when does a "remain clear" instruction end?

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/

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

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

I happen to believe that the pilot was correct, did not need to ask for
permission and was free to enter the class C.


You've made it very clear that is what you believe, what you haven't
explained is why you believe it.

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. 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.




But, thanks to all this debate BS, I at least now know that it may
not be clear cut. The next time I talk to the controllers at my
home base, I'll ask them.


What makes you think they'd know anything about it?



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

-------------------------------
Travis

"Saryon" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:39:46 -0000, (Michael
Houghton) wrote:

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.

So your contention is that during a dialog that may span multiple
transmissions involving multiple aircraft over several minutes, every
time the controller says anything to the aircraft in question the
controller also has to say "by the way, stay out of my C"?

In theory, yes. But it doesn't happen that way. It's just not that
complicated. They are not trying to block airplanes out of the airspace,
just make sure that they know where they are and where they are going.
Typically, there is no "remain clear" or if there is, it is only for 30
seconds to a minute while they focus on something else. If they are really,
really busy, they'll ignore you from the very first radio call.

-------------------------------
Travis

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

"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.

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




...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?




-------------------------------
Travis

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...
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.

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).


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/


-------------------------------
Travis

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

That clause is not relevant to the matter at hand.


Why not?



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.



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
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?



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?"



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.



91.123 applies broadly.


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



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.


Make up your mind. Can ATC issue an instruction to remain clear of Class C
airspace or not?



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


Correct. What's your point?



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.


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?



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.



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


There was no communication that formed the basis for heading in. The pilot
screwed up.



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.


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




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.

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

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


The instruction to remain clear was in the first communications exchange,
the one that established two-way radio communications. That instruction
remains in effect until overridden by an instruction that permits entry. It
did not need to be restated when the aircraft was told "radar contact".



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


There was no subsequent communication that overrode the instruction to
remain clear.




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.


But the controller did issue the instruction to remain clear and you claim
that entry is authorized regardless. Apparently the "remain clear"
instruction is not very durable only because Michael Houghton says so. Can
you cite ANYTHING that supports your position?



Where do you get the idea that "remain clear" persists so?


You're being absurd. The guy was instructed to remain clear. An ATC
instruction is not affected by subsequent communications that are unrelated
to it. If they were ATC would have to reissue full IFR clearances every
time they issued a traffic advisory or altimeter setting.



"November 1234, radar contact" also suffices.


Because the phrase "radar contact" means "proceed on course"?



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


I offered the AIM, the FARs, FAA Order 7110.65, and simple logic. It's time
for you provide some documentary support for your position that the
instruction to remain clear is cancelled by subsequent unrelated
communications.



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?


You can go in.



I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
attempts to transit.


Right. It's a different flight, unrelated to the first.



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


How so? "November 1234" doesn't override the instruction to remain clear
any more than "radar contact" does.

"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.



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.

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

There is no such animal as a "clearance into Class C airspace".


Correct.



If a pilot requests one, he is exhibiting ignorance of proper
radio procedure.


Correct.



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.



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.



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".

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...
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?



You can go in.



I'm positing on the order of an hour or more elapsing between the two
attempts to transit.



Right. It's a different flight, unrelated to the first.

What makes it a "different flight"? He didn't land in between, just flew
around for about an hour and came back. Would flying around for half an
hour and then returning be sufficient to make it a "different flight" and
thereby cancel the effects of the 'remain clear' instruction? How about 15
minutes? Doing a 360?