Holding Pattern Question

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.


Why?


Why not?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Why not?


Waiting for the ETA ties up airspace and delays other aircraft.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:19 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"

Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?

Receivers are simpler than transmitters?

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:19 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"

Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?


Receivers are simpler than transmitters?


Nav radios fail too! Transmitters are usually less complex than the
matching receiver, but they also handle much more power. More power
means more stress on the components, which in turn leads to a higher
failure rate.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If the hold isn't issued and things don't go as expected and comm is lost,
then you have an airplane coming in the airspace unwanted, but at a known
and predictable time since you are tracking it on radar.


Not issuing the hold was not part of any scenario.



If the hold is issued with no EFC and comm is lost during the hold, then
you have an airplane which will enter the airspace at an unknown time.


Say what? If your comm was still operating prior to reaching your clearance
limit without an EFC why didn't you query the controller?



Hopefully, the pilot knows enough to wait until the ETA, but what if he
doesn't? Or what if his watch is 5 minutes off?


Hopefully the pilot will know the controller is unlikely to have his ETA and
will just fly the approach without holding at all.

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
...

Receivers are simpler than transmitters?


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure.

On 09/26/07 12:02, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
...

Receivers are simpler than transmitters?


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure.



Say What? ;-)

If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
according to 91.185.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Say What? ;-)


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time?



If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
according to 91.185.


If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
transmitter and receiver.

On 09/26/07 13:39, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

Say What? ;-)


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time?



If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
according to 91.185.


If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
transmitter and receiver.



That's ridiculous.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:02:10 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
.. .

Receivers are simpler than transmitters?


If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure.

It's a one-way comm failure!

But if the transponder is still replying... G