when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

"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.

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
link.net...

Oh, sure I have. Authorization to enter the class C is defined by two-way
radio communication lacking instructions to remain clear. The AIM
provides the simple phrase "Cessna 1234, standby" as an example
defining two-way radio communication.


Right, but you haven't explained why the aircraft cannot be required to
remain clear of Class C airspace.



There is no FAR or AIM description that says that once
a "remain clear" has been issued that a more explicit instruction to enter
is required.


There doesn't need to be. An instruction to remain clear is understood to
remain in effect until an instruction is issued that permits entry. That is
such a simple concept, how is it you cannot grasp it?



'Cause they control the class D around my home airport.


But we're talking about Class C airspace.

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
ink.net...

It's just not that complicated.


Incredible.

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
link.net...

But they do not have to be given anything thing that sounds like
a clearance to have the authorization to enter it.


Correct, but they don't understand that.

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
link.net...

Oh, sure I have. Authorization to enter the class C is defined by
two-way
radio communication lacking instructions to remain clear. The AIM
provides the simple phrase "Cessna 1234, standby" as an example
defining two-way radio communication.


Right, but you haven't explained why the aircraft cannot be required to
remain clear of Class C airspace.



There is no FAR or AIM description that says that once
a "remain clear" has been issued that a more explicit instruction to
enter
is required.


There doesn't need to be. An instruction to remain clear is understood to
remain in effect until an instruction is issued that permits entry. That
is
such a simple concept, how is it you cannot grasp it?



'Cause they control the class D around my home airport.


But we're talking about Class C airspace.



Same requirements.
------------------------------
Travis

"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)

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/

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Oh, sure I have. Authorization to enter the class C is defined by two-way
radio communication lacking instructions to remain clear. The AIM
provides the simple phrase "Cessna 1234, standby" as an example
defining two-way radio communication.


Right, but you haven't explained why the aircraft cannot be required to
remain clear of Class C airspace.

Non sequitur. I don't believe that anyone has asserted that ATC cannot
instruct one to remain clear of Class C airspace. What you contend,
without justification, is that that instruction, once givenn, must
be explicitly and overtly overriden with some sort of instruction --
examples of which are not found in the AIM, nor in any other official
source. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.


There is no FAR or AIM description that says that once
a "remain clear" has been issued that a more explicit instruction to enter
is required.


There doesn't need to be. An instruction to remain clear is understood to
remain in effect until an instruction is issued that permits entry. That is
such a simple concept, how is it you cannot grasp it?

91.130(c)1 defines how one is authorized to enter Class C airspace. You
then insist that once a communication using the tail number is made that
includes a "remain clear" instructionn, that instruction remains in force
in the face of subsequent communications such as "N1234, standby".

I posited a scenario that fits your conditions; you asserted that entry
would be permitted in my scenario -- a clear contradiction without an
explicit acknowledgement of such. You are allowed to change your story,
but you don't get to do so silently.



'Cause they control the class D around my home airport.


But we're talking about Class C airspace.

In the matter at hand, how do Class D and Class C airspace differ?

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/