Holding Pattern Question

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If no delay is expected, why issue a hold?


For a variety of reasons. Let's say your destination is an uncontrolled
field and there's traffic ahead of you for that field. The controller
can't clear you for the approach because the preceding aircraft hasn't
cancelled, but he expects it to cancel before you'd experience any delay.


I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to hold?
Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding before
proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,

Dennis

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to
hold? Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding
before proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,


Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...406.html#4-6-1

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to
hold? Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding
before proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,


Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...406.html#4-6-1




Probably because com radios require a functioning microphone, PTT and
speakers or earphones. More parts to fail and thus more likelihood of
failure. Most pilots carry enough spares, but even so there is more
likelihood of a comm failure than a nav failure.

Matt

In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to
hold? Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding
before proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,


Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?

I've had several lost-comms. I seem to remember:

1) Fried xmit relay in the audio panel

2) Defective headset jacks

3) Broken wire in my headset cable

None of these affected the nav radios.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:19 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"

Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?

Receivers are simpler than transmitters?

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:19 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"

Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?


Receivers are simpler than transmitters?


Nav radios fail too! Transmitters are usually less complex than the
matching receiver, but they also handle much more power. More power
means more stress on the components, which in turn leads to a higher
failure rate.

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
...

Receivers are simpler than transmitters?


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure.

On 09/26/07 12:02, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
...

Receivers are simpler than transmitters?


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure.



Say What? ;-)

If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
according to 91.185.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Say What? ;-)


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time?



If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
according to 91.185.


If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
transmitter and receiver.

On 09/26/07 13:39, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Say What? ;-)


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time?



If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
according to 91.185.


If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
transmitter and receiver.



That's ridiculous.