What do you do in the real world?

In article ,
Tim wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Tim wrote:


If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
someone (including yourself killed.)

...

I know the answer.


Then what is it? And please note that the question is not what do you
do by the book. The question is what do you do in the real world.

(Actually it turns out that there are some interesting subtleties
involved in figuring out what to do in this case even by the book.)


Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
disaster.


I would think that allowing ignorant pilots to remain ignorant would be
a much surer route to disaster.

For the record, the weather was VFR the whole way (and I knew it) so I
was a good deal more casual about it than I would have been if it had
been IMC the whole way. (I also strongly suspect that if it had been
IMC the whole way I would not have received a direct clearance. I've
flown that route a zillion times and it's never happened before.)

rg

I am not sure how to answer this if you don't want to believe that you
are expected to do what it says in part 91. If you want to make up your
own stuff or do things other people do in the "real world" then go ahead.

First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
rise to.

Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point.

rg

Ron Garret wrote:
snip



First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
rise to.

How is this an emergency?


Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are. Just because they were written
before GPS does not mean they are no longer valid. RNAV was around
long before GPSs.


Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here? Can you get that
information from the controllers in writing?

While your specific example may work for you in this case, applying that
logic in other places will get you killed. If you follow the regs the
way they are written you will be fine and you won't get in trouble. If
you have an emergency (and I don;t think a non-op comms radio qualifies)
then you certainly can do whatever you need to do to make a safe ending
to the flight.


How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?

Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.


And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point.


So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
difference I think.

VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
published approach rather than your own vectors?

VTU is an NOPT to the LDA.
So is FIM

If you want to use your GPS you can use that for the GPS approaches.
You have your pick of the approaches and the IAFs.

rg

Tim writes:

How is this an emergency?

It endangers the flight and other flights around it. Losing all communication
in crowded, controlled airspace is clearly an emergency.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?

If you already know the answer, why have you still not provided it?

While your specific example may work for you in this case, applying that
logic in other places will get you killed. If you follow the regs the
way they are written you will be fine and you won't get in trouble.

So what's the answer?

If you have an emergency (and I don;t think a non-op comms radio qualifies)
then you certainly can do whatever you need to do to make a safe ending
to the flight.

Why doesn't an inoperative radio qualify? You're in airspace that requires
two-way radio communication.

So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

So enlighten everyone by explaining exactly what he should do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tim writes:


How is this an emergency?


It endangers the flight and other flights around it. Losing all communication
in crowded, controlled airspace is clearly an emergency.

Bull****. The radio has no bearing on the safety of flight. The flight
controls all work fine. That is why you file an ifr flight plan. You
state on it your airspeed. If not under radar, you make position
reports. If under radar no need to. This is why the regulations (you
already quoted) require different procedures in VFR.



If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?


If you already know the answer, why have you still not provided it?

Many other have also discussed it and you already posted the relevant
FAR section. The OP claims he got instructions from the local
controllers. So, if that is the case, he should just follow those
instructions. (Or perhaps they are not regulatory)



While your specific example may work for you in this case, applying that
logic in other places will get you killed. If you follow the regs the
way they are written you will be fine and you won't get in trouble.


So what's the answer?

See the FARs you already posted.



If you have an emergency (and I don;t think a non-op comms radio qualifies)
then you certainly can do whatever you need to do to make a safe ending
to the flight.


Why doesn't an inoperative radio qualify? You're in airspace that requires
two-way radio communication.

If you are saying that an inop radio is an emergency then I would
question your judgment as a pilot. If the pilot thinks it is an
emergency, then by all means, "declare" one and treat it as such.

Are you saying that piper cubs are always flying around in states of
emergency? (they have no electrical system and no radios) - unless
modified to have them.



So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?


So enlighten everyone by explaining exactly what he should do.


I thought the regs were clear. Others have also offered it up here.

Tim wrote:


If you are saying that an inop radio is an emergency then I would
question your judgment as a pilot. If the pilot thinks it is an
emergency, then by all means, "declare" one and treat it as such.

He's not a farkin pilot, he's not even close.

Tim,

If you are saying that an inop radio is an emergency then I would
question your judgment as a pilot. If the pilot thinks it is an
emergency, then by all means, "declare" one and treat it as such.


And if it were an emergency, why are there different transponder codes
for emergency and lost comm.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:25:54 -0400, Tim
wrote:

First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
rise to.
How is this an emergency?

While losing comm in IMC alone might not qualify as an emergency, more
likely than not it is caused by a more serious malfunction (alternator
failure or even an electrical fire). As without comms the controller
has no way of knowing if that is the case, he is going to vector
everybody out of your area anyway.

Every controller I have discussed this situation with (OK, I'm talking
about Germany here, but the regulations in this case are essentially
the same) told me that the best course of action would be to land
asap.

Imagine losing comm five minutes after takeoff for a three hour flight
in the soup, at night, over mountains. Would you really continue or
simply land at the airport you have just departed from? My certificate
would be the least of my worries, but then you could still quite
easily make an argument for emergency authority, IMHO.

Tobias

In article , Tim
wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
snip



First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
rise to.

How is this an emergency?

I didn't say it was an emergency. I said it could easily give rise to
one.

Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are.

I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
much larger.

Just because they were written before GPS does not mean they are no
longer valid.

I didn't say that they weren't valid. I said that procedures designed
for VORs make less sense when MMGPS is available.

Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?

That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?

It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.

Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point.


So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
difference I think.

The exact wording of my clearance was "Cleared to the Van Nuys airport
via left turn to heading 140 vectors to Salinas VOR then direct."

I've never heard a clearance that ended with anything other than an
unqualified "direct" or "then as filed".

VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
published approach rather than your own vectors?

Because I've flown into LA from the north dozens if not hundreds of
times. Invariably my initial clearance ends with a direct leg to KVNY
which is unflyable at 9000 feet (which is the altitude I always file
for). Invariably my clearance is amended once I reach LA Center's
airspace to direct LHS, LYNXXN arrival, and then amended further to be
vectors for the ILS. This is more direct and therefore safer than any
"by the book" route.

But next time I'll try getting that route from the outset and see what
happens.

rg

Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are.


I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
much larger.


Why is that relevant?


Just because they were written before GPS does not mean they are no
longer valid.


I didn't say that they weren't valid. I said that procedures designed
for VORs make less sense when MMGPS is available.

You imply that you can do something better than what the regs say and
your justification seemed to be that it is because the regs were written
before gps. I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning.



Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?


That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

Again, I misunderstood then. I only quoted you and responded based on
what you wrote.



How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?


It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

How is that a tangent? You can choose any IAF and any approach that
you are able to do when the clearance ends in "direct" - and the airport
is the clearance limit.



Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.


Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport. Direct means you
go to an IAF then get to the airport. How are you supposed to land?
You can;t just go to the airport and circle down to land - that is the
whole reason for having defined instrument approaches.



And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point.


So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
difference I think.


The exact wording of my clearance was "Cleared to the Van Nuys airport
via left turn to heading 140 vectors to Salinas VOR then direct."

I've never heard a clearance that ended with anything other than an
unqualified "direct" or "then as filed".

Right. See above regarding what that last "direct" means. It does not
mean go froom the penultimate fix to the airport. It means go to an
IAF then fly the approach.



VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
published approach rather than your own vectors?


Because I've flown into LA from the north dozens if not hundreds of
times. Invariably my initial clearance ends with a direct leg to KVNY
which is unflyable at 9000 feet (which is the altitude I always file
for). Invariably my clearance is amended once I reach LA Center's
airspace to direct LHS, LYNXXN arrival, and then amended further to be
vectors for the ILS. This is more direct and therefore safer than any
"by the book" route.

But next time I'll try getting that route from the outset and see what
happens.

rg

My initial (and I guess overzealous) reaction to your post was that it
seemed like you just didn;t care what "the book" said or what you are
supposed to do based on part 91 regs for ifr flight. That is scary to me.

I'll just drop it here.

In article , Tim
wrote:


Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are.


I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
much larger.


Why is that relevant?

Because the standard procedures involve compromises to compensate for
the delays and errors inherent in VOR navigation. When those delays and
errors do not exist the compromises can make the flight less safe than
it would have been under different procedures.

Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?


That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

Again, I misunderstood then. I only quoted you and responded based on
what you wrote.

You must not be reading very carefully. I say right there in the part
you quoted that I was talking about a different trip (AVX-FUL).


How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?


It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

How is that a tangent?

Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY. I
only brought up FUL because it's a data point where I've had occasion to
ask controllers for their input, and they unequivocally told me NOT to
follow the regs. (Yes, I know that what controllers say doesn't matter.
Nonetheless, it's a data point.)

You can choose any IAF and any approach that
you are able to do when the clearance ends in "direct" - and the airport
is the clearance limit.

Yes, but by the book you have to fly to the clearance limit first.
91.181(b) is quite clear about this.

Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.


Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.

That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?

Direct means you
go to an IAF then get to the airport. How are you supposed to land?

My reading of 91.185(c)(3)(ii) seems to imply that you have to fly to
the airport first, then to an IAF.

You can;t just go to the airport and circle down to land - that is the
whole reason for having defined instrument approaches.

If you're saying that it's stupid to fly to the airport first, I agree
with you. Hence my question.

Right. See above regarding what that last "direct" means. It does not
mean go froom the penultimate fix to the airport. It means go to an
IAF then fly the approach.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

My initial (and I guess overzealous) reaction to your post was that it
seemed like you just didn;t care what "the book" said or what you are
supposed to do based on part 91 regs for ifr flight. That is scary to me.

Of course I care. But that doesn't mean that I blindly follow the rules
without thinking.

rg