Lost comms after radar vector

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51...
I believe I clarified a [very common] case where 91.185c3 would indeed
apply,
where the clearance limit is the destination airport, in my last paragraph
above. I believe I also provided a sound basis for my rationale regarding
the
actual clearance limit -- a rationale that gives some sense to 91.185c3.

I notice here that you're drawing a distinction between the "clearance
limit" (a term defined in the AIM P/CG)--which you acknowledge can be the
destination airport--and the "actual clearance limit" (a term that is
nowhere defined)--which you say can be the IAF if the "clearance limit"
itself is the destination airport. Then, you're choosing to construe the
term "clearance limit" in 91.185c3 to refer not to the actual "clearance
limit", but rather to the "actual clearance limit", as you've defined the
latter phrase.

Again, the very need for such preposterous contortions demonstrates that
91.185c3 does not make sense as written.

--Gary

PaulaJay1 wrote:

I guess you do have to plan for two or more at one time. How often does one
occur and have you ever had two at once?

One in a billion chance.


I thought that the code appeared on the CRT along with my position. Does it?

Yes. RF for radio failure, HJ for hijack and EM for emergency.

"Gary Drescher" wrote...

I notice here that you're drawing a distinction between the "clearance
limit" (a term defined in the AIM P/CG)--which you acknowledge can be the
destination airport--and the "actual clearance limit" (a term that is
nowhere defined)--which you say can be the IAF if the "clearance limit"
itself is the destination airport. Then, you're choosing to construe the
term "clearance limit" in 91.185c3 to refer not to the actual "clearance
limit", but rather to the "actual clearance limit", as you've defined the
latter phrase.

Again, the very need for such preposterous contortions demonstrates that
91.185c3 does not make sense as written.

I agree that the Lost Comm procedures need to be rewritten in their entirety --
I've been convinced of that since about 1978...

In 78-79 I was the Instrument Phase Head (Standards Evaluation Pilot) in VT-25,
an advanced jet training squadron. One of my collateral duties was Chief of
Naval Air Training (CNATRA) member/representative on the US Navy Instrument
Flight Standards Board. There were various fleet reps as well as a couple
FAA/ATC reps on the board. One of our functions was to review and update the
Navy Instrument Flight Manual. As the CNATRA rep, one of my other duties was to
ensure the changes in the manual were incorporated into the training curricula.

The specific scenarios brought up by specific pilots have changed since 1978,
but the same basic complaints with the same part 91 rules remain to this day --
you can't follow the rules in a high percentage of credible scenarios! Still,
we're stuck with them, including 91.185c3.

The concept of the 'final fix in the Route of Flight block of the flight plan as
the de facto clearance limit' was discussed at the review conference for the
Instrument Manual the year I attended. The FAA reps agreed that it was a
reasonable and proper interpretation of the rules, and confirmed its continued
use as a training standard. None of the ATC controllers in South TX where we
trained had any problems with our exercise of the concept in our training
scenarios.

In effect, the concept we taught resulted in essentially the same recommended
airborne action that one of the controllers expressed here the other day, using
different words and rationale -- ATC will, in most cases, expect/want you to fly
to an IAF, shoot an approach, and land. Whether or not you hold at that IAF for
positioning, descent, or awaiting an ETA will depend on the specific situation.
These days, at large, controlled airports with fancier radars than existed in
1978, it makes sense in many/most cases to do as little holding as possible, so
you get out of everyone else's way.

As somebody also pointed out the other day, the mere fact that questions such as
these continue to be asked and thrashed gives clear evidence that the rules need
changing, because they are often confusing and nowhere near universally
applicable. Unfortunately, the FAA was and is too busy with ARSAs, TRSAs, TCAs,
TFRs, WAAS, TCAS, and drug tests to take the time to fix what's been broke for
at least 30 years. Fortunately, most pilots have learned to deal with it, and
are able to make good decisions when confronted with a lost-comm situation.

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

"PaulaJay1" wrote in message
...

It bothers me that the 7600 code continues to "ring" at Control so they
want me
to switch back to the original code after some period of time. What
period?


About thirty seconds will be fine. If they haven't noticed it in that
time
it's because they disabled it the last time someone decided to squawk 7600
down to the ground and forgot to restore it.



What happens when I then fly out of your airspace to the next? Do you just
tell the next controller that I'm NORDO? Does the radar indicate me as
NORDO somehow even if I change back to the originally assigned code?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

What happens when I then fly out of your airspace to the next? Do you
just
tell the next controller that I'm NORDO? Does the radar indicate me as
NORDO somehow even if I change back to the originally assigned code?


Either "NORDO" will be entered in the flight plan remarks or the next
controller will be told via landline.

(PaulaJay1) wrote in message ...
In article .net, "Steven P.
McNicoll" writes:
The chances of
losing both transmitters and both receivers simultaneously are extremely
remote, unless the loss is due to a failure in the electrical system, which
would leave the other installed avionics just as useless as the comm
radios.

A hand held GPS on battterys is a good emergency avionic. I have a 195 on
ship's power (with bateries installed) as well as a 430 in the panel. It might
not be legal to do an approach with the 195 but it's better than a ham
sandwich.

Personally I consider a handheld GPS essential equipment. I don't
want to fly IMC in a plane where a single-point failure can take
out the electrical system, without one. I also don't want to be
in a position where I can't just use it to navigate to VMC.

Cheers,
Sydney

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:0zGPb.97614$Rc4.594579@attbi_s54...
I agree that the Lost Comm procedures need to be rewritten in their
entirety --
I've been convinced of that since about 1978...

Unfortunately, the FAA was and is too busy with ARSAs, TRSAs, TCAs,
TFRs, WAAS, TCAS, and drug tests to take the time to fix what's been broke
for
at least 30 years. Fortunately, most pilots have learned to deal with it,
and
are able to make good decisions when confronted with a lost-comm
situation.

Hm, how about a grass-roots movement to rewrite the FARs to make them
coherent? We could all collaborate on the rec.aviation newsgroups, and
present the FAA with a finished product that they'd just have to ratify. :-)

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:tISPb.104072$nt4.332976@attbi_s51...

Hm, how about a grass-roots movement to rewrite the FARs to make them
coherent? We could all collaborate on the rec.aviation newsgroups, and
present the FAA with a finished product that they'd just have to ratify.
:-)

That has already happened for Parts 61, 145, 21, 23 and 25.

"Gary Drescher" wrote...

Hm, how about a grass-roots movement to rewrite the FARs to make them
coherent? We could all collaborate on the rec.aviation newsgroups, and
present the FAA with a finished product that they'd just have to ratify. :-)

OK. I'll start with 91.185:

a) General.

1) VFR. Fly the airplane. Avoid Class B and C airspace.

2) IFR. If you lose comm, continue flying the airplane. If lost comm is
your only problem, squawk 7600 for 30 seconds, then return to your assigned
squawk.

3) Compound emergency. Squawk 7700. Proceed to the nearest suitable
airport and land.

b) Priorities

1). General

i) Aviate -- Fly the airplane.

ii) Navigate -- Confirm where you are. Decide where you need to go.
Figure out how to get there. Do it. Maintain your assigned altitude, or higher
MEA or Minimum Sector Altitude, until on an Arrival or Approach procedure that
has lower minimum altitude.

iii) Communicate -- If you can still receive ATC transmissions,
follow instructions and squawk IDENT to acknowledge when requested. If your
transponder is inoperative, see (ii) above. Otherwise, squawk 7700 if you
cannot follow your last ATC clearance or your flight plan. If you attain VMC
and can maintain VMC and VFR, squawk 1276 and continue VFR.

2). Route, Altitude, and timing

i) Comply with your last ATC clearance, including any expected
further clearances. If you filed for, were cleared for, or were told to expect
a published Arrival Procedure and/or Instrument Approach Procedure, execute the
Arrival and Approach procedures upon arrival at the fix at which the procedure
begins. For any segment where "Expect radar vectors" is specified, fly direct.
Hold only if ATC informed you of an expected delay or assigned you an Expected
Further Clearance time. Follow the published altitude profiles.

ii) If you get to a point where your last clearance no longer
applies, revert to your last requested route or flight plan route.

iii) If the situation is such that none of the above makes sense,
fly by the most expeditious route to your destination, filed alternate, or
nearest suitable airport. Use the most suitable Arrival Procedure and
Instrument Approach Procedure and land.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:vkTPb.101675$sv6.444366@attbi_s52...
"Gary Drescher" wrote...

Hm, how about a grass-roots movement to rewrite the FARs to make them
coherent? We could all collaborate on the rec.aviation newsgroups, and
present the FAA with a finished product that they'd just have to ratify. :-)

OK. I'll start with 91.185:

91.1 Don't do nothing stupid.
91.3 See 91.1.