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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
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? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Why not? Waiting for the ETA ties up airspace and delays other aircraft. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
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? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... If the hold isn't issued and things don't go as expected and comm is lost, then you have an airplane coming in the airspace unwanted, but at a known and predictable time since you are tracking it on radar. Not issuing the hold was not part of any scenario. If the hold is issued with no EFC and comm is lost during the hold, then you have an airplane which will enter the airspace at an unknown time. Say what? If your comm was still operating prior to reaching your clearance limit without an EFC why didn't you query the controller? Hopefully, the pilot knows enough to wait until the ETA, but what if he doesn't? Or what if his watch is 5 minutes off? Hopefully the pilot will know the controller is unlikely to have his ETA and will just fly the approach without holding at all. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
"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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
"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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Question
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bose X - $995 and holding... | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | November 30th 05 12:57 AM |
Holding pattern reporting | Yossarian | Instrument Flight Rules | 14 | July 4th 05 10:57 AM |
Stupid Newbie Pattern Question | Lakeview Bill | Piloting | 76 | June 11th 05 02:54 PM |
Holding at CHS | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | November 10th 03 07:52 PM |
Holding Pattern Entries | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | July 11th 03 05:18 AM |