Lost comm -- what would you do?

A student and I took off today IFR from HPN. Destination was FWN (Sussex,
NJ). Rhumb line course is 42 NM at 294 degrees.

Clearance was "Westchester 1, RV CMK, CMK 275R to intercept SAX 039R, SAX,
direct FWN, maintain 3000, expect 4000 after 10 minutes".

Departing runway 34, the SID is "climb to 1000, then left turn 295, expect
vectors to departure fix". CMK is 14 miles at 037.

We depart, check in with NY Approach, and get "maintain 4000". Nothing
about heading, so we stay on the SID heading of 295, which conveniently is
pointing us right at our destination.

Here's the question. If you went lost comm, what would you do?
Technically, our next waypoint is still CMK, so "fly the route previously
cleared" would have us head direct CMK then as cleared. But, every mile we
fly on 295 takes us further and further away from CMK, and making a, say,
150 degree, course change to head back to CMK seems pretty dumb. Yet, they
wouldn't have given us such a circuitous route if there wasn't some good
reason they needed to keep us away from the rhumbline.

The route is off-airways, but you note that the VOR-A
(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0511/05412VGA.PDF) MSA is 3100. Assume you're
familiar with the area, and know that 4000 clears all terrain that might
possibly be a factor along any route you might pick.

So, what would you do? Turn back to CMK and proceed from there? Keep on
the 295 heading until you intercept the CMK 275 or the SAX 039, whichever
comes first (assuming that heading even intercepts those at all). Turn
direct SAX? Hit the reset button and start the scenario again?

"Roy Smith" wrote:

The route is off-airways, but you note that the VOR-A
(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0511/05412VGA.PDF) MSA is 3100. Assume
you're
familiar with the area, and know that 4000 clears all terrain that
might
possibly be a factor along any route you might pick.

So, what would you do? Turn back to CMK and proceed from there? Keep
on
the 295 heading until you intercept the CMK 275 or the SAX 039,
whichever
comes first (assuming that heading even intercepts those at all).
Turn
direct SAX? Hit the reset button and start the scenario again?

Turn back to CMK and proceed from there, with an eye on the chart for
obstacle/terrain clearance. Staying on 295 doesn't really assure you of
anything even if you climb to 4,000 because you don't know when or what
the next vector would have been. You can assume that the clearance
after CMK works if you maintain charted IFR minimum altitudes.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

From 91.185 (lost comm): (ii) If being radar vectored, by the direct
route from the point of radio
failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance;


I would argue that since you are told to expect radar vectors to
departure fix, and the first fix is CMK, then by the letter of the
regulation you are supposed to proceed to CMK. It's silly and
inefficient, but I can't see a way around this in the regs.

Practically speaking, this maybe adds a few minutes. If you can afford
the time (lost comm is due to something benign, like audio panel
failure) you might as well do it by the book. If it's more serious,
there's always emergency authority.

The real issue is why you were cleared the way you were, and how
exercising emergency authority could cause you to run afoul of whatever
prompted the roundabout clearance. I find it just a bit surprising you
got that clearance in the first place - around here, short IFR legs in
the close vicinity of a class B are almost always by RADAR vectors. I
have little experience with short IFR legs in your part of the world
(I'm generally either coming or going on long distance legs) so you
need to tell me if a clearance like that is typical in such a
situation.

Assuming it is typical, it probably had to do with traffic - which is
going to be moved away from you as soon as the controllers realize
you're lost comm (likely before you realize it). If that's the case,
no real consequence to taking a shortcut if the comm failure is
accompanied by an emergency. The other (much scarier) possibility
would be the existence of a flight restricted area - temporary or
otherwise - along the direct course, and the unpleasant possibility of
an incompetently handled military interception in IMC (which has
already killed at least one completely innocent pilot and pax legally
operating IFR on a flight plan) or simply a heat seeking missile up the
exhaust. If that's the case, think twice about that shortcut.

Michael

I would argue that since you are told to expect radar vectors to
departure fix, and the first fix is CMK, then by the letter of the
regulation you are supposed to proceed to CMK. It's silly and
inefficient, but I can't see a way around this in the regs.

Turning towards CMK on your own would also alert them that you've lost
comm (unless by coincidence, they were giving you the clearance at the
same time), in which case the lack of audible response may clue them in.

and the unpleasant possibility of
an incompetently handled military interception in IMC (which has
already killed at least one completely innocent pilot and pax legally
operating IFR on a flight plan)

When? Post 9-11? Cite? Why hasn't more noise been made?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Michael wrote: I find it just a
bit surprising you got that clearance in the first place - around
here, short IFR legs in the close vicinity of a class B are almost
always by RADAR vectors.

Yes, it's pretty typical. Sometimes you get cleared "radar vectors
direct", but much more often you get something like what I got. In
fact, this particular clearance is common enough that I use as an
exercise for people learning our GPS. Something like "CMK CMK275R
intercept SAX039R SAX" is one of the few things that's actually easier
to execute with dual VORs than with a GPS.

I agree with you that if you lost comm right off the ground, direct
CMK then as cleared would make sense. The more interesting scenario
is what happens if you check in with Departure (as we did) and he just
leaves you on the SID heading with no further instructions for a
while. At some point, you're 5 miles from SAX and 30 miles from CMK,
and it obviously doesn't make any sense to double back any more. It's
unclear where the dividing line is between those two extremes.

I don't think there's any right answer to this, it's just an
interesting exercise in PIC decision making ability to figure out what
the right thing to do is.

an incompetently handled military interception in IMC (which has
already killed at least one completely innocent pilot and pax legally
operating IFR on a flight plan)

I did not hear about this!! What are the details??

--
Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

When? Post 9-11?

Nope, years prior. Can't find the cite anymore. Short version - Baron
on an IFR flight plan over the Gulf, due to crossed wires a fighter is
sent to take a look. Weather is cruddy, pilot botches the intercept
(realize that at 8000 ft, cruise speed for a Baron is just about the
same as stall speed for a fighter) and there's a midair. Fighter pilot
bails out successfully. Baron pilot and his pax go in.

At the time (this was over a decade ago) a huge stink was raised.
There was talk of a lawsuit, but it was squashed via sovereign
immunity. Supposedly, intercept procedures were changed. However, a
friend of mine was flying on a DVFR flight plan from over the Gulf in
his Twin Comanche and looked back, upon hearing a strange noise, to see
an F-16 hanging just off his wing, everything hanging out. Seconds
later, the pilot has do dive away to avoid a stall, coming within
several feet of my friend. So nothing has changed.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nope, years prior. Can't find the cite anymore. Short version - Baron
on an IFR flight plan over the Gulf, due to crossed wires a fighter is
sent to take a look. Weather is cruddy, pilot botches the intercept
(realize that at 8000 ft, cruise speed for a Baron is just about the
same as stall speed for a fighter) and there's a midair. Fighter pilot
bails out successfully. Baron pilot and his pax go in.

At the time (this was over a decade ago) a huge stink was raised.
There was talk of a lawsuit, but it was squashed via sovereign
immunity. Supposedly, intercept procedures were changed. However, a
friend of mine was flying on a DVFR flight plan from over the Gulf in
his Twin Comanche and looked back, upon hearing a strange noise, to see
an F-16 hanging just off his wing, everything hanging out. Seconds
later, the pilot has do dive away to avoid a stall, coming within
several feet of my friend. So nothing has changed.


Is this it?



NTSB Identification: ATL83MA084B

Accident occurred Sunday, January 09, 1983 in CHERRY POINT, NC

Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas F4C, registration: AFNG
BEECH D55, registration: N7142N

Injuries: 7 Fatal, 2 Uninjured.

THE TWO ACFT COLLIDED AT ABOUT 9,500 FT MSL 30 MI SOUTH OF CHERRY POINT.
AFTER DEPARTING NASSAU, THE PLT OF THE BE-D55 NEVER ACTIVATED HIS FLT PLAN.
AN ADIZ PENETRATION TIME WAS THEREFORE NEVER ESTABLISHED. WHEN THE
UNIDENTIFIED ACFT ENTERED WARNING AREA W-122, THE USAF CONTACTED FAA ATC FOR
IDENTIFICATION INFO. SINCE FAA WAS NOT CONTROLLING ANY TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA
AN INTERCEPT ORDER WAS ISSUED. AT 1637 FAA GOT A POSITION REPORT FROM THE
BE-D55 & RELAYED IT TO MILITARY CONTROL. HOWEVER, THE TWO FIGHTER ACFT
CONTINUED TO CLOSE IN ON THE TARGET FOR RADAR CONTACT. THE LEAD ACFT WAS TO
CLOSE ABOUT 1,000 FT BELOW THE TARGET AT A PREPLANNED CLOSURE RATE OF 50 KTS
(ACTUAL RATE WAS 127 KTS). SECONDS BEFORE THE COLLISION, THE BE-D55 TURNED
LEFT AS REQUESTED BY FAA ATC THUS TURNING IT INTO THE PATH OF THE OVERTAKING
INTERCEPTOR WHICH ALSO HAD TURNED LEFT TO BREAK OFF THE INTERCEPT. THE
SAFETY BOARD DID NOT DETERMINE THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT, BUT
OFFERED STATEMENTS OF CAUSE.

Roy Smith wrote:

I don't think there's any right answer to this, it's just an
interesting exercise in PIC decision making ability to figure out what
the right thing to do is.

At least you've a fix towards which you can fly. A common clearance out of
CDW towards the west is "180 vectors Lanna V30...". This is even given to
aircraft /U...which would find it tough to fly direct to Lanna.

In practice, we'd fly "SBJ Lanna..." but I still find it an odd clearance.
In fact, I'd go so far as to call it one of my pet peeves regarding
routing.

Similarly odd is a clearance like "STW direct KCDW" or "COATE direct KCDW".
Neither STW nor COATE are initial approach fixs, so what should be done?
In RADAR and COMM, one is vectored to final. But in a communication
failure? Fly to SAX (which is an IAF for CDW's LOC22)?

[Assuming IMC, of course.]

- Andrew

At some point, you're 5 miles from SAX and 30 miles from CMK,
and it obviously doesn't make any sense to double back any more.

I'm not sure it ever made sense to double back to CMK. That's not
really the point. The regulation is clear - your next fix is CMK. I'm
not saying that going to CMK is the right thing to do, especially if
you are 5 miles from SAX - merely that it's what the regulation calls
for. Sometimes the regulation is just wrong.

I don't think there's any right answer to this, it's just an
interesting exercise in PIC decision making ability to figure out what
the right thing to do is.

Well, I sort of agree. There really isn't one exact right answer, but
there are reasonable answers and unreasonable ones. One of those
unresonable answers involves actually following the rules when you're 5
miles from SAX. Part of PIC decision making in the real world is
knowing when to bend the rules in a non-emergency situation, and
knowing what you can get away with.

If you talk to an actual practicing center or approach controller, he
will tell you that in the event of lost comm, the best thing for
everyone is for you to get on the ground by the most expeditious route,
since they can't count on you doing anything in particular (more likely
than not your lost comm is associated with a more serious emergency)
and are going to sterilize the airspace around you anyway. In the age
of RADAR capable of seeing primary targets, that's the sensible course
of action. 91.185 hasn't kept pace. It doesn't need to. Lost comm
due to equipment failure is a rare event these days, and lost comm due
to equipment failure not associated with another emergency in IMC has
got to be so rare it's not worth the effort of rewriting the rules. We
torment our instrument students with the minutiae of lost comm rules,
but in reality that's strictly a checkride exercise.

So forget about following the letter of the rules - do something
sensible. Remember - no action is foolproof. A fed who wants to get
you will get you. One who isn't after your hide will accept that you
did something reasonable. Backtracking 40 miles and tying up the
system with your NORDO self for an extra 45 minutes isn't reasonable,
even if that's what the rule calls for (and clearly it does).

Let's say you're changing radios on your audio panel, and due to crappy
soldering and decades of vibration, the switch comes off in your hand.
Everything else still works, but with no audio panel you can't use
either comm. No real emergency - the fan is still turning, the juice
is still flowing, and the nav is still pointing.

If you've established comm with ATC, climbed to your final altitude,
and were left on your DP heading, there's very little chance the
controller had any intention of ever sending you back to CMK. He's
either going to send you direct by RADAR vectors, or have you join the
route somewhere in the middle (or reroute you). I would suggest that a
reasonable thing to do is look at your position relative to your
cleared route, and draw a reasonable intercept course from your present
position to your route. We generally consider 30 degrees to be a
reasonable intercept. If you can make that work, that's what makes
sense. If you're too close to SAX to make that work, you need to go
direct SAX. That's how the controller would put you back on the route
if he had to (due to transponder problems, for example) and that's what
you ought to do.

However, if there's a flight restriction area that prompted the
circuitous clearance, be damn sure your course for getting back on the
cleared route avoids it. If the only way you can assure this is by
backtracking to CMK, well, that's what you do.

It's not an exact right answer, but it does give you some reasonable
guidance on what to do. It's what makes sense in the real world. It
may not play so well on an IFR oral.

Michael