![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
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 |