A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lost comms after radar vector



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 20th 04, 05:21 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:3%0Pb.88422$5V2.144302@attbi_s53...

When the tailwind significantly changes the ETE, on what basis would a

pilot be
able to predict what ATC might "expect"?


None.



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?


None.


  #32  
Old January 20th 04, 05:23 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...

That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
agreement about what to do.


But they're not well-defined, and if everyone was in agreement about what to
do we wouldn't have this same discussion periodically.


  #33  
Old January 20th 04, 02:14 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...

That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
agreement about what to do.


But they're not well-defined, and if everyone was in agreement about what to
do we wouldn't have this same discussion periodically.



Actually, I think they are pretty well defined. The problem is that
most people here agree that the way they're defined is stupid (or, at
least, outdated).
  #34  
Old January 20th 04, 02:31 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Actually, I think they are pretty well defined.


How so? In most cases the clearance limit is the destination airport, how
do you comply with FAR 91.185(c)(3)?


  #36  
Old January 20th 04, 03:06 PM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message . net...

snippola
That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
agreement about what to do.


Um...why do you think lost comms procedures are well-defined?

Sydney
  #37  
Old January 20th 04, 04:28 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Roy Smith wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

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?


I don't remember what model. We tried both headsets and the hand mike.
I'm not 100% sure it was in the audio panel per-se. Might have been in
the intercomm box, but it was definately a problem with a relay, and
definately in the "audio stuff".


Bummer. I've been thinking about the failure possibilities in our
audio panel etc. I rather would like mic jacks directly wired into
our #1 comm but our avionics guy seems a bit reluctant for some reason
I'm still trying to draw out of him.

Cheers,
Sydney


Another thing we learned on that flight was that handhelds aren't worth
crap inside the airplane. We both had handhelds, and we tried them
both, to no avail. First, hearing anything over the cabin noise was
very difficult (neither of us had adapters to plug our headsets into the
handheld radios). Second, the little rubber ducky antennas don't work
for ****, especially inside a metal airplane cabin.

What I think would make the most sense is a way to connect your handheld
directly to the external antenna in the plane, and make sure you've got
a way to plug your headsets directly into your handheld radio.
  #38  
Old January 20th 04, 04:45 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is why I carry a handheld, with rechargeable batteries in it, and
spare batteries if those aren't charged, with its own outside
antennae. I can plug my headset directly into the handheld and
talk/listen through my headset. So my chances of going totally lost
comm are pretty small.

Also, in the even of lost comm, I am heading for nearest VMC, and I
know where that is due to getting the weather. I always try and have
enough fuel to make it to VMC. Lost comm has never happened, but in
the west there is seldom massive areas of cloud cover, you can usually
find VFR weather not too far away, IF you know where it is.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...

That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
agreement about what to do.


But they're not well-defined, and if everyone was in agreement about what to
do we wouldn't have this same discussion periodically.

  #39  
Old January 20th 04, 04:52 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Doug" wrote in message
om...

Also, in the even of lost comm, I am heading for nearest VMC, and I
know where that is due to getting the weather. I always try and have
enough fuel to make it to VMC. Lost comm has never happened, but in
the west there is seldom massive areas of cloud cover, you can usually
find VFR weather not too far away, IF you know where it is.


In other words, you'd take the position that lost comms in IMC is an
in-flight emergency requiring immediate action and use the emergency
authority of FAR 91.3(b).


  #40  
Old January 20th 04, 05:33 PM
PaulaJay1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Roy Smith
writes:

But they're not well-defined, and if everyone was in agreement about what to
do we wouldn't have this same discussion periodically.



Actually, I think they are pretty well defined. The problem is that
most people here agree that the way they're defined is stupid (or, at
least, outdated).


It bothers me that the 7600 code continues to "ring" at Control so they want me
to switch back to the original code after some period of time. What period?
How do I know that Control has got the message? Don't I have enough to do if
in IMC and lost comm? Why doesn't Control have the onus (other than 'Put a
bandaide over the button') to stop the ring. They are in a nice airconditioned
area separate from the problem at hand. Kind a like the pig/chicken joke of
han and eggs, I'm dedicated while with them it's a passing fancy. If a lost
com ever happens to me, I hope I remember to set 7600, and if I do, I plan to
change it back on a taxiway somewhere.

Chuck
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.