"Cleared into the Class Bravo"

Henning said:
See, this is where ATC and CFIs need to get this worked out. If they are going to relate a situation of implied Bravo Clearance, they need to spell that out in clear and specific language of when that occurs, because right now the rule that everyone is taught from day one is "Never without a clearance"

Now if you were operating as number four in a flight of ten, that is a specified exemption from a personal clearance since flight lead hands coordination for the whole flight of 10.

If this was just a fly in type situation where people were coming in on their own. I would assume that everyone requires an individual clearance before entering.
Click to expand...

Henning pretty well sums up my thought on it.
 
Ectually since he used the word 'everyone' that is explicit(all members of a set, those hearing the transmission). So, qualified use accepted under the rules of class B.

Had he used the word 'anyone' that would be implicit(depending on the adverb of course).
 
docmirror said:
Ectually since he used the word 'everyone' that is explicit(all members of a set, those hearing the transmission). So, qualified use accepted under the rules of class B.

Had he used the word 'anyone' that would be implicit(depending on the adverb of course).
Click to expand...

Except he said everyone I am talking TO.

If I am talking to my friends, and say, hey why don't all of you come over for a BBQ Saturday, and you overhear the conversation, I am not talking to you. You are not invited. Just as the controller had back and forth with certain tail numbers, he was talking to them, not everyone who may have been listening on the frequency.
 
docmirror said:
Ectually since he used the word 'everyone' that is explicit(all members of a set, those hearing the transmission). So, qualified use accepted under the rules of class B.

Had he used the word 'anyone' that would be implicit(depending on the adverb of course).
Click to expand...

:loco: :smilewinkgrin: :incazzato:




:D
 
EdFred said:
Except he said everyone I am talking TO.

If I am talking to my friends, and you overhear the conversation, I am not talking to you. Just as the controller had back and forth with certain tail numbers, he was talking to them, not everyone on the frequency.
Click to expand...

Nope, just because he used poor grammar by dangling the participle does not invalidate that those he was talking to were explicitly those tuned to that freq at that time. Still a closed set, although I see your point in that even planes which were not part of the intended set(not going to this shindig) would be granted access by dint of their being on freq. But - that's ok, because the set is still closed, unlike the word 'anyone'.

So, in your example, if you are telling 5 friends that you can't see personally 'go ahead and use my Ferrari anytime', and I can hear your voice, I am a member of the set of those who are allowed to use your Ferrari anytime. Unless of course you explicitly exclude me from the set by saying 'not you doc' or some such.
 
docmirror said:
Nope, just because he used poor grammar by dangling the participle does not invalidate that those he was talking to were explicitly those tuned to that freq at that time. Still a closed set, although I see your point in that even planes which were not part of the intended set(not going to this shindig) would be granted access by dint of their being on freq. But - that's ok, because the set is still closed, unlike the word 'anyone'.

So, in your example, if you are telling 5 friends that you can't see personally 'go ahead and use my Ferrari anytime', and I can hear your voice, I am a member of the set of those who are allowed to use your Ferrari anytime. Unless of course you explicitly exclude me from the set by saying 'not you doc' or some such.
Click to expand...

Disagree. If I have my back to you, (haven't acknowledged you yet/no radio communication) and I tell the group of people I am facing "Hey all of you come check out my Ferrari" you are are not in that group. If I say, "all who can hear me" you are in that group. He did not say everyone who can hear me, he said everyone I am talking to.
 
docmirror said:
Nope, just because he used poor grammar by dangling the participle does not invalidate that those he was talking to were explicitly those tuned to that freq at that time. Still a closed set, although I see your point in that even planes which were not part of the intended set(not going to this shindig) would be granted access by dint of their being on freq. But - that's ok, because the set is still closed, unlike the word 'anyone'.

So, in your example, if you are telling 5 friends that you can't see personally 'go ahead and use my Ferrari anytime', and I can hear your voice, I am a member of the set of those who are allowed to use your Ferrari anytime. Unless of course you explicitly exclude me from the set by saying 'not you doc' or some such.
Click to expand...

However, that statement of "Everyone I'm talking to" doesn't meet the requirements in the regs as written for Class B. If one is complying with the rules, they are not really talking to THEM if they have not been identified specifically by flight or tail number.

It's poor form.
 
EdFred said:
Disagree. If I have my back to you, (haven't acknowledged you yet/no radio communication) and I tell the group of people I am facing "Hey all of you come check out my Ferrari" you are are not in that group. If I say, "all who can hear me" you are in that group. He did not say everyone who can hear me, he said everyone I am talking to.
Click to expand...

You're now modifying the test case to fit your POV.

Make up any shilt you like. :wink2: I teach logic and used to teach college English. This one is easy, you should see some of the tortured stuff I give in class.
 
EdFred said:
Except he said everyone I am talking TO..
Click to expand...

But doesn't that imply that he was talking TO them as opposed to talking WITH them? Talking TO someone does not necessarily mean the person talking was also listening....Or that the person being talked TO was actually listening? :dunno:

A response from the listener would confirm that the listener had heard and understood the talker.

Sorta like a lecture as opposed to a discussion.

Reminds me of some of my Political Science courses in college. :D

Or when my Dad would talk TO me.

:goofy:
 
docmirror said:
You're now modifying the test case to fit your POV.

Make up any shilt you like. :wink2: I teach logic and used to teach college English. This one is easy, you should see some of the tortured stuff I give in class.
Click to expand...

No I am not.
If a controller has not acknowledged someone, or that person has never said word one to the controller, the controller is not talking to them.
And if you used to teach college English, it's no wonder today's people suck at it.

PS - If you're gonna try and brag, make sure you're actually good at what you are bragging about before you do so.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is infinite.
 
MikeELP said:
But doesn't that imply that he was talking TO them as opposed to talking WITH them? Talking TO someone does not necessarily mean the person talking was also listening....Or that the person being talked TO was actually listening? :dunno:

A response from the listener would confirm that the listener had heard and understood the talker.

Sorta like a lecture as opposed to a discussion.

Reminds me of some of my Political Science courses in college. :D

Or when my Dad would talk TO me.

:goofy:
Click to expand...

Since the controller had already established two way communications with the aircraft he intended to clear into the Bravo, yes. They would have, or at least should have, been listening. And were they not listening, no harm, no foul, because they would have never heard the clearance, and subsequently should have remained clear of the Bravo.

I have heard numerous ATC communications where it's been slow and a back and forth conversation with the dropping of tail numbers during the conversation, and the controller subsequently says "OK, cleared to land runway [n]," without stating the tail number. That does not mean anyone who happens to be listening is cleared to land on [n], just as anyone who happens to be listening is not cleared into the Bravo.
 
EdFred said:
No I am not.
If a controller has not acknowledged someone, or that person has never said word one to the controller, the controller is not talking to them.
And if you used to teach college English, it's no wonder today's people suck at it.

PS - If you're gonna try and brag, make sure you're actually good at what you are bragging about before you do so.
Click to expand...

Not only that, the FARs specify being identified by tail number, and does not provide for broad exemptions, opposite in fact, it specifies strict literal compliance.

If they want to start having implied Class B clearances, I have no problems with that, but then they have to change the FARs to specifically allow for it, and then advertise it and require it be cover on FRs.

We have standardized communications in aviation for a reason. If you want to change the standard mid stream, you have to make it very clearly known. To change this is on the same level of significance as the reorganization of Airspace was and needs to be handled the same on an educational basis, otherwise we subvert the effect of standardized communications.
 
I don't see 14CFR 91.131 stating the controller must state the tail number.
 
EdFred said:
Source?
Click to expand...

7110.65

Section 2. Clearances

4-2-1. CLEARANCE ITEMS

Issue the following clearance items, as appropriate, in the order listed below:

a. Aircraft identification.

b. Clearance limit.

1. When the clearance limit is an airport, the word “airport” must follow the airport name.
 
So, that's an order, and not a regulation?

Plus, from page 1

"...and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not covered by it."

Also:

As used in this order:
a. “Shall” or “must” means a procedure is
mandatory.
b. “Shall not” or “must not” means a procedure is
prohibited.

4-2-1 does not use the term shall, or must, in relation to the aircraft identification, but it does say the clearance limit MUST include the term "airport" if it is an airport. Just pointing that out.
 
Last edited:
Though 14CFR 91.131 does not refer to aircraft tail-numer/call sign specifically, you can logically come to that conclusion based on 3-2-4 2b3 notes 1 and 3. In the context of what constitutes two way communication, since C airspace is "less restrictive" I would assume this would apply to a more restrictive B as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top