when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Non sequitur.


No, a non sequitur is a statement that does not follow logically from what
preceded it.



I don't believe that anyone has asserted that ATC cannot
instruct one to remain clear of Class C airspace.


You've stated that aircraft that are so instructed may enter Class C
airspace. What's the difference?



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.


Actually, I have cited the AIM, the FARs, and FAAO 7110.65. What you
contend, without justification and contrary to simple logic, is that that
instruction, once given, does not require aircraft to remain outside of
Class C airspace. You have failed to cite any authority for your assertion.



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".


That is correct.



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.


Is this what you're referring to?

"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."

In this scenario two-way radio communications are established and the
aircraft is NOT instructed to remain clear of Class C airspace. No
contradiction here.



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


That's not the point. Travis is seeking "expert advice" about Class C
airspace from controllers at a field with Class D airspace.

"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.

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Where, in "N1234, radar contact." is there a "remain clear" instruction?


We've been over this already. The instruction to remain clear was in the
first exchange.



Conversation:

N1234: Podunk, I want to go through your Class C.

Podunk: N1234, remain clear.

(N1234 toodles along remaining clear)

Podunk: N1234, what are you intentions?

(N1234 heads into Class C)


Now, I'm not specifying how much time elapses between the two
transmissions from Podunk. I'll posit that N1234 did not land
during that time.

I think this is really close to the original poster's scenario.


Were you trying to make a point?



Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
told to remain clear, under your interpretation.


Why not?



If specific phrasing were needed, one would expect to find it
addressed in the controllers handbook.


Why would one expect that? Are all possible phrases which can be used in
ATC addressed in the controller's handbook?



I say that the instruction to "remain clear" in reference to Class C (and
probably Class D as well) airspace is voided by subsequent
transmissions.
I don't have a specific reference for that, but you have no provided a
reference that specifically supports your contention.


Your contention is illogical, I have provided specific references from the
FARs, the AIM, and FAAO 7110.65.



Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.


Are you playing some kind of game here or are you really that stupid?



You have not offered citations that support your specific claim. You
refer vaguely to documents, but you don't cite chapter and verse that
support you.


There is no chapter and verse that says an aircraft instructed to remain
clear of Class C airspace must remain clear until it receives an instruction
that permits it to enter Class C airspace. That is understood simply
because it can be no other way.



In fact, some of the materials you reference rebut you.


Ya think? What materials, specifically, rebut me. Cite chapter and verse.



I said that it was not relevant to the specific question. Please read my
words with greater care and attention.


Please explain why it is not relevant to the specific question.



Which part of "establish two-way radio communication" escaped
your notice?


None of it. What's your point with regard to the matter under discussion?



Yep. I've never said otherwise, despite your persistent attempt
to insinuate the contrary.


Well, if you didn't, someone else is using your system.

At 15:54:28 PST on 2004-02-20 the following message was posted by Michael
Houghton ):




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/




...and ATC can also elect to simply not respond to a radio call..

If ATC does respond with the tail number, they establish two-way radio
communications. If they want the aircraft to remain clear, they have to
say so each time they talk.


Where did you get the idea that ATC instructions are cancelled if not
restated in subsequent unrelated communications? Please cite chapter and
verse.



It's not absurd.


It is absurd and you haven't answered the question.



If it doesn't work the way I claim, then how does one get
authorization to enter once a remain clear instruction has been given?


Via radio, in the form of an instruction that permits entry. I've stated
that several times in this thread.



FAR 91.130(c)1 simply requires the establishment of two-way
radio communications.


And FAR 91.123(b) says no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC
instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised, except in
an emergency. So if you establish two-way radio communications but are
instructed to remain outside Class C airspace you must remain outside Class
C airspace until told otherwise. That is a very simple concept, yet it
seems beyond your ability to understand. What is your education level? How
old are you?



There is no hint of the mechanism by which one would be released from a
"remain clear" instruction if it survived subsequent two-way radio
communications.


The mechanism is an instruction to the contrary. What else could it be?



Pray back you expertise with specific citations (not broad references to
whole documents). I've bothered to cite what appears to be the relevant
clause of the relevant FAR section...


You've provided nothing that supports your illogical assertion that an
instruction to remain clear of Class C airspace is cancelled by subsequent
unrelated communications.



I saw hand-waving and unsupported assertions. I didn't see
specific citations of supporting documentation that spoke clearly
to the matter at hand.


Why do you believe the illogical position unsupported by specific citations
holds sway over the logical position unsupported by specific citations?

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

How do you arrive at the interpretation?


Because that's what "established" means, of course.



Please cite specific documents that support your definition.


I cite the dictionary.


es·tab·lish
tr.v. es·tab·lished, es·tab·lish·ing, es·tab·lish·es

1.
a. To set up; found.
b. To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.

2.
a. To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They
established me in my own business.
b. To make firm or secure.

3. To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established
his reputation.

4. To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.

5. To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established
the innocence of the accused.

6. To make a state institution of (a church).

Synonyms: found, create, institute, organize. These verbs mean to bring
something into existence and set it in operation: founded a colony; created
a trust fund; establishing a business; instituted an annual benefit concert;
organizing a field trip.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

established

Establish \Es*tab"lish\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Established; p. pr. & vb. n.
Establishing.] [OE. establissen, OF. establir, F. ['e]tablir, fr. L.
stabilire, fr. stabilis firm, steady, stable. See Stable, a., -ish, and cf.
Stablish.] 1. To make stable or firm; to fix immovably or firmly; to set (a
thing) in a place and make it stable there; to settle; to confirm.

So were the churches established in the faith. --Acts xvi. 5.

The best established tempers can scarcely forbear being borne down. --Burke.

Confidence which must precede union could be established only by consummate
prudence and self-control. --Bancroft.

2. To appoint or constitute for permanence, as officers, laws, regulations,
etc.; to enact; to ordain.

By the consent of all, we were established The people's magistrates. --Shak.

Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not
changed. --Dan. vi. 8.

3. To originate and secure the permanent existence of; to found; to
institute; to create and regulate; -- said of a colony, a state, or other
institutions.

He hath established it [the earth], he created it not in vain, he formed it
to be inhabited. --Is. xlv. 18.

Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and establisheth a city by
iniquity! --Hab. ii. 12.

4. To secure public recognition in favor of; to prove and cause to be
accepted as true; as, to establish a fact, usage, principle, opinion,
doctrine, etc.

At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the
matter be established. --Deut. xix. 15.

5. To set up in business; to place advantageously in a fixed condition; --
used reflexively; as, he established himself in a place; the enemy
established themselves in the citadel.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

established

adj 1: brought about or set up or accepted; especially long established;
"the established social order"; "distrust of established authority"; "a team
established as a member of a major league"; "enjoyed his prestige as an
established writer"; "an established precedent"; "the established Church"
[ant: unestablished] 2: securely established; "an established reputation";
"holds a firm position as the country's leading poet" [syn: firm] 3: settled
securely and unconditionally; "that smoking causes health problems is an
accomplished fact" [syn: accomplished, effected] 4: conforming with accepted
standards; "a conventional view of the world" [syn: conventional] 5: shown
to be valid beyond a reasonable doubt; "the established facts in the case"
6: introduced from another region and persisting without cultivation [syn:
naturalized]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University



Oh? Consider this exchange:

N1234: Podunk center, N1234.

Podunk: N1234, go ahead.


Assuming that Podunk center controls a Class C airspace, that exchange
authorizes N1234 to enter. No request. Just communications.


No Center controls Class C airspace in the US.



Suppose Podunk had included a "remain clear of the Class C"
instruction. How would N1234 "drop the original request"?


By saying something like, "never mind, Podunk, we'll just go around", or
just leaving the frequency and going around.

"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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Suppose Podunk had included a "remain clear of the Class C"
instruction. How would N1234 "drop the original request"?

By saying something like, "never mind, Podunk, we'll just go around", or
just leaving the frequency and going around.

Sounds just like what Arden (the original poster) did; after his initial
contact with ATC and being told to stay clear he stopped transmitting (left
the frequency), took off, and flew a course that avoided entering the Class
C. "So after I took of, I started flying a route taking me around the
class C area that extended to the surface."

So by your words, we can assume the original request had then been dropped.
Later he said that "Well, the controller then called me by my tail number
and asked some questions ..." So a new communication was established which
therefore implicitly allows entrance to the Class C according to
the regulations that you and others have cited.

"Arden Prinz" wrote in message
om...

You've indicated that a "remain clear" stays in effect until ATC
issues a subsequent communication that permits or requires entry into
the class C airspace. This sounds reasonable. The real question is
knowing what communications permit or require entry into the class C
airspace and which ones do not so that when I'm in the air and hear a
communication I can know whether that communication suffices.


Any instruction where compliance permits or requires entry to the Class C
airspace.



I'm not sure where you got this list.


I wrote it.



Does "proceed on course" always permit entry, or does it depend upon
the relative positions of the airplane, class C airspace, and route of
flight?


If the controller knows your desired course and your desired course transits
Class C airspace and he tells you to "proceed on course" then "proceed on
course" permits entry. If the controller doesn't know your desired course
and he tells you to "proceed on course" then "proceed on course" permits
entry.



For example, if I'm headed away from the class C airspace
toward an intermediate waypoint and I hear the "proceed on course",
can I then go through the class C?


If a controller isn't aware of your course but still tells you to "proceed
on course" it means he has determined you can safely enter Class C airspace
on any course. But why would you go out of your way to enter Class C
airspace?

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

The ATC handbook (7110.65) includes:

7-8-4. ESTABLISHING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS

Class C service requires pilots to establish two-way radio
communications before entering Class C airspace. If the controller
responds to a radio call with, "(a/c call sign) standby," radio
communications have been established and the pilot can enter Class C
airspace. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision
of Class C services, inform the pilot to remain outside Class C
airspace until conditions permit the services to be provided.

Thus, the sequence:

N1234: Podunk tower, N1234...rest of stuff in initial callup
Podunk: N1234, remain outside Charlie airspace and standby.
N1234: Podunk tower, N1234.
Podunk: N1234, standby.

authorized entry.


What led you to believe the phrase "Stand by" means "authorization to enter
Class C airspace is now granted"?



The second exchange did not instruct the pilot to
remain clear.


The second exchange included no instruction at all, the instruction to
remain outside Class C airspace was not altered in any way.



Steve has insisted the contrary,


Sure, that's just simple logic.



and even claimed to
be a controller working Class C airspace, and claimed to reference
7110.65. I quote what I found on the FAA website. Steve has declined
to rebut with actual citations. His sudden silence on this matter
would seem to be a concession that perhaps he misspoke.


Nope, Steve didn't misspeak. Steve is exactly correct.



7110.65, the order prescribing air traffic control procedures and
phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services,
offers no special phraseology for the (hypothetical) instruction Steve
insists must be given.


There are many things that FAAO 7110.65 does not say. For example, it does
not say that "stand by" or "radar contact" authorizes entry for an aircraft
that had previously been instructed to remain outside Class C airspace. Nor
does it say that not repeating the instruction to remain outside in every
subsequent exchange authorizes entry. Why do you suppose that is?

"Peter" wrote in message
news:Ras%b.127906$jk2.539687@attbi_s53...

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.


I just assume a real-world scenario, what else can I do?



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."


Right. The aircraft was instructed to remain clear. That's done when
workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate provision of Class C
services. If the controller didn't anticipate being able to provide those
services in a short time he wouldn't have established communications.

So a short time later the controller will call the aircraft again. If the
airplane responds, he will get the desired services.

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

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?


When you establish communications again? Communications are established
just once for any arrival or through flight, thereafter those communications
are maintained.