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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...
And yet you just said you could hold at such a fix. "Could" and "would" are different concepts here. It is physically possible to hold at many fixes in situations where such holding is not desirable or sensible. OTOH, there are situations (e.g., lost comm complicated by other emergency such as temporary disorientation) where a turn in holding to 'get your stuff together' is a good idea. I am NOT advocating an NDB hold or other hard-to-accomplish extended hold in a lost comm situation. I am trying to point out that in some situations, a hold makes sense and is in accordance with the rules. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:eaAPb.96486$Rc4.581993@attbi_s54... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote... snip I am NOT advocating an NDB hold or other hard-to-accomplish extended hold in a lost comm situation. I am trying to point out that in some situations, a hold makes sense and is in accordance with the rules. Oh come on Weiss, you just want to be a bully. Now you apologise to Steve and the group. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...
Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning. Ah, via dead-reckoning. I see. Are you an instrument-rated pilot? Are you a pilot at all? Take it out of context if you must -- I described much more than dead reckoning after that. Yes, I am an ATP, and currently work as such. In the airplane, if I lost comm prior to TAGOR, all I have to do is fly direct from TAGOR to the SEA 341/5.7 (cross-checking with the PARKK NDB at the field, if I don't have DME -- I could do this as an NDB hold, too, but I am assuming that isn't an option at MKE), using the preplanned heading and time, adjusted for any wind corrections I'd been using enroute to TAGOR. Nope, not an option at MKE. Given that you can navigate enroute and hold using just dead-reckoning, why do you bother with navaids while enroute at all? The NACO IFR charts appear to be available by purchase/subscription only, and are not actually available on line. However, there happens to be a TPP Change Notice currently on line for the ILS 01L at MKE. From the plate, it looks like you could find the airport using a VOR/VOR fix with BAE and HRK. You would have a variety of MM and IM beacons to choose from and use for cross-checks. Where did I claim to navigate via dead reckoning only? Have you never plotted or flown point-to-point? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote...
Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a Standard pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c. But if the clearance limit is the destination airport, then there won't be and EFC, and so 91.185c3ii does *not* say to hold over the airport. Suppose you lost comm shortly before getting to an IAF, and before being cleared for the approach. In that case, compliance with 91.185c3ii as written would require you fly from the IAF to the airport, then back to the IAF, then back to the airport to land. Is that what you would do? In general, shortly before getting to an IAF, I have already been talking to Approach, and have been told to "expect the ILS 24R." At that point, 91.185(c)(1)(iii) and 91.185(c)(2)(ii) would apply, and I would squawk 7600 and continue with the approach. If I have not been explicitly told to expect an approach, and an IAF was the last filed point on my flight plan, I would consider that IAF as my clearance limit. Note also that the "route filed in the flight plan" (91.185(c)(1)(iv)) generally terminates at an IAF (it is good practice to ensure it does). Seldom is the airport itself in the route block. I have always been taught that regardless of the "cleared to destination airport" terminology in the IFR clearance received just prior to takeoff, the actual clearance limit -- and the ETE calculation for the route -- is to the last NAVAID/Fix/waypoint entered in the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF. This concept is backed up in Para. 5-1-4.K and 5-1-7.f of the AIM, as well as 91.185(c)(3)(i) and 91.185(c)(3)(ii): "proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." Note that the "descent and approach" are commenced at the derived ETA -- NOT the departure from the non-IAF holding fix. However, in the case where "Cleared direct Milwaukee" is given airborne, that is, in fact, an amendment to the filed flight plan. That is where 91.185(c)(3)(ii) could come into play (assuming there is no NAVAID or Fix named MKE or MLWKE). You navigate direct toward overhead the airport (and if you cannot, you do not accept the clearance in the first place). If you lose comm enroute in IMC, follow 91.185(c)(3)(ii) after arriving overhead the airport. Since compliance would be nonsensical, it seems clear that 91.185c3 just wasn't intended to address the case where the clearance limit is the destination airport. I am not advocating any "nonsensical" compliance. I am advocating the use of rules-based reasoning when making the decision whether or not to hold in the lost-comm scenario. I believe I clarified a [very common] case where 91.185c3 would indeed apply, where the clearance limit is the destination airport, in my last paragraph above. I believe I also provided a sound basis for my rationale regarding the actual clearance limit -- a rationale that gives some sense to 91.185c3. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...
Have you given up on dead-reckoning? Nope. I use it all the time when sailing, kayaking, and rowing. I also use it a lot when flying VFR. I use it as a basis for IFR navigation as well: Dead Reckoning is the process of estimating your position by advancing a known position using course, speed, time and distance to be traveled. In other words figuring out where you will be at a certain time if you hold the speed, time and course you plan to travel. (http://www.auxetrain.org/Nav1.html) |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...
"John R Weiss" wrote... I don't! You did less than a day ago: It seems you're taking statements out of context again... The question was: "Gary Drescher" wrote... Let's say you lack RNAV, and your destination airport has an off-field VOR approach, no DME, and no other nearby navaid. How would you propose to use that airport as a holding fix if you're going to hold for an hour? To make it a bit more clear, "I don't" propose to hold at such a fix for an hour. OTOH YOUR question, was "How do I hold over the airport?": Okay. I'm heading to Milwaukee from Grand Rapids. I've filed the preferential, GRR..MKG.V2.SUDDS..MKE, and have been cleared as filed. I'm flying a BE35/U; two nav/comms, GS receiver, ADF, and marker beacon receiver. At MINNY I discover I cannot transmit or receive on either comm radio. How do I hold over the airport? To which I responded: Per AIM 5-3-7.c: Over MKE Standard pattern (right turn, 1 or 1 1/2 minute legs) On the course from SUDDS to MKE At your cleared altitude Until the time calculated per 91.185(c)(3)(ii) Since I don't know whether or not SUDDS is an IAF, I simply answered the question, assuming that in the situation you described, you might choose to hold over the airport. After finding an approach plate for MKE (which does not show SUDDS) on line this AM, I can further clarify by noting that you can use the BAE and HRK VORs to plot a VOR/VOR fix over the airport, and use that as your holding point, should you choose to hold over the airport. You can back up that fix by tuning your ILS receiver to an appropriate frequency (e.g., 110.3 for the I-MKE ILS 01R) and use your marker beacon receiver to note passage over a MM or IM. Depending on your inbound course, you might be able to get some useful LOC information, but I wouldn't rely on it. WOULD I do that for an hour? I doubt it -- I can't come up with a rational scenario. COULD I do it for a couple turns, given a scenario where I decided it was the right thing to do? Yes! An HSI would make it easier, but it could be done with a pair of CDIs. A fix defined by the intersection of 2 VOR radials is sufficient for navigation. It may take a bit of time to plot the 2 radials, and a few more seconds to plot the course and distance from SUDDS to MKE, but each of those is a basic navigation process. You might have even done it in your preflight planning, and annotated your Sectional and/or Low Alt IFR chart just for situational awareness... |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51... "Gary Drescher" wrote... Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a Standard pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c. But if the clearance limit is the destination airport, then there won't be and EFC, and so 91.185c3ii does *not* say to hold over the airport. Suppose you lost comm shortly before getting to an IAF, and before being cleared for the approach. In that case, compliance with 91.185c3ii as written would require you fly from the IAF to the airport, then back to the IAF, then back to the airport to land. Is that what you would do? If I have not been explicitly told to expect an approach, and an IAF was the last filed point on my flight plan, I would consider that IAF as my clearance limit. I have always been taught that regardless of the "cleared to destination airport" terminology in the IFR clearance received just prior to takeoff, the actual clearance limit -- and the ETE calculation for the route -- is to the last NAVAID/Fix/waypoint entered in the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF. But contrary to what you would construe, and contrary to what you have always been taught, the AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary explicitly defines "clearance limit" as "the fix, point, or location to which an aircraft is cleared when issued an air traffic clearance". (Note that a clearance limit doesn't even have to be a fix.) So you're essentially inventing your own private definition of "clearance limit" in order to try to make 91.185c3ii seem sensible. The very need to do that demonstrates that 91.185c3ii does *not* make sense as written. We're then unfortunately left to guess at its true intent. This concept is backed up in Para. 5-1-4.K and 5-1-7.f of the AIM, as well as 91.185(c)(3)(i) and 91.185(c)(3)(ii): "proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." Note that the "descent and approach" are commenced at the derived ETA -- NOT the departure from the non-IAF holding fix. I don't see how any of the text you cite addresses your proposed definition of "clearance limit". The term is clearly defined in the P/CG. --Gary |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message news:ciCPb.100983$nt4.300167@attbi_s51... "John R Weiss" wrote in message news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51... snip the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF. But contrary to what you would construe, and contrary to what you have always been taught, the AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary explicitly defines "clearance limit" as "the fix, point, or location to which an aircraft is cleared when issued an air traffic clearance". (Note that a clearance limit doesn't even have to be a fix.) So you're essentially inventing your own private definition of "clearance limit" in order to try to make 91.185c3ii seem sensible. The very need to do that demonstrates that 91.185c3ii does *not* make sense as written. We're then unfortunately left to guess at its true intent. Many the original CFR 14 Parts require "interpreataion" and it is dangerous to do otherwise. It is one of the reasons Part 145 had to be rewitten, so that something that could work will be in the palce code that could never have worked. Onward and upward ... |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net, "Steven P.
McNicoll" writes: The chances of losing both transmitters and both receivers simultaneously are extremely remote, unless the loss is due to a failure in the electrical system, which would leave the other installed avionics just as useless as the comm radios. A hand held GPS on battterys is a good emergency avionic. I have a 195 on ship's power (with bateries installed) as well as a 430 in the panel. It might not be legal to do an approach with the 195 but it's better than a ham sandwich. Chuck |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net, "Steven P.
McNicoll" writes: How would the system distinguish between your 7600 code and another 7600 code? I guess you do have to plan for two or more at one time. How often does one occur and have you ever had two at once? I thought that the code appeared on the CRT along with my position. Does it? Chuck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |