when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

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/

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

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:


There is nothing about this issue I don't get.



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.


Oh? What part of FAR 91.130 do you think I don't understand?

So not only are you not able to provide any documentation supporting your
position, you don't even have any experience with Class C airspace. I, on
the other hand, am not only a pilot that bases his aircraft near Class C
airspace, I'm a controller that's worked Class C airspace since the day it
was established in the US. So which of us do you think might be in a bit
better position with regard to knowledge of Class C airspace?

If you ever hope to learn anything towards becoming a pilot you'll have to
change your attitude.



I can read the FARs, apparently better than you.


Well, you may read them, but you sure don't understand them.




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.


Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it it's just as wrong as
the first time you said it. Communications are established just once per
flight, with the first communications exchange, and the instruction to
remain clear is not cancelled by subsequent unrelated communications.

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

[snip]


So not only are you not able to provide any documentation supporting your
position, you don't even have any experience with Class C airspace. I, on
the other hand, am not only a pilot that bases his aircraft near Class C
airspace, I'm a controller that's worked Class C airspace since the day it
was established in the US. So which of us do you think might be in a bit
better position with regard to knowledge of Class C airspace?

I've provided better citations of documents than you have.

If you are a controller, then I presume you have access to the documents
that prescribe the phraseology you are to use, and perhaps define the terms.
Pray cite them as they support your claim.

If you can't or won't, you imply that you have no case.

[snip]

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.


Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it it's just as wrong as
the first time you said it. Communications are established just once per
flight, with the first communications exchange, and the instruction to
remain clear is not cancelled by subsequent unrelated communications.

Pray cite your source for that claim.

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
...

I've provided better citations of documents than you have.


You haven't cited any document that supports your position.



If you are a controller, then I presume you have access to the documents
that prescribe the phraseology you are to use, and perhaps define the
terms.
Pray cite them as they support your claim.

If you can't or won't, you imply that you have no case.


You're right. There is no prescribed phraseology to authorize entry to
Class C airspace once an aircraft has been instructed to remain clear.
Therefore once an aircraft has been instructed to remain outside it can
never enter that Class C airspace.

(You've demonstrated you do not understand logic, one wonders if you
understand sarcasm.)



Pray cite your source for that claim.


The definition of "established" and simple logic.

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

I've provided better citations of documents than you have.


You haven't cited any document that supports your position.

You refuse to accept a plain reading of the citations I've provided, and
you have failed to cite any prescriptive documents that support your
position.


If you are a controller, then I presume you have access to the documents
that prescribe the phraseology you are to use, and perhaps define the
terms.
Pray cite them as they support your claim.

If you can't or won't, you imply that you have no case.


You're right. There is no prescribed phraseology to authorize entry to
Class C airspace once an aircraft has been instructed to remain clear.
Therefore once an aircraft has been instructed to remain outside it can
never enter that Class C airspace.

(You've demonstrated you do not understand logic, one wonders if you
understand sarcasm.)

You do a good job of summarizing your apparent position.

Pray cite your source for that claim.

The definition of "established" and simple logic.

I didn't see a citation of definitions explaining just how the word is
meant to be construed in the context of its usage in FAR 91.130(c)1. I
did see a lengthy extract from a general dictionary of the English
language. That, however, is not prescriptive, but descriptive. The
dictionary citation lists a number of senses of meaning for the word.
Which one are they using in the FARs and 7110.65?

Quoting the dictionary meaning of a word typically amounts to willful
obfuscation, especially when the quote includes all the various senses.
It does not shed light on the question at hand. It stirs up the mud.

Unfortunately for your claims, 7110.65 is pretty clear. I've cited the
relevant paragraph; you seem to have rejected it. Sad.

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/