That's the nature of my question. Via earlier communications with ATL
leading up to the failure, it was obvious a problem was brewing. If a 7600
was squawked, would their hands of been tied from a procedural perspective?
If mid trip the 7600 would be a no brainier; but that close to the end, very
saturated airspace, VFR almost in sight, not so clear...
After poping out and while trying to remember light signals for my RYY
non-comm. VFR approach and landing, attempted to contact RYY tower and all
was well (10/10 comms). It appears ATL had a problem with equipment. Had
RYY tower contact ATL and let them know my equipment worked fine on other
frequencies. Flown two trips since and everything on my side has been fine.





"Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote in message
...
"Gulfside" wrote in message
g.com...
Flying IMC into Atlanta area (RYY) on the Turbow Eight Arrival, past
TRBOW heading for PUMIF, line of convective activity just NW of PUMIF.
The comms are becoming intermittent with intermittent communications.
ATC issues heading change and new altitude just prior to convective
activity (as expected) and assigns a 360 heading (again to miss some
activity). After acknowledging the new info the comms failed, I'm
fumbling around with aux mic., radar, Nexrad, etc... The end of
convection was clearly on radar (on board and NEXRAD), as well as being
confirmed by ATIS from PDK and RYY. Rather than squawking 7600 I flew
assigned heading with a minor zig to avoid a cell, then was VFR in about
3 / 4 minutes; squawked VFR and headed for home below ATL airspace. My
reasoning for not squawking 7600 was two fold; 1) Didn't want to upset
traffic coming into ATL on a busy day with limited corridors, 2) Could
see end to situation in short amount of time. What are your thoughts?

Chances are you upset them a lot more by NOT squawking 7600.