when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

Howdy!

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

"Tom Fleischman" wrote in
message
rthlink.net...

[snip]

You lost me. If a pilot requests to transition a class C, the controller
has
several options: 1) ignore the call. 2) "aircraft calling, remain clear of
the class C." 3) "Cessna 1234, remain clear of the class C." 4) "Cessna
1234, standby" 5) "Cessna 1234, roger." 6) "Cessna 1234, altimeter setting
30.04." or even 7) "Cessna 1234 transition approved."

But the pilot didn't request transition through the Class C airspace, the
pilot requested clearance through the Class C airspace.

Baloney.

The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.

[snip]

Because responding "Cessna 1234 cleared through Class C airspace" is simpler
than explaining to the guy that there are no clearances for VFR transition
of Class C airspace.

....so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect phraseology is
how you would handle this?

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
...

Baloney.

The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.


Follow the thread, I wasn't referring to the original poster. Pilots DO
request clearance through Class C airspace.



...so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect
phraseology is how you would handle this?


Let's see; I could say that I cannot issue a clearance through Class C
airspace, or I could provide a rather lengthy dissertation on Class C
procedures while ignoring other traffic, or I could just grant the request
for clearance. Which do you think is best?

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Baloney.

The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.

Follow the thread, I wasn't referring to the original poster. Pilots DO
request clearance through Class C airspace.

There is no such animal as a "clearance into Class C airspace".

If a pilot requests one, he is exhibiting ignorance of proper
radio procedure.

...so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect
phraseology is how you would handle this?

Let's see; I could say that I cannot issue a clearance through Class C
airspace, or I could provide a rather lengthy dissertation on Class C
procedures while ignoring other traffic, or I could just grant the request
for clearance. Which do you think is best?

Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
responses.

If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
quick reminder that you don't do clearances.

In any case, "November 1234, come on down" would avoid giving
a clearance where one cannot, but would establish communications
authorizing entry. Yeah, it's probably not in the official
phrasebook, but it doesn't say things it shouldn't.

If you were to "clear" someone into Class C airspace, what
sort of clearance would you give? Please be explicit, and
explain how it would be a valid clearance.

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
...
Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Baloney.

The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.

Follow the thread, I wasn't referring to the original poster. Pilots DO
request clearance through Class C airspace.

There is no such animal as a "clearance into Class C airspace".

If a pilot requests one, he is exhibiting ignorance of proper
radio procedure.

...so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect
phraseology is how you would handle this?

Let's see; I could say that I cannot issue a clearance through Class C
airspace, or I could provide a rather lengthy dissertation on Class C
procedures while ignoring other traffic, or I could just grant the
request
for clearance. Which do you think is best?

Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
responses.

If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
quick reminder that you don't do clearances.

In any case, "November 1234, come on down" would avoid giving
a clearance where one cannot, but would establish communications
authorizing entry. Yeah, it's probably not in the official
phrasebook, but it doesn't say things it shouldn't.

If you were to "clear" someone into Class C airspace, what
sort of clearance would you give? Please be explicit, and
explain how it would be a valid clearance.

The best response I've heard is "Cessna 1234, proceed as requested" or
"Cessna 1234, tranisition approved." It goes beyond what they need to say
but is concise and clear. Even a "Cessna 1234, roger" would do (regardless
of whether a "remain clear" had been issued prior).


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/


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

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

The best response I've heard is "Cessna 1234, proceed as requested" or
"Cessna 1234, tranisition approved." It goes beyond what they need to
say but is concise and clear. Even a "Cessna 1234, roger" would do
(regardless of whether a "remain clear" had been issued prior).


If the aircraft had previously been instructed to remain clear of Class C
airspace, "Cessna 1234, proceed as requested" or "Cessna 1234, transition
approved" would permit entry, but "Cessna 1234, roger" would not.

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

There is no such animal as a "clearance into Class C airspace".


Correct.



If a pilot requests one, he is exhibiting ignorance of proper
radio procedure.


Correct.



Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
responses.


Like what?


If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
quick reminder that you don't do clearances.


That's the second choice I listed.



In any case, "November 1234, come on down" would avoid giving
a clearance where one cannot, but would establish communications
authorizing entry. Yeah, it's probably not in the official
phrasebook, but it doesn't say things it shouldn't.


"Come on down"? That may be in the official "Price is Right" phrasebook, it
doesn't mean anything in ATC.



If you were to "clear" someone into Class C airspace, what
sort of clearance would you give? Please be explicit, and
explain how it would be a valid clearance.


Waco 9876Z calls approach: "Podunk approach, Waco 9876Z 15 west, request
clearance through Class C airspace". ATC responds; "Waco 9876Z, squawk
0340, cleared through Podunk Class C airspace, Podunk altimeter 29.96."

Yes, I know, there are no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C
airspace. Nobody knows that better than I do. But I'm not going to argue
with the pilot, if he insists on a "clearance" I give him a "clearance".

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
responses.


Like what?


If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
quick reminder that you don't do clearances.


That's the second choice I listed.

No. You posited a lengthy lecture/dissertation that tied up a busy
comm channel. Naturally, you were trying to post a patently absurd
choice, to make your other option look good. Logical fallacy. Bad
rhetoric. No biscuit.



In any case, "November 1234, come on down" would avoid giving
a clearance where one cannot, but would establish communications
authorizing entry. Yeah, it's probably not in the official
phrasebook, but it doesn't say things it shouldn't.


"Come on down"? That may be in the official "Price is Right" phrasebook, it
doesn't mean anything in ATC.

....neither does "cleared into the Class C airspace", and it has the
benefit of not conveying formal meaning it shouldn't, unlike a
clearance.

If you were to "clear" someone into Class C airspace, what
sort of clearance would you give? Please be explicit, and
explain how it would be a valid clearance.

Waco 9876Z calls approach: "Podunk approach, Waco 9876Z 15 west, request
clearance through Class C airspace". ATC responds; "Waco 9876Z, squawk
0340, cleared through Podunk Class C airspace, Podunk altimeter 29.96."

Yes, I know, there are no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C
airspace. Nobody knows that better than I do. But I'm not going to argue
with the pilot, if he insists on a "clearance" I give him a "clearance".

You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance. Podunk
approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z can't figure
out what to do, he can ask. He might even learn something. Just issuing
a bogus clearance only perpetuates that ignorance.

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
...

No. You posited a lengthy lecture/dissertation that tied up a busy
comm channel.


Right. It was actually the first choice I listed. My mistake.



...neither does "cleared into the Class C airspace", and it has the
benefit of not conveying formal meaning it shouldn't, unlike a
clearance.


Sure it does. To a pilot who mistakenly believes he needs a clearance to
enter US Class C airspace it means he can enter the Class C airspace. "Come
on down" means nothing.



You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance.


No, Michael, I didn't explain how this is a valid clearance. That was
because it isn't a valid clearance. What part of; "Yes, I know, there are
no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C airspace. Nobody knows that
better than I do. But I'm not going to argue with the pilot, if he insists
on a 'clearance' I give him a 'clearance.', did you not understand?



Podunk
approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z
can't figure out what to do, he can ask.


And that's what he'll do, ask questions on an already congested frequency.
The reason for simply "clearing" him into Class C airspace was to avoid
adding to the congestion on the frequency.



He might even learn
something. Just issuing a bogus clearance only perpetuates that
ignorance.


Well, you're certainly the expert on perpetuating ignorance.

Howdy!

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

[snip]

...neither does "cleared into the Class C airspace", and it has the
benefit of not conveying formal meaning it shouldn't, unlike a
clearance.

Sure it does. To a pilot who mistakenly believes he needs a clearance to
enter US Class C airspace it means he can enter the Class C airspace. "Come
on down" means nothing.

"N1234, Come on down." satisfies the requirements for establishing two-way
radio communication that authorize entry into Class C airspace. So does
"N1234, cleared into the Class C airspace", but it [come on down] has the
advantage that it is not issuing a "clearance" where one is neither required
nor appropriate.

Since the controller is supposed to be the expert on how to do things, it is
incumbent on the controller to avoid giving out bogus clearances. Pilots are
more likely to be unclear on what they are to do, but that does not excuse
a controller doing so.


You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance.

No, Michael, I didn't explain how this is a valid clearance. That was
because it isn't a valid clearance. What part of; "Yes, I know, there are
no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C airspace. Nobody knows that
better than I do. But I'm not going to argue with the pilot, if he insists
on a 'clearance' I give him a 'clearance.', did you not understand?

OK. I think you are quite clear. You place a higher priority on granting an
invalid request with an invalid clearance rather than operate within the
(in this case) clear direction in FAAO 7110.65. You display a disturbing
attitude toward doing a professional job as a controller.



Podunk
approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z
can't figure out what to do, he can ask.


And that's what he'll do, ask questions on an already congested frequency.
The reason for simply "clearing" him into Class C airspace was to avoid
adding to the congestion on the frequency.

Tell him to stay clear, if it's that bad. You have no obligation to even
reply to the call, let alone give a bogus reply to a bogus request.

[snip semantic null]

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/

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

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Baloney.

The original poster said nothing about asking to be "cleared" into/
through the Class C. He was just looking for flight following.


Follow the thread, I wasn't referring to the original poster. Pilots DO
request clearance through Class C airspace.

But they do not have to be given anything thing that sounds like a clearance
to have the authorization to enter it.




...so responding to incorrect phraseology with more incorrect
phraseology is how you would handle this?


Let's see; I could say that I cannot issue a clearance through Class C
airspace, or I could provide a rather lengthy dissertation on Class C
procedures while ignoring other traffic, or I could just grant the request
for clearance. Which do you think is best?




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