when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

...and once again with "November 1234, radar contact..." Where, in that
"radar contact" communication, does the controller say "remain clear..."?


Nowhere. Where in that "radar contact" communication does the controller
say anything that overrides the instruction to "remain clear of Class
Charlie"?



If N1234 was to remain clear, the controller needed to say so.


The controller DID say so, what do you think "November 1234 remain clear of
Class Charlie" means?



If the "remain clear" instruction was to remain in place, what
approved phraseology would the controller then use to remove
the restriction?


Where do you people get this idea that ATC instructions last only until the
next exchange of communications, whatever that exchange may be?

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.



You keep insinuating that there must be some magic phrase, but
you don't tell us what it is.


I never said or implied that there was any specific "magic phrase".



And what would that instruction be, if "November 1234, radar contact..."
were not sufficient (as clearly laid out in the AIM)? Pray enlighten us.


Where does the AIM say that "radar contact" allows an aircraft to enter
Class C airspace that had established radio communications and been
instructed to remain outside of it? Pray, enlighten me.

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

...such as "November 1234, radar contact..."


An instruction is an authoritative direction to be obeyed. What part of
"November 1234, radar contact..." do you consider to be an instruction?

"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.



...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?

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially
considering the guidance the AIM offers)?

FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
maintain those communications while within that airspace.


Here's the plain text of an applicable FAR, what do you infer from it?


FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.



I also note that it never speaks of "clearance", but "ATC authorization".


Correct.



Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
Class C airspace.


Also correct, if you had read the thread from the beginning you'd know there
was an explicit "remain clear" in this case.



Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
just waving your hands furiously?


I have provided applicable documentation.



Pray tell which FARs you are reading that say what you seem to think
they say?


FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.



The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
two-way radio communication".


If the FAR isn't clear enough, the AIM certainly is.



No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
communication. See my excerpt above.


Are you saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft to remain outside of
Class C airspace?



No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.


In this case the communication did include "remain clear".



Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
permitting entry into the airspace.


Are you saying ATC instructions are valid only until the next communications
exchange? What do you base that on?



[snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
unsupportable position by Steve]


If you had read the entire thread you'd have seen I did provide supporting
documentation.

Ignore Steve, he's on a jihad... He is only looking for someone to
browbeat...

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Take a good look in the mirror, Steve.


For what?



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).

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

How do you infer that from the plain text of the FARs (especially
considering the guidance the AIM offers)?

FAR 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace.

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class C
airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications
requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case
of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air
traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter
maintain those communications while within that airspace.


Here's the plain text of an applicable FAR, what do you infer from it?


FAR 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand. 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.

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.

[snip]

Unless a two-way radio communication with the ATC facility includes an
explicit "remain clear", that communication authorizes entry into the
Class C airspace.


Also correct, if you had read the thread from the beginning you'd know there
was an explicit "remain clear" in this case.

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.

Do you have an authoritative statement that shows otherwise? Or are you
just waving your hands furiously?

I have provided applicable documentation.

No. You have not. You have mentioned a FAR clause that doesn't speak to the
question. You have not offered anything that clearly supports your claim.

91.123 applies broadly. In the context of 91.130, it provides a way for a
controller to establish two-way radio communication without allowing an
airplane into the Class C airspace. However, "November 1234, where ya goin?"
contains no ATC instructions, but does establish two-way radio communication.

[snip]

The only thing the 91.130 is at all vague about (and it may well be
defined elsewhere -- I didn't look) is what consitutes "establishes
two-way radio communication".

If the FAR isn't clear enough, the AIM certainly is.

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.


No. FARs 91.130 make no reference to a specific instruction (such as
a clearance). It merely requires the establishment of two-way radio
communication. See my excerpt above.


Are you saying that ATC cannot instruct an aircraft to remain outside of
Class C airspace?

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. 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.

No, he's not. If a communication includes "remain clear", then you don't
enter. If it doesn't include that magic phrase, you are permitted to enter
the airspace. Period. Stop. End of story.

In this case the communication did include "remain clear".

Not the one that was the basis for heading in...


Because failure to repeat the instruction would create the condition
permitting entry into the airspace.


Are you saying ATC instructions are valid only until the next communications
exchange? What do you base that on?

I'm saying that the "remain clear" instruction only lasts until the next
communication that does not also include a "remain clear". I'm not
generalizing to other instructions -- strictly the "remain clear" one.

[snip remainder of "I know you are but what am I" mindless repetition of
unsupportable position by Steve]

If you had read the entire thread you'd have seen I did provide supporting
documentation.

I've read the thread. I have not see supporting documentation. I've seen
unsupported references to some mysterious ATC phraseology that no one has
articulated. I've seen the assertion of an interpretation that would make
it impossible to ever enter a Class C once told to "remain clear". I've
seen the assertion that the controller should accept a request for
clearance into a Class C with a clearance despite the fact that there is
no such clearance.

I stand by my summary.

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
...

...and once again with "November 1234, radar contact..." Where, in that
"radar contact" communication, does the controller say "remain clear..."?


Nowhere. Where in that "radar contact" communication does the controller
say anything that overrides the instruction to "remain clear of Class
Charlie"?

Where in that "radar contact" communication is an instruction to "remain clear"?
No instruction means authorization to enter.

If N1234 was to remain clear, the controller needed to say so.


The controller DID say so, what do you think "November 1234 remain clear of
Class Charlie" means?

The pilot in question did remain clear until authorized by a subsequent
communication that did not instruct him to remain clear.

If the "remain clear" instruction was to remain in place, what
approved phraseology would the controller then use to remove
the restriction?

Where do you people get this idea that ATC instructions last only until the
next exchange of communications, whatever that exchange may be?

Because, in the case of entering Class C or Class D airspace, the "remain
clear" instruction is not very durable in the face of continuing two-way
radio communication. If ATC wants the airplane to stay out, they can either
refuse to communicate or issue the instruction to "remain clear". Failing
that, they authorize entry. Where do you get the idea that "remain clear"
persists so?

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.

"November 1234, radar contact" also suffices.

You keep insinuating that there must be some magic phrase, but
you don't tell us what it is.


I never said or implied that there was any specific "magic phrase".

You keep insting that "remain clear" continues in force despite subsequent
two-way radio communication, yet you offer no documentary support for
that claim.

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.

And what would that instruction be, if "November 1234, radar contact..."
were not sufficient (as clearly laid out in the AIM)? Pray enlighten us.

Where does the AIM say that "radar contact" allows an aircraft to enter
Class C airspace that had established radio communications and been
instructed to remain outside of it? Pray, enlighten me.

It's not the "radar contact" part, it's the "November 1234" part, in the
absence of specific instructions in the communication.

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
...

...such as "November 1234, radar contact..."


An instruction is an authoritative direction to be obeyed. What part of
"November 1234, radar contact..." do you consider to be an instruction?

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.
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.

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
...

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.

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/