Lost comms after radar vector

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

"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?


Squawk 7600 briefly, return to my assigned beacon code, fly the approach,
land, clear the runway.



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.


I've been a controller for over twenty years; center, approach, and tower,
and an IFR pilot longer than that, and I think you show more sense than your
instructor.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

Squawk 7600 briefly, return to my assigned beacon code, fly the approach,
land, clear the runway.

I'd add a bit:

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.

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...

Fly the approach, land, clear the runway, taxi to the FBO, call the tower.

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


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.


Fly the approach, land, clear the runway, taxi to the FBO, call the tower.

If there's a tower, don't forget to look for the light.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

If there's a tower, don't forget to look for the light.


What will you do if there's no light?

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

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

If there's a tower, don't forget to look for the light.


What will you do if there's no light?



Take off, hold at the FAF for an hour, land and check for the light
again. Repeat until you run out of fuel.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
|
| "Ron Natalie" wrote in message
| m...
|
| If there's a tower, don't forget to look for the light.
|
|
| What will you do if there's no light?

If you're in IMC, a light is going to be a bit hard to see anyway (assuming
the tower knows where to point it). If you can see the light far enough in
advance to be meaningful, wouldn't you be in VMC - or close enough to it for
government work?

"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.

"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

..

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.