If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:_LWOb.84380$Rc4.305921@attbi_s54... "Ron Natalie" wrote... Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC, and to give some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to "bend" the regulations. Not necessary. If squawking anything is working, 7600 will get their attention just find. You don't need to give them any such notification. I don't know the current state of the art of ATC radars. However, the 7700/7600 switch was a part of the Navy Instrument Flight Manual as late as 1994. The rationale was that not all ATC radars had the same level of alerting for 7600 squawks as 7700, and/or that the alert might be manually disabled. If all ATC radars now have the same level of alert for a 7600 squawk, then 7600 only makes sense. 7700 for one minute, followed by 7600, is one of the "wrong" answers in two questions on the IFR knowledge test, and I always assumed that was because it is a known incorrect or obsolete practice. However, one of the questions specifies "you do not exercise emergency authority", so isn't exactly appropriate to the specified scenario. -- David Brooks |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"David Brooks" wrote in message ... "John R Weiss" wrote in message news:_LWOb.84380$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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote in message ...
My instructors answer was this: when lost comms is noticed and no attemp to establish alternate comms works, then proceed to the outer marker of the ILS22 approach (VICCI) and hold as diagrammed until your flight planned expected arrival time, then shoot the approach. That's the correct book answer. Unfortunately, it's the wrong real-life answer. Roy, I'm not persuaded it's even the correct book answer. I had a lost comm once. We lost the ability to transmit (turned out to be a stuck relay in the audio panel) immediately after takeoff. We could hear ATC, but they could not hear us Interesting -- any details about what model of audio panel? Did it block both hand mic and headsets? Obviously, what you did wrt shooting the ILS was 100% the right call for your circumstances but I'll toss a couple different circs out. We had a brief lost comm IFR in IMC. It was caused by me. In response to smoke coming out of the panel and a strong smell of burning, I advised ATC we were going off freq due to smoke in the cockpit and shut off the electrical system. Plan A if the smoke didn't stop was to turn left, fly out over the ocean, do an emergency descent and fly back in to ditch on a beach. Plan B if the smoke stopped was to remain at our current altitude and procede to known VMC ahead of us. The smoke stopped and we eventually completed the flight with most of the plane's electrical equipment operating and normal comms. We were offered Plan C (shoot an ILS at the nearest airport) but shooting an approach to minimums or below with a questionable electrical system simply wasn't on our menu. My husband had a lost comm VFR on the very first flight I took with him when he'd first gotten his license (my 2nd flight in a small plane). It was caused by electrical failure. The ability to transmit on the radios went first, followed by the ability to receive followed by the rest of the electrical system. We were VFR but if we'd been IFR, I don't think shooting an ILS would have been a bright call there either. BTW, if you ever think you're going to lose comm (say, the lights are slowly diming and the radios are getting crackly), be pro-active. Make a plan and tell the controller what it is while you still can so everybody's on the same page. Concur! Sydney |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
.. 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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Ciholas" wrote in message m... I had a "discussion" with my instructor about lost comms in IMC after a radar vector. To illustrate, consider this scenario (gratuitously enhanced with specifics): Depart BJC (Boulder, CO) for a flight to EVV (Evansville, IN). You expect the flight to take 4:30. You depart at 1200Z. Once airborne, you get established on a clearance route and you realize that the tailwinds are much stronger than forecast. After 3 hours have passed, you find the GPS saying EVV is only another 30 minutes enroute (thus the flight now should take 3:30 instead of 4:30). You get the ATIS, using ILS RWY 22, relatively low IMC conditions at EVV. ATC then gives you a radar vector to bias your flight path north for the approach. At this moment, you loose comms. All attempts to establish comms are in vain. The weather is also low IMC in every direction. You should have been told what you were getting vectors for. As someone else said - I am not sure what "bias your flight path" means. You should not take vectors unless you know what they are for. I hope I don't ever loose my comms in IMC - it might land on someone... grin What do you do? snip This is really an academic question because I pretty much doubt anyone would convince me anything other than landing at my earliest and safest opportunity would be the right course of action, rules or no rules to the contrary. In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I would hold for any reason. That is scary. What if you lost comms in a hold? Just go to the destination and shoot an approach? I hope this was just an off-the-cuff remark and that you really don't mean that. That is what clearance limits and EFC and EACs are for. My thinking about ATC response is that they cannot assume any behavior of a lost comm aircraft, there could be more wrong than just the lost comms (such as the pilot is incapacitated and a passenger is flying, thus no behavior is predictable). So I would think they would vector everyone else away and hope the plane gets on the ground as soon as possible. That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in agreement about what to do. Curious what the group reg gurus and ATC types think about this. -- Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101 CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax 255 S. Garvin St, Suite B Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) wrote: The towers don't show on the typical handheld or panel GPS No, but I bet they do show up on the approach plate, if not explicitly, then at least reflected in the MSA values. Yes, they're reflected in the MSA values. I certainly agree with you that ad-libbing an approach is a bad idea, but as long as you're above the MSA, it's hard to see how you could get into trouble. I agree, but there are two big "ifs" which weren't explicit in the original scenario: 1) you're w/in 25 nm of the navaid on which the MSA is depicted; we've certainly started getting vectors for the approach more than 25 miles out at times 2) you're above the MSA. For example, in one local approach I mentioned, it's typical to vector small aircraft between 2000 and 2400 ft, but there's a tower farm just to the east of the usual area. The MSA is 3100 ft. You'd need to be what, a good 4 miles out from the marker to intercept below glideslope? I would think such scenarios (MSA much higher than typical MVAs used for the approach) are pretty common. But I dunno. Cheers, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No SID in clearance, fly it anyway? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 195 | November 28th 05 10:06 PM |
Lost comm altitude? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | January 11th 04 12:29 AM |
Ham sandwich navigation and radar failure | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | December 31st 03 12:15 AM |
Marine Radar in a plane? | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 31 | August 13th 03 06:56 PM |