Holding Pattern Question

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.

This argument reminds me of the debate of which is the inner or outer knob
on our GPSs.

Kobra

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

"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.


Steve, quit being so argumentative and think for a change. Two-way
communication means the radio (hence operator) can send (1 way) and receive
(1 way). If you lose the transmitter or the receiver you are no longer in
two-way communication, although you may in fact still be in one-way
communication. How much simpler can that be?

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:02:10 -0500, "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.

It's a one-way comm failure!

But if the transponder is still replying... G

On 09/24/07 17:54, Dennis Johnson wrote:
"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



The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon reaching
the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.


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

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
reaching
the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.

Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
to the ETA..."

Thanks,
Dennis

On 09/24/07 20:14, Dennis Johnson wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
reaching
the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.

Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
to the ETA..."

Yes, and that is the answer you want to give on the exams, but in real
life, you'll find that the controllers want you out of the air as soon
as possible. They're expecting you to get on the ground asap. I wouldn't
plan on waiting for your ETA once you get to the fix...


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

Mark Hansen wrote:
On 09/24/07 20:14, Dennis Johnson wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
reaching
the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.
Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
to the ETA..."

Yes, and that is the answer you want to give on the exams, but in real
life, you'll find that the controllers want you out of the air as soon
as possible. They're expecting you to get on the ground asap. I wouldn't
plan on waiting for your ETA once you get to the fix...



If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.


Why?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.


Why?


Why not?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.


Why?


Because you own the block of airspace assigned to you. Someone else owns
the block of airspace ahead of and behind you. You wait until your EFC
time so that you don't blunder into the guy ahead in IFR conditions.

Rip