when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

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/

"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.

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?

"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.

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)

"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?

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."

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)

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/

"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.