when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Neither. You present a false dilemma, ignoring several better
responses.


Like what?


If it's quiet, the controller could possibly give a friendly
quick reminder that you don't do clearances.


That's the second choice I listed.

No. You posited a lengthy lecture/dissertation that tied up a busy
comm channel. Naturally, you were trying to post a patently absurd
choice, to make your other option look good. Logical fallacy. Bad
rhetoric. No biscuit.



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.


"Come on down"? That may be in the official "Price is Right" phrasebook, it
doesn't mean anything in ATC.

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

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.

Waco 9876Z calls approach: "Podunk approach, Waco 9876Z 15 west, request
clearance through Class C airspace". ATC responds; "Waco 9876Z, squawk
0340, cleared through Podunk Class C airspace, Podunk altimeter 29.96."

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".

You don't bother explaining how this is a valid clearance. Podunk
approach only needs to say "Waco 9876Z, roger." If Waco 9876Z can't figure
out what to do, he can ask. He might even learn something. Just issuing
a bogus clearance only perpetuates that ignorance.

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:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand.

Why not?

keep reading...

Two-way radio communication is established by the controller's
use of the aircraft's N-number (for whatever value of "N" obtains).
That establishment authorized entry into the Class C airspace per
91.130.c.1. If the controller includes the instruction "remain clear"
in the communication, then the pilot has been given a specific instruction
to follow. Absent that instruction, the two-way communication authorizes
entry into the Class C.

That's correct, and since the controller in this case included an
instruction to "remain clear" the aircraft is not authorized to enter Class
C airspace.

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

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.


Under your interpretation, there would be no way to enter the
airspace once a "remain clear" instruction was given, since there is no
specific phrasing or instruction express or implied that would
affirmatively authorize entry.
That is nonsensical.


Let's see, you say specific phrasing is needed to override an instruction to
remain clear, no such specific phrase exists, so therefore aircraft cannot
be instructed to remain clear. Is that about right? So why, then, does the

Not close. I say there is no way to *permit* an aircraft to enter once
told to remain clear, under your interpretation. If specific phrasing were
needed, one would expect to find it addressed in the controllers handbook.
Pray give the relevant citation that provides this guidance to controllers.
After all, they are expected to be conversant with this kind of stuff.

AIM say that aircraft can be instructed to remain clear?

One communication said "remain clear". A subsequent communication
did not. That second communication offered no instructions preventing
the pilot from entering per 91.123.c.1. Thus, the entry was in
accordance with the FARs.

So you're saying that ATC instructions given in one transmission are
cancelled in subsequent instructions unless they are restated. Do you have
a reference for that?

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.

No. You have not. You have mentioned a FAR clause that doesn't
speak to the question.

Right. The FAR about ATC instructions that doesn't speak to the question
before us, which is "when does a 'remain clear' instruction end?"

Perzackly. I'm still waiting for you.

You have not offered anything that clearly
supports your claim.

I've offered portions of the FARs, the AIM, and FAA Order 7110.65. If those
documents don't pertain to this issue no document does.

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

91.123 applies broadly.

I thought you said it didn't apply at all?

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

[snip have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife non-question]

However, "November 1234, where ya goin?" contains no ATC
instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication.

Correct. What's your point?

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


I believe the AIM clearly articulates that using the N-number is the
secret handshake that formally established two-way radio
communication. 91.130 is (quite reasonably) silent on that point.


The AIM also clearly articulates that if workload or traffic conditions
prevent immediate provision of Class C services, the controller can instruct
the pilot to remain outside the Class C airspace.

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

....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.

No. I never said that. I repeat: each communication with the N-number
constitutes two-way radio communication that authorized entry unless it
includes explicit instruction to the contrary.

That's ridiculous. What led you to that absurd conclusion?

It's not absurd. 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? FAR
91.130(c)1 simply requires the establishment of two-way radio communications.

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 alternative is to
require ATC to explicitly and formally authorized entry (they can't
"clear" you - it isn't a "clearance"). What is the approved phraseology
for doing that? I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware of any such.


Well, as it happens, I am an expert. Review my previous statements on this
matter for the answer.

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...

[snip further asertion of violation followed by "I know you are but what am I"]

I've read the thread. I have not see supporting documentation.


Those statements are mutually exclusive. The documentation is there, if you
didn't see it you didn't read the entire thread.

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

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 k.net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

My bad. Your postulate was invalid. "November 1234, radar contact."
is not an instruction. It does, however, "establish two-way radio
communication" which authorizes entry into Class C airspace.


Negative. Communications are established only once per flight, that was
done with the first communications exchange.

How do you arrive at the interpretation? Please cite specific documents
that support your definition.

Entry into Class C airspace does not require affirmative instructions,
unlike Class B airspace which requires an affirmative clearance.
If ATC wants you to remain clear, they have to keep saying so if they
are going to communicate using your tail number.

No. ATC only has to issue any given instruction once. It remains in effect
until overridden by another instruction or the original request is dropped.

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


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:

"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/

Hi Steven,

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.

You wrote:
For the third or fourth time now, the controller would have to issue an
instruction that permitted or required entry into Class C airspace.
Examples are, "proceed on course", "fly heading XXX, vector for sequencing",
enter right base for runway XX", etc.

I'm not sure where you got this list.
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? 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?

Thank-you!
Arden

Howdy!

In article ,
Arden Prinz wrote:
Hi Steven,

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.

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. The second exchange did not instruct the pilot to
remain clear. Steve has insisted the contrary, 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.

You wrote:
For the third or fourth time now, the controller would have to issue an
instruction that permitted or required entry into Class C airspace.
Examples are, "proceed on course", "fly heading XXX, vector for sequencing",
enter right base for runway XX", etc.

I'm not sure where you got this list.
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? 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?

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.

At least, I can find no such reference in 7110.65P, the version that
took effect February 19, 2004.

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/

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

When did the pilot drop his request?


From an ATC perspective, when he did not respond to the controller's
transmissions.



The pilot said nothing cancelling his request.


No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller
conclude?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

When did the pilot drop his request?



From an ATC perspective, when he did not respond to the controller's
transmissions.



The pilot said nothing cancelling his request.



No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller
conclude?


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. 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."

The pilot said nothing cancelling his request.


No, but when the pilot does not respond what else can the controller
conclude?


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?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

How, pray tell, does one do that?


By deciding to go around Class C airspace instead of through and leaving the
approach frequency.



What is the correct phraseology?


The correct phraseology for not responding to a call from ATC is:



Please cite chapter and verse.


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 1. Introduction

Section 1. General

1-1-1. PURPOSE

This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology
for use by persons providing air traffic control services. Controllers are
required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to
their operational responsibilities and to exercise their best judgment if
they encounter situations that are not covered by it.