Lost comms after radar vector

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:OpWOb.100956$xy6.181890@attbi_s02...

I'd add a bit:

Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC,


Squawking 7600 briefly will get all the attention needed.



and to give
some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to
"bend"
the regulations.


The controller will treat you as an emergency either way.



Squawk 7600 to let them know the emergency is "just" lost comm, with
no
other complications.

I'm not sure whether continuing on 7600 or returning to assigned
squawk is
preferable to the ATC guys...


I'm an ATC guy, returning to the assigned squawk is preferable.

John R Weiss wrote:

I'd add a bit:

Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC,

Not necessary. Any emergency squawk gets the attentioon of ATC equally.


and to give
some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to "bend"
the regulations.

That will be assumed when you squawk 7600.



Squawk 7600 to let them know the emergency is "just" lost comm, with no
other complications.

I'm not sure whether continuing on 7600 or returning to assigned squawk is
preferable to the ATC guys...

In reality most of the time we know before you do that you are NORDO.
You are supposed to squawk 7600 continuously when you realize it it,
however once we know you are NORDO there is no reason for you to
continue the 7600 squawk. It sets off a pretty annoying alarm in the
tower cab that we have to keep silenced with a rubber band that holds
the mute switch down.

"John R Weiss" 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.

John, this used to be true way-back in the old days when only 7700
rang the bell, but several years back, they re-wrote the software
so that now, 7500, 7600 and 7700 all ring the bell.

Bob Moore

I'm training for my CFII and had the same conversation with my instructor
over a similar situation.

In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The
reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to
your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue
that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows
you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for
all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185.

The deal is this: unless you loose comms early on in the flight and no radar
services are available, they'll see you on radar and will provide separation
accordingly. If you lost your transponder as well, you've likely
experienced total electrical failure, and now 91.3(b) applies, meaning get
on the ground.

Don't circle over Evansville for an hour NORDO, they might shoot you down.


"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.

What do you do?

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. In
this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to
faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than
planned).

My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach
course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the
approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the
controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the
simplest and most direct way possible.

My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he
admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour
with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the
book" and that's what you have to do.

I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above
situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to
be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the
simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a
no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in
IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than
the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this.

My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the
IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a
big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up
directly for the approach.

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. 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.

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

"Brad Z" wrote in message
news:uAJOb.97275$xy6.175256@attbi_s02...

In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The
reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to
your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue
that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows
you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for
all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185.


Actually, it's unlikely the controller knows you're early as it's unlikely
he knew your original ETA.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Brad Z" wrote in message
news:uAJOb.97275$xy6.175256@attbi_s02...

In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The
reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to
your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue
that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows
you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for
all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185.


Actually, it's unlikely the controller knows you're early as it's unlikely
he knew your original ETA.



Yeah, but the point is, he knows where you are now.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Yeah, but the point is, he knows where you are now.


Yeah, but his argument is if the controller is giving you vectors for the
approach, he knows you're early.

No guru, no expert, no nuthin' here, but--a problem I see is that the answer
from the regs depends on the clearance limit, and they don't specify what to do
when the clearance limit is an airport. That's the most common case. I've
discussed it with several instructors and controllers; consensus is in that case
to procede to an airport and land without delay.

David (PP-instr.)

Mike Ciholas wrote:

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.

What do you do?

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. In
this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to
faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than
planned).

My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach
course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the
approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the
controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the
simplest and most direct way possible.

My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he
admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour
with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the
book" and that's what you have to do.

I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above
situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to
be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the
simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a
no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in
IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than
the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this.

My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the
IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a
big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up
directly for the approach.

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. 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.

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

The instructor not only lacks common sense, he lacks an in-depth understanding of
91.185. Since the flight was already in contact with approach control and being
vectored to an approach, the "ETA gates" of the regulation have already being passed
and approach control has certain and direct knowledge of the flight's existence in
approach control airspace.

Because a radar vector to an approach is a substitution for an initial approach
segment, they were already in the initial "segment" of the approach. At this point
completing the approach and landing while squawking 7600 is the only sensible and,
probably, legal course of action.

91.185 is old and outdated. But, the feds won't rewrite it because they can't form
a consensus on what to say differently. Holding for an hour after losing com duing
arrival vectors is way beyond any stretch of that reg, though, and actually sounds
like danger ahead of common sense.

David Kazdan wrote:

No guru, no expert, no nuthin' here, but--a problem I see is that the answer
from the regs depends on the clearance limit, and they don't specify what to do
when the clearance limit is an airport. That's the most common case. I've
discussed it with several instructors and controllers; consensus is in that case
to procede to an airport and land without delay.

David (PP-instr.)

Mike Ciholas wrote:

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.

What do you do?

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. In
this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to
faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than
planned).

My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach
course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the
approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the
controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the
simplest and most direct way possible.

My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he
admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour
with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the
book" and that's what you have to do.

I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above
situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to
be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the
simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a
no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in
IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than
the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this.

My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the
IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a
big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up
directly for the approach.

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. 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.

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

In article ,
(Mike Ciholas) wrote:

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.

I'm not sure what "bias" means, but I'm assuming he said something like,
"turn left heading 030, vectors for the approach".

What do you do?

Shoot the approach, land, taxi off the runway, wait for the "follow me"
truck to come out and get you.

The overwhelmingly most likely scenario is that they've still got you on
radar. Your transponder is probably still working. Even if it's not
(total electrical failure?), they've probably still got a primary
target. They'll watch you and clear everybody away.

What's the other possibility? That they don't know where you are? In
which case you're going to burn circles in the sky at the OM for an
hour? Get real.

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.

I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above
situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to
be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the
simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a
no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in
IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than
the radios.

Sounds like a well-thought out analysis of the situation. You've got a
lot more common sense than your instructor.

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 (they said they were getting
carrier only, no voice). They told us to "follow the flight planned
route", which we did until we got near the ILS. Our flight planned
route would take us past the airport, then we'd have to double back to
get to the ILS. Instead, we left the airway and intercepted the
localizer about 10 miles out. Saved us probably about 20-25 miles of
back-and-forth. As soon as we did that, ATC said, "You appear to be
flying the ILS-16, cleared ILS approach". We landed, called the tower
to assure them we were OK, and that was that.

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.