when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

"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/

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

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


We've been over this already. The instruction to remain clear was in the
first exchange.



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.


Were you trying to make a point?



Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
told to remain clear, under your interpretation.


Why not?



If specific phrasing were needed, one would expect to find it
addressed in the controllers handbook.


Why would one expect that? Are all possible phrases which can be used in
ATC addressed in the controller's handbook?



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.


Your contention is illogical, I have provided specific references from the
FARs, the AIM, and FAAO 7110.65.



Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.


Are you playing some kind of game here or are you really that stupid?



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.


There is no chapter and verse that says an aircraft instructed to remain
clear of Class C airspace must remain clear until it receives an instruction
that permits it to enter Class C airspace. That is understood simply
because it can be no other way.



In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.


Ya think? What materials, specifically, rebut me. Cite chapter and verse.



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


Please explain why it is not relevant to the specific question.



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


None of it. What's your point with regard to the matter under discussion?



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


Well, if you didn't, someone else is using your system.

At 15:54:28 PST on 2004-02-20 the following message was posted by Michael
Houghton ):




Howdy!

In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Take a good look in the mirror, Steve.


For what?

You cleverly omitted the context for that remark. You said:

Actually, the issue is cut and dried. From the direction this thread's
taken it's clear that some pilots have a poor understanding of regulations
and procedures with regard to Class C airspace.

Since you didn't get it the first time, let me be blunt:

I place you at the head of the class you describe -- pilots with a
poor understanding of FAR 91.130. I'm not a pilot. I'm a pilot
wannabe without the time or spare money to do anything about it.
I can read the FARs, apparently better than you.

You're absolutely right. The pilot in the original message had satisfied
the conditions required for entry into Class C airspace. No violation
of ATC instruction occurred.


The pilot in the original message was issued the instruction "after
departure remain clear of the class C airspace" by ATC. After departure he
proceeded to enter Class C airspace. Please explain how the pilot did not
violate that instruction and FAR 91.123(b).

As I've said a number of times, FAR 91.130.c.1 authorizes entry upon
the establishment of two-way radio communication. In the case at hand,
the pilot did not enter Class C airspace until he had received
communication from ATC that included his tail number and that did NOT
include an instruction to "remain clear". Thus 91.130.c.1 was satisfied,
and 91.123(b) was not violated.

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/




...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.


Where did you get the idea that ATC instructions are cancelled if not
restated in subsequent unrelated communications? Please cite chapter and
verse.



It's not absurd.


It is absurd and you haven't answered the question.



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?


Via radio, in the form of an instruction that permits entry. I've stated
that several times in this thread.



FAR 91.130(c)1 simply requires the establishment of two-way
radio communications.


And FAR 91.123(b) says no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC
instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised, except in
an emergency. So if you establish two-way radio communications but are
instructed to remain outside Class C airspace you must remain outside Class
C airspace until told otherwise. That is a very simple concept, yet it
seems beyond your ability to understand. What is your education level? How
old are you?



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 mechanism is an instruction to the contrary. What else could it be?



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...


You've provided nothing that supports your illogical assertion that an
instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace is cancelled by subsequent
unrelated communications.



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


Why do you believe the illogical position unsupported by specific citations
holds sway over the logical position unsupported by specific citations?

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

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

We've been over this already. The instruction to remain clear was in the
first exchange.

OK. And the second exchange fully satisfied the terms as laid out in
7110.65. The controller responded to a radio call using the caller's
aircraft number. That plainly, according to the direction given controllers,
permitted entry into the Class C airspace.

Why does the general "follow all instructions" FAR clause supercede a more
specific clause as pertains to entering Class C airspace?


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.

Were you trying to make a point?

Yes. One which you seem incapable of grasping, given the manifold
ways it has been presented to you.



Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
told to remain clear, under your interpretation.


Why not?



If specific phrasing were needed, one would expect to find it
addressed in the controllers handbook.


Why would one expect that? Are all possible phrases which can be used in
ATC addressed in the controller's handbook?

One finds phraseology sections throughout the controller's handbook. They
offer specimen phrasing. Not having read it completely, it may, at times,
prescribe specific phraseology for certain tasks.

In the case of explictly *permitting* entry into class C, there is no
phraseology offered that contains an instruction to enter. There is an
example of how to instruct an aircraft to remain clear. You assert that
certain conditions require affirmative instruction to enter. Where, in
the controller's handbook, is that claim supported?



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.


Your contention is illogical, I have provided specific references from the
FARs, the AIM, and FAAO 7110.65.

No, you have not provided citations. I can amend my assertion based on
actually looking at the controller's handbook. The "remain clear" instruction
has no force after a subsequent call from the aircraft and response from the
controller that includes the calling aircraft's tail number. That's a plain
reading of 7-8-4 (if I remember the reference correctly). That paragraph
does clearly state that the controller must specifically instruct the caller
to remain clear, if they use the tail number in their response.


Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.

Are you playing some kind of game here or are you really that stupid?

You might ask yourself that same question. I'm simply calling you on your
fallacious claims.



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.


There is no chapter and verse that says an aircraft instructed to remain
clear of Class C airspace must remain clear until it receives an instruction
that permits it to enter Class C airspace. That is understood simply
because it can be no other way.

You keep saying that. Repetition does not make it so. Reread the
controller's handbook carefully, paying close attention to how one
handles Class C airspace.

In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.

Ya think? What materials, specifically, rebut me. Cite chapter and verse.

---begin citation http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html#7-8-4
FAA Order 7110.65P
Chapter 7. Visual
Section 8. Class C Service- Terminal
7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS

(1) Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio
communications before entering Class C airspace.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.

---end citation http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html#7-8-4

I've taken the liberty of numbering the sentences for clear reference.
Let's consider what it says.

Sentence (1) recites the requirement given in FAR 91.130(c)1 of the
precondition for entry.

Sentence (2) gives a condition ("if the controll responds...with...")
and a consequence of satisfying that condition (communication established
(definition) and entry authorized (action permitted)).

Sentence (3) provides a way for the controller to tell the pilot to
keep out.

Finally, the PHRASEOLOGY annotation "denotes the prescribed words and/or
phrases to be used in communications." (7110.65P 1-2-5.g)


I've made the mistake of assuming that you were a reasoning and
reasonable person, but you persist in asserting conditions that are
clearly not supported by the document that "... prescribes air traffic
control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing air
traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with
the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational
responsibilities..." (7110.65P Foreward [over signatore of David B.
Johnson, Director of Air Traffic])

If I've missed the section that says otherwise, please cite it specifically.
I don't claim to be omniscient.

[snip semantic null non-response]

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/