"Ron Natalie" wrote...

I don't know the current state of the art of ATC radars. However, the
7700/7600
switch was a part of the Navy Instrument Flight Manual as late as 1994.

It's been gone from the AIM longer than that I believe.

My '98 AIM (only one I have at home) says "ATC service will be provided on the
basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with FAR Part 91.185." It also
says squawk 7600 when operating NORDO.

So, it still leaves open the question of squawk if the pilot chooses to deviate
from 91.185 via 91.3(b) (emergency authority) or per AIM 6-4-1.a ("exercise good
judgement"); and is counter to the 'change back to assigned squawk' preference
expressed by the resident controllers.

The question also arises as to when the "filed" ETE is "amended" by ATC in the
OP's original scenario, or similar situations. If in radar contact the entire
route, the pilot is not required to update his ETE if he maintains filed TAS.
When the tailwind significantly changes the ETE, on what basis would a pilot be
able to predict what ATC might "expect"?

I agree with a previous poster that IF the pilot has already been talking with
Approach and has received a vector toward an IAF or ILS intercept, it is
reasonable to expect to commence approach on arrival. However, what if comm is
lost on a center freq, in IMC and relatively near the destination? What is a
"reasonable" time to be holding over the IAF, from the ATC perspective?