![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Howdy!
In article .net, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Michael Houghton" wrote in message ... ...and once again with "November 1234, radar contact..." Where, in that "radar contact" communication, does the controller say "remain clear..."? Nowhere. Where in that "radar contact" communication does the controller say anything that overrides the instruction to "remain clear of Class Charlie"? Where in that "radar contact" communication is an instruction to "remain clear"? No instruction means authorization to enter. If N1234 was to remain clear, the controller needed to say so. The controller DID say so, what do you think "November 1234 remain clear of Class Charlie" means? The pilot in question did remain clear until authorized by a subsequent communication that did not instruct him to remain clear. If the "remain clear" instruction was to remain in place, what approved phraseology would the controller then use to remove the restriction? Where do you people get this idea that ATC instructions last only until the next exchange of communications, whatever that exchange may be? Because, in the case of entering Class C or Class D airspace, the "remain clear" instruction is not very durable in the face of continuing two-way radio communication. If ATC wants the airplane to stay out, they can either refuse to communicate or issue the instruction to "remain clear". Failing that, they authorize entry. Where do you get the idea that "remain clear" persists so? For the third or fourth time now, the controller would have to issue an instruction that permitted or required entry into Class C airspace. Examples are, "proceed on course", "fly heading XXX, vector for sequencing", enter right base for runway XX", etc. "November 1234, radar contact" also suffices. You keep insinuating that there must be some magic phrase, but you don't tell us what it is. I never said or implied that there was any specific "magic phrase". You keep insting that "remain clear" continues in force despite subsequent two-way radio communication, yet you offer no documentary support for that claim. Consider the following scenario. You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination, and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not? I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two attempts to transit. And what would that instruction be, if "November 1234, radar contact..." were not sufficient (as clearly laid out in the AIM)? Pray enlighten us. Where does the AIM say that "radar contact" allows an aircraft to enter Class C airspace that had established radio communications and been instructed to remain outside of it? Pray, enlighten me. It's not the "radar contact" part, it's the "November 1234" part, in the absence of specific instructions in the communication. 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/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael Houghton" wrote in message ... Where in that "radar contact" communication is an instruction to "remain clear"? No instruction means authorization to enter. The instruction to remain clear was in the first communications exchange, the one that established two-way radio communications. That instruction remains in effect until overridden by an instruction that permits entry. It did not need to be restated when the aircraft was told "radar contact". The pilot in question did remain clear until authorized by a subsequent communication that did not instruct him to remain clear. There was no subsequent communication that overrode the instruction to remain clear. Because, in the case of entering Class C or Class D airspace, the "remain clear" instruction is not very durable in the face of continuing two-way radio communication. If ATC wants the airplane to stay out, they can either refuse to communicate or issue the instruction to "remain clear". Failing that, they authorize entry. But the controller did issue the instruction to remain clear and you claim that entry is authorized regardless. Apparently the "remain clear" instruction is not very durable only because Michael Houghton says so. Can you cite ANYTHING that supports your position? Where do you get the idea that "remain clear" persists so? You're being absurd. The guy was instructed to remain clear. An ATC instruction is not affected by subsequent communications that are unrelated to it. If they were ATC would have to reissue full IFR clearances every time they issued a traffic advisory or altimeter setting. "November 1234, radar contact" also suffices. Because the phrase "radar contact" means "proceed on course"? You keep insting that "remain clear" continues in force despite subsequent two-way radio communication, yet you offer no documentary support for that claim. I offered the AIM, the FARs, FAA Order 7110.65, and simple logic. It's time for you provide some documentary support for your position that the instruction to remain clear is cancelled by subsequent unrelated communications. Consider the following scenario. You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination, and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not? You can go in. I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two attempts to transit. Right. It's a different flight, unrelated to the first. It's not the "radar contact" part, it's the "November 1234" part, in the absence of specific instructions in the communication. How so? "November 1234" doesn't override the instruction to remain clear any more than "radar contact" does. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Michael Houghton" wrote in message ... Consider the following scenario. You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination, and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not? You can go in. I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two attempts to transit. Right. It's a different flight, unrelated to the first. What makes it a "different flight"? He didn't land in between, just flew around for about an hour and came back. Would flying around for half an hour and then returning be sufficient to make it a "different flight" and thereby cancel the effects of the 'remain clear' instruction? How about 15 minutes? Doing a 360? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter" wrote in message news:yFAZb.365213$xy6.1918853@attbi_s02... What makes it a "different flight"? The first "flight" ended from ATC's perspective when the pilot dropped his request for Class C services. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The first "flight" ended from ATC's perspective when the pilot dropped his request for Class C services. When did the pilot drop his request? The pilot said nothing cancelling his request. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Teacherjh" wrote in message ... When did the pilot drop his request? From an ATC perspective, when he did not respond to the controller's transmissions. The pilot said nothing cancelling his request. No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller conclude? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Teacherjh" wrote in message ... When did the pilot drop his request? From an ATC perspective, when he did not respond to the controller's transmissions. The pilot said nothing cancelling his request. No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller conclude? You seem to be assuming things that were never part of the stated scenario - specifically that there were additional controller transmissions to the pilot and that the pilot did not respond to them. Here was Michael's post initiating this discussion: "Consider the following scenario. You take off outside the Class C and would like to transit it. You are instructed to remain clear. You circumnavigate it, reach your destination, and return without landing. You again approach the Class C with the desire to transit rather than go around. You call up ATC again and they reply with your tail number but no instructions. Can you go in or not? I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two attempts to transit." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() The pilot said nothing cancelling his request. No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller conclude? That's the same reasoning that leads the pilot to think "when the controller does not reiterate 'remain clear' when I establish communications again, what else can the pilot conclude? Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Howdy!
In article k.net, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Peter" wrote in message news:yFAZb.365213$xy6.1918853@attbi_s02... What makes it a "different flight"? The first "flight" ended from ATC's perspective when the pilot dropped his request for Class C services. How, pray tell, does one do that? What is the correct phraseology? Please cite chapter and verse. 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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael Houghton" wrote in message ... How, pray tell, does one do that? By deciding to go around Class C airspace instead of through and leaving the approach frequency. What is the correct phraseology? The correct phraseology for not responding to a call from ATC is: Please cite chapter and verse. FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control Chapter 1. Introduction Section 1. General 1-1-1. PURPOSE This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services. Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations that are not covered by it. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Mountain flying instruction: McCall, Idaho, Colorado too! | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | March 26th 04 11:24 PM |
Windshields - tint or clear? | Roger Long | Piloting | 7 | February 10th 04 02:41 AM |
Is a BFR instruction? | Roger Long | Piloting | 11 | December 11th 03 09:58 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |