Say Again #51

wrote in message ...


Paul Lynch wrote:

Don't forget, the AIM is not regulatory. It is an informational source.
You can't violate it. You can violate 91.185.

That isn't quite correct. Some of the information in the AIM is
informational.
But, some of it is directive and expands upon regulatory requirements.
There
have been many enforcement actions under FAR 91.13 for failure to adhere
to
directive language in the AIM.

The introduction to the AIM reads:

"This manual is designed to provide the aviation community with basic
flight
information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System
(NAS) of
the United States. An international version called the Aeronautical
Information
Publication contains parallel information, as well as specific information
on
the international airports for use by the international community.

This manual contains the fundamentals required in order to fly in the
United
States NAS. It also contains items of interest to pilots concerning health
and
medical facts, factors affecting flight safety, a pilot/controller
glossary of
terms used in the ATC System, and information on safety, accident, and
hazard
reporting."

Note the second paragraph about "required fundamentals" and also "items of
interest."

An example is the additional reporting requirements listed in the AIM:

"5-3-3. Additional Reports
a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a
specific ATC request:
1. At all times.
(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a
newly
assigned altitude or flight level.
(b) When an altitude change will be made if operating on a clearance
specifying
VFR-on-top.
(c) When unable to climb/descend at a rate of a least 500 feet per minute.
(d) When approach has been missed. (Request clearance for specific action;
i.e.,
to alternative airport, another approach, etc.)
(e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it
varies by
5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight
plan.
(f) The time and altitude or flight level upon reaching a holding fix or
point
to which cleared.
(g) When leaving any assigned holding fix or point."

Failure to make one of those reports has resulted in enforcement
proceedings
under 91.13 and 91.183 (c) many times over the years. The fact that 5-3-3
a
says "should" is only because the FAA legal folks have consistently held
that
use of the word "shall" for such passages in the AIM would constitute
rule-making, per se. Then, they would have to run every change to the AIM
through the complete NPRM process. No country does that under the ICAO
rules
for its AIP (which the AIM is a domestic version of the United State's
AIP.

"Should" works with the effect of regulation when coupled (in this case)
with
91.183 (c), which is in accordance with ICAO international conventions.

Wow, Tim, you're going to open a huge can of worms with that!! LOL. About 2
to 3 years ago I wrote practically the same thing regarding 5-3-3 and got in
a big thread with the inhabitants here, especially Newps, about it. The
thread began with whether you should make a report when vacating a
previously assigned altitude or flight level. The controllers and many
other pilots contended, this from memory, that it wasn't required and
garbaged up the freq. I cited 5-3-3, the "should" and "at all times"
language, and rec'd a barrage of return fire. In particular, when I played
devils advocate and told Newps and the other naysayers I must not be
required then to make any of the other reports therein, since I didn't have
to make 5-3-3, 1, (a), and could apply their logic to the rest of the para,
I was castigated for trolling, IIRC, LOL. I stopped, but about 3 months
later rec'd an email from Don Brown, who had read the thread. He agreed
with my position and the others in the thread who read 5-3-3 as I did.

My point in that thread, and this, is to wonder why any pilot would stake
his ticket, his life, or others lives on the opinions of controllers or
anyone else who advocated not adhering to procedure for convenience sake.
Jose, above, said he'd stake his ticket on it. I don't know him, am sure
he's an upstanding citizen etc., but think that's a very foolhardy and
dangerous attitude/opinion. I wonder about a pilot who is skilled enough to
fly IMC in the NAS yet considers the loss of a radio an emergency (assuming
of course that nothing else is wrong). The aircraft is still flying,
there's procedure to keep him and all around him safe, and he doesn't have
the distraction of someone talking in his ear telling him what to do. I
just don't see that angle as being justification to make up your own game
plan, in IMC, and hope that someone on the ground is going to defend you
when theres an inquiry. If I was doing the investigation, I'd have to ask
the guy why he thought he was in an emergency situation and the answer had
better contain more failures than just a radio.

Anyway, in a time far far away, that's what they taught me at the SAC
Instrument Flight Course, to say nothing of UPT and the annual required
instrument refresher courses we had to endure in the USAF.

Jim

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy controller
isn't going to file against them for violating the regs?

In an emergency, you are permitted to... in fact supposed to... violate
the regs to the extent necessary to meet the emergency. It's your call,
but I'd bet my ticket the FAA would back the pilot in that case.

Jose
--
I agree with you Jose, but what is the emergency? Loss of a radio in IMC
when there's a procedure to get you on the ground? I just don't see it and,
although many cite controller opinions on this that violating the procedure
is expected and condoned, I think it dangerous and foolhardy for anyone to
do so. Until the procedure(s) is/are rescinded, I think its unlikely that
you'd convince all your "judges" that you had an emergency situation because
the procedure was inconvenient. As you say, it's your call although that
call could, potentially (unlikely I agree), kill someone.

Jim

I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year,
so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are
unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO
aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.

I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting
conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the book"
approach is not shared by all of his compatriots.

If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination, using
MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a good
argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first contact
with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not follow the
same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay high until a
moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the appropriate altitude.
However, every jet I have ever been in has had an air-ground telephone and I
suspect it would be used if VHF comms were lost.

Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace is
puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have
confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget?

Bob Gardner



"Jim Baker" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they
said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his
articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down
enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that the
controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following that
advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely unlikely
event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot could follow
that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that the
controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you to
follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another
aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy
controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At
the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about
urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to
show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an
airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?

In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any particular
airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure, updated
weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate runway. If
there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at the altitude
you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend in that holding
pattern to make good the time described for NORDO procedures in the AIM.
(Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in front of me). If
there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF at the altitude I
had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding pattern and descent
in that pattern to make good the time at the airport or the IAF. Will
this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the alternative, again in this
unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe that I wonder why anyone would
even consider it.

Jim


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed
this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as planned
and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are identified as
NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate, they will
sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on the
ground. They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you comply
with the regs.

You will not find this in writing in any official pub.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
oups.com...

I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html

This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
bit annoying.

But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.

First:

Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
VXV is an IAF for TYS.

Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
fly back to VXV, then do full approach.

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
where?

He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
judgement, etc.

Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
would you do?

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

Bob....Your first paragraph is maybe not puerile, but certainly nonsensical.
If the controllers at these annual meetings are unanimous, which I think is
hyperbole merely to make your point, then how could Don disagree since, as
you say, he is attending as a controller? You say his opinions are not
shared by all his compatriots, but some do? Hmmmmm...where's the unanimity
in that? I'm merely poking at you here Bob, no offense. I agree it's
important to have a NORDO aircraft on the ground as soon as possible, but
that doesn't mean at any cost. I contend, the entire DoD flying community
contends, and the official guidance of the FAA contends that ASAP doesn't
mean at any cost disregarding established procedure. I don't see how a
responsible pilot can ignore procedure when there is no emergency. It's bad
judgment.

I find your second paragraph about not all of his compatriots sharing Don's
"by the book" approach to be disheartening and dangerous. It dismays me
that we stress, as instructors, procedure tempered with judgment to our
students as the way to safely fly aircraft and yet there's outright advocacy
for disregarding procedure by some pilots and controllers when there's no
emergency. To disregard procedure with no "good" reason to do so other than
convenience is, to me, bad judgment on the pilots part because it endangers
others lives. If your point about sterilized airspace is correct and there's
no danger, fine, but then what do you teach pilots about other procedures?
If a group of pilots and controllers, but not all of us, agree a procedure
can be safely ignored, it's bogus, then those pilots can pick and choose
when to ignore it based on their reading of the non-emergency scenario? If
these controllers and pilots are so sure that this situation can be handled
in another way, safely, then why don't some of them try to get things
changed to reflect their vision of reality and practicality? Change the
procedure. I support that.

I have to disagree with your changing procedure because you're flying in the
flight levels. I've flown up there since 1973 and I've always had the fuel
to fly the planned route to my destination. None of the jets I flew had an
air-ground phone (B-52, B-1B and B-727).

Best regards,

Jim


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news
I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year,
so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are
unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO
aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.

I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting
conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the
book" approach is not shared by all of his compatriots.

If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination,
using MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a
good argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first
contact with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not
follow the same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay
high until a moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the
appropriate altitude. However, every jet I have ever been in has had an
air-ground telephone and I suspect it would be used if VHF comms were
lost.

Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace is
puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have
confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget?

Bob Gardner



"Jim Baker" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they
said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his
articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down
enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that the
controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following that
advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely
unlikely event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot
could follow that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that
the controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you
to follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another
aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy
controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At
the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about
urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to
show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an
airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?

In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any particular
airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure, updated
weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate runway. If
there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at the altitude
you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend in that
holding pattern to make good the time described for NORDO procedures in
the AIM. (Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in front of me).
If there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF at the
altitude I had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding pattern
and descent in that pattern to make good the time at the airport or the
IAF. Will this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the alternative, again
in this unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe that I wonder why
anyone would even consider it.

Jim


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed
this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as
planned and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are
identified as NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate,
they will sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on
the ground. They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you
comply with the regs.

You will not find this in writing in any official pub.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
oups.com...

I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html

This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
bit annoying.

But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.

First:

Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
VXV is an IAF for TYS.

Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
fly back to VXV, then do full approach.

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
where?

He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
judgement, etc.

Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
would you do?

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

Jim Baker wrote:

Wow, Tim, you're going to open a huge can of worms with that!! LOL. About 2
to 3 years ago I wrote practically the same thing regarding 5-3-3 and got in
a big thread with the inhabitants here, especially Newps, about it. The
thread began with whether you should make a report when vacating a
previously assigned altitude or flight level. The controllers and many
other pilots contended, this from memory, that it wasn't required and
garbaged up the freq. I cited 5-3-3, the "should" and "at all times"
language, and rec'd a barrage of return fire.

Those who scoff at this stuff haven't been involved in rule-making or the
enforcement posture of the FAA. Because the FAA does not invoke enforcement for
things like these comm reports unless something really goes wrong, it becomes
easy to think they are optional.

Failure to report a previously assigned altitude in a radar environment would
almost certainly never result in an enforcement proceeding. Failure to make the
same report in a non-radar environment increases the chances of being sanctioned
to some degree.

I know, I have been through this stuff here before and am immune to those who
say "BS." ;-) I brought it up this time in the spirit of how I would include it
in a ground school course. In a training context, I would place it far below
the knowledge needed to survive in the system. But, neglecting to teach the
legal nuances of this "lesser" stuff is inappropriate.

My point in that thread, and this, is to wonder why any pilot would stake
his ticket, his life, or others lives on the opinions of controllers or
anyone else who advocated not adhering to procedure for convenience sake.
Jose, above, said he'd stake his ticket on it.

I did not say that. What I said was that I would do so in the case of
an =emergency=, not for the sake of =convenience=. And I also said that
in the context of "to the extent necessary to meet the emergency". Lost
comm under VFR is inconvenient. Lost comm under IFR can be an
emergency, depending on circumstances.

The aircraft is still flying,
there's procedure to keep him and all around him safe, and he doesn't have
the distraction of someone talking in his ear telling him what to do.

That procedure may work in the midwest, where there's not so much
traffic, but in the Northeast, especially if my transponder has also
gone to lunch, that procedure may =not= actually keep me safe. I would
make a judgement call based on circumstances. I would expect the FAA to
back me if some controller got a bug up his posterior.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I agree with you Jose, but what is the emergency? Loss of a radio in IMC
when there's a procedure to get you on the ground?

Loss of radio IMC at the beginning of a four hour IFR flight from just
south of DC to Islip on Long Island, which would take me NORDO through
or around the ADIZ, the DC Class B, the Philadelphia class B, and the NY
class B, when there's good weather to the southwest of me. I don't know
why the radio failed, I'm cleared to 5000 (tops at 5500), and I don't
know what else might be on the way to transistor heaven.

So, do you turn right and climb another thousand feet, or do you drone
into the wasp nests ahead on a clearance that is almost always changed
six or seven times enroute?

Sometimes is's safe, sometimes it's not. If the FAA lawyers were
aboard, what would they want me to do?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:



Sometimes is's safe, sometimes it's not. If the FAA lawyers were
aboard, what would they want me to do?

They would hope you have read the AIM as well as the regulation:

AIM 6-4-1. Two-way Radio Communications Failure
a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable
to all possible situations associated with two-way radio communications failure.
During two-way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not
covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in
whatever action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should
not be reluctant to use the emergency action contained in 14 CFR Section
91.3(b).

I didn't mean to imply that we had a show of hands at the controller's
conference. Many controllers have confided to me in e-mails and private
conversations that while no one can say that Don is wrong in his by-the-book
approach (how could he be?), there are work-arounds that make things easier
for them.

I can't cite chapter and verse, but the FAA considers lost comms to be an
emergency, and no one second-guesses a pilot who says s/he has/had an
emergency.

Re flying in the flight levels, how did fuel enter into the discussion? I
readily acknowledge that military aircraft do not have inflight phones....my
experience is with corporate jets and turboprops.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Baker" wrote in message
...
Bob....Your first paragraph is maybe not puerile, but certainly
nonsensical. If the controllers at these annual meetings are unanimous,
which I think is hyperbole merely to make your point, then how could Don
disagree since, as you say, he is attending as a controller? You say his
opinions are not shared by all his compatriots, but some do?
Hmmmmm...where's the unanimity in that? I'm merely poking at you here
Bob, no offense. I agree it's important to have a NORDO aircraft on the
ground as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean at any cost. I contend,
the entire DoD flying community contends, and the official guidance of the
FAA contends that ASAP doesn't mean at any cost disregarding established
procedure. I don't see how a responsible pilot can ignore procedure when
there is no emergency. It's bad judgment.

I find your second paragraph about not all of his compatriots sharing
Don's "by the book" approach to be disheartening and dangerous. It
dismays me that we stress, as instructors, procedure tempered with
judgment to our students as the way to safely fly aircraft and yet there's
outright advocacy for disregarding procedure by some pilots and
controllers when there's no emergency. To disregard procedure with no
"good" reason to do so other than convenience is, to me, bad judgment on
the pilots part because it endangers others lives. If your point about
sterilized airspace is correct and there's no danger, fine, but then what
do you teach pilots about other procedures? If a group of pilots and
controllers, but not all of us, agree a procedure can be safely ignored,
it's bogus, then those pilots can pick and choose when to ignore it based
on their reading of the non-emergency scenario? If these controllers and
pilots are so sure that this situation can be handled in another way,
safely, then why don't some of them try to get things changed to reflect
their vision of reality and practicality? Change the procedure. I
support that.

I have to disagree with your changing procedure because you're flying in
the flight levels. I've flown up there since 1973 and I've always had the
fuel to fly the planned route to my destination. None of the jets I flew
had an air-ground phone (B-52, B-1B and B-727).

Best regards,

Jim


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news
I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year,
so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are
unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO
aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.

I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting
conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the
book" approach is not shared by all of his compatriots.

If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination,
using MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a
good argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first
contact with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not
follow the same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay
high until a moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the
appropriate altitude. However, every jet I have ever been in has had an
air-ground telephone and I suspect it would be used if VHF comms were
lost.

Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace
is puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have
confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget?

Bob Gardner



"Jim Baker" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they
said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his
articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down
enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that
the controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following
that advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely
unlikely event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot
could follow that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that
the controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you
to follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another
aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy
controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At
the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about
urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to
show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an
airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?

In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any
particular airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure,
updated weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate
runway. If there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at
the altitude you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend
in that holding pattern to make good the time described for NORDO
procedures in the AIM. (Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in
front of me). If there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF
at the altitude I had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding
pattern and descent in that pattern to make good the time at the airport
or the IAF. Will this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the
alternative, again in this unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe
that I wonder why anyone would even consider it.

Jim


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever
discussed this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the
destination as planned and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that
once you are identified as NORDO, either by transponder or by failing
to communicate, they will sterilize the airspace around the destination
until you are on the ground. They do not want to keep other planes
hanging while you comply with the regs.

You will not find this in writing in any official pub.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
oups.com...

I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html

This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
bit annoying.

But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.

First:

Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
VXV is an IAF for TYS.

Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs
say
fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport
(?!),
fly back to VXV, then do full approach.

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before.
Usually,
controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
where?

He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
judgement, etc.

Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
would you do?

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

Mary Yodice, writing a legal column in either the AOPA Pilot or Flight
Training, I can't remember which, warned pilots that relying on the
non-regulatory status of the AIM was a mistake. An NTSB administrative law
judge gets to decide if a particular action or fail to act constitutes
"careless and reckless," and failing to use the guidance in the AIM puts you
right in their crosshairs.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:vgdve.27603$%Z2.20038@lakeread08...
Don't forget, the AIM is not regulatory. It is an informational source.
You can't violate it. You can violate 91.185.

The military taught me (and they generally teach exactly what is in the
FARs with some exceptions) to fly as the AIM says. They still teach that
(See USAF instrument flight procedures manual; its online). You commence
your approach at your ETA, hold if you are early. Practically, unless you
got there very early, you commence the approach (any one you want). ATC
will clear the airspace. You have to trust the controllers to do their
job just like they are trusting you will do yours and follow the published
guidance in the FARs (excuse me 14 CFR 91, the aquisition folks
trademarked "FAR")

wrote in message
oups.com...

I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html

This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
bit annoying.

But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.

First:

Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
VXV is an IAF for TYS.

Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
fly back to VXV, then do full approach.

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
where?

He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
judgement, etc.

Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
would you do?

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com