Lost comms after radar vector

"Ron Natalie" wrote...

Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC, and to
give
some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to
"bend"
the regulations.

Not necessary. If squawking anything is working, 7600 will get their
attention just
find. You don't need to give them any such notification.

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. The
rationale was that not all ATC radars had the same level of alerting for 7600
squawks as 7700, and/or that the alert might be manually disabled.

If all ATC radars now have the same level of alert for a 7600 squawk, then 7600
only makes sense.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:_LWOb.84380$Rc4.305921@attbi_s54...
"Ron Natalie" wrote...

Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC, and
to
give
some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority
to
"bend"
the regulations.

Not necessary. If squawking anything is working, 7600 will get their
attention just
find. You don't need to give them any such notification.

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.
The
rationale was that not all ATC radars had the same level of alerting for
7600
squawks as 7700, and/or that the alert might be manually disabled.

If all ATC radars now have the same level of alert for a 7600 squawk, then
7600
only makes sense.

7700 for one minute, followed by 7600, is one of the "wrong" answers in two
questions on the IFR knowledge test, and I always assumed that was because
it is a known incorrect or obsolete practice. However, one of the questions
specifies "you do not exercise emergency authority", so isn't exactly
appropriate to the specified scenario.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:_LWOb.84380$Rc4.305921@attbi_s54...

snip
7700 for one minute, followed by 7600, is one of the "wrong" answers in
two
questions on the IFR knowledge test, and I always assumed that was because
it is a known incorrect or obsolete practice. However, one of the
questions
specifies "you do not exercise emergency authority", so isn't exactly
appropriate to the specified scenario.

It apears Weiss needs some remedial training.

"David Brooks" wrote in message ...
7700 for one minute, followed by 7600, is one of the "wrong" answers in two
questions on the IFR knowledge test, and I always assumed that was because
it is a known incorrect or obsolete practice.

Should we fly triangular patterns too?

Don't forget the dropping chaff gambit.

Jim


"Ron Natalie"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
- 7700 for one minute, followed by 7600, is one of the "wrong" answers in two
- questions on the IFR knowledge test, and I always assumed that was because
- it is a known incorrect or obsolete practice.
-
-Should we fly triangular patterns too?



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

..

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.

"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?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:3%0Pb.88422$5V2.144302@attbi_s53...

When the tailwind significantly changes the ETE, on what basis would a
pilot be
able to predict what ATC might "expect"?


None.



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?


None.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

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?

None.

Is that "there is no time estimate that is reasonable" or "zero"?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:qSdPb.92920$nt4.227694@attbi_s51...

Is that "there is no time estimate that is reasonable" or "zero"?


Zero.