when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

No. You posited a lengthy lecture/dissertation that tied up a busy
comm channel.


Right. It was actually the first choice I listed. My mistake.



...neither does "cleared into the Class C airspace", and it has the
benefit of not conveying formal meaning it shouldn't, unlike a
clearance.


Sure it does. To a pilot who mistakenly believes he needs a clearance to
enter US Class C airspace it means he can enter the Class C airspace. "Come
on down" means nothing.



You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance.


No, Michael, I didn't explain how this is a valid clearance. That was
because it isn't a valid clearance. What part of; "Yes, I know, there are
no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C airspace. Nobody knows that
better than I do. But I'm not going to argue with the pilot, if he insists
on a 'clearance' I give him a 'clearance.', did you not understand?



Podunk
approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z
can't figure out what to do, he can ask.


And that's what he'll do, ask questions on an already congested frequency.
The reason for simply "clearing" him into Class C airspace was to avoid
adding to the congestion on the frequency.



He might even learn
something. Just issuing a bogus clearance only perpetuates that
ignorance.


Well, you're certainly the expert on perpetuating ignorance.

Howdy!

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

[snip]

...neither does "cleared into the Class C airspace", and it has the
benefit of not conveying formal meaning it shouldn't, unlike a
clearance.

Sure it does. To a pilot who mistakenly believes he needs a clearance to
enter US Class C airspace it means he can enter the Class C airspace. "Come
on down" means nothing.

"N1234, Come on down." satisfies the requirements for establishing two-way
radio communication that authorize entry into Class C airspace. So does
"N1234, cleared into the Class C airspace", but it [come on down] has the
advantage that it is not issuing a "clearance" where one is neither required
nor appropriate.

Since the controller is supposed to be the expert on how to do things, it is
incumbent on the controller to avoid giving out bogus clearances. Pilots are
more likely to be unclear on what they are to do, but that does not excuse
a controller doing so.


You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance.

No, Michael, I didn't explain how this is a valid clearance. That was
because it isn't a valid clearance. What part of; "Yes, I know, there are
no clearances for VFR aircraft through Class C airspace. Nobody knows that
better than I do. But I'm not going to argue with the pilot, if he insists
on a 'clearance' I give him a 'clearance.', did you not understand?

OK. I think you are quite clear. You place a higher priority on granting an
invalid request with an invalid clearance rather than operate within the
(in this case) clear direction in FAAO 7110.65. You display a disturbing
attitude toward doing a professional job as a controller.



Podunk
approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z
can't figure out what to do, he can ask.


And that's what he'll do, ask questions on an already congested frequency.
The reason for simply "clearing" him into Class C airspace was to avoid
adding to the congestion on the frequency.

Tell him to stay clear, if it's that bad. You have no obligation to even
reply to the call, let alone give a bogus reply to a bogus request.

[snip semantic null]

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/