communication did include "remain clear".



Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
permitting entry into the airspace.


Are you saying ATC instructions are valid only until the next communications
exchange? What do you base that on?



[snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
unsupportable position by Steve]


If you had read the entire thread you'd have seen I did provide supporting
documentation.

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially
considering the guidance the AIM offers)?

FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
maintain those communications while within that airspace.


Here's the plain text of an applicable FAR, what do you infer from it?


FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand. 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.

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.

[snip]

Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
Class C airspace.


Also correct, if you had read the thread from the beginning you'd know there
was an explicit "remain clear" in this case.

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.

Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
just waving your hands furiously?

I have provided applicable documentation.

No. You have not. You have mentioned a FAR clause that doesn't speak to the
question. You have not offered anything that clearly supports your claim.

91.123 applies broadly. 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. However, "November 1234, where ya goin?"
contains no ATC instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication.

[snip]

The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
two-way radio communication".

If the FAR isn't clear enough, the AIM certainly is.

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.


No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
communication. See my excerpt above.


Are you saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft to remain outside of
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. 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.

No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.

In this case the communication did include "remain clear".

Not the one that was the basis for heading in...


Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
permitting entry into the airspace.


Are you saying ATC instructions are valid only until the next communications
exchange? What do you base that on?

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.

[snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
unsupportable position by Steve]

If you had read the entire thread you'd have seen I did provide supporting
documentation.

I've read the thread. I have not see supporting documentation. I've seen
unsupported references to some mysterious ATC phraseology that no one has
articulated. I've seen the assertion of an interpretation that would make
it impossible to ever enter a Class C once told to "remain clear". I've
seen the assertion that the controller should accept a request for
clearance into a Class C with a clearance despite the fact that there is
no such clearance.

I stand by my summary.

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/

"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.

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand.

Why not?

keep reading...

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.

Where, in "N1234, radar contact." is there a "remain clear" instruction?

Conversation:

N1234: Podunk, I want to go through your Class C.

Podunk: N1234, remain clear.

(N1234 toodles along remaining clear)

Podunk: N1234, what are you intentions?

(N1234 heads into Class C)


Now, I'm not specifying how much time elapses between the two transmissions
from Podunk. I'll posit that N1234 did not land during that time.

I think this is really close to the original poster's scenario.


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

Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
told to remain clear, under your interpretation. If specific phrasing were
needed, one would expect to find it addressed in the controllers handbook.
Pray give the relevant citation that provides this guidance to controllers.
After all, they are expected to be conversant with this kind of stuff.

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?

I say that the instruction to "remain clear" in reference to Class C (and
probably Class D as well) airspace is voided by subsequent transmissions.
I don't have a specific reference for that, but you have no provided a
reference that specifically supports your contention.

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?"

Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.

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.

You have not offered citations that support your specific claim. You refer
vaguely to documents, but you don't cite chapter and verse that support you.
In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.

91.123 applies broadly.

I thought you said it didn't apply at all?

I said that it was not relevant to the specific question. Please read my
words with greater care and attention.

[snip have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife non-question]

However, "November 1234, where ya goin?" contains no ATC
instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication.

Correct. What's your point?

Which part of "establish two-way radio communication" escaped your notice?


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.

Yep. I've never said otherwise, despite your persistent attempt to insinuate
the contrary.

....and ATC can also elect to simply not respond to a radio call..

If ATC does respond with the tail number, they establish two-way radio
communications. If they want the aircraft to remain clear, they have to
say so each time they talk.

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?

It's not absurd. If it doesn't work the way I claim, then how does one get
authorization to enter once a remain clear instruction has been given? FAR
91.130(c)1 simply requires the establishment of two-way radio communications.

There is no hint of the mechanism by which one would be released from a
"remain clear" instruction if it survived subsequent two-way radio communications.


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.

Pray back you expertise with specific citations (not broad references to
whole documents). I've bothered to cite what appears to be the relevant
clause of the relevant FAR section...

[snip further asertion of violation followed by "I know you are but what am I"]

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.

I saw hand-waving and unsupported assertions. I didn't see specific citations
of supporting documentation that spoke clearly to the matter at hand.

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/