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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
My mind isn't working too well today. You and I both know that when you do
fuel planning for a jet flight you base the pph on flying at altitude, and if for some reason such as 91.185 you descend to the MEA for a flight segment, your fuel planning would go out the window. Bob "Jim Baker" wrote in message ... Bob....Your first paragraph is maybe not puerile, but certainly nonsensical. If the controllers at these annual meetings are unanimous, which I think is hyperbole merely to make your point, then how could Don disagree since, as you say, he is attending as a controller? You say his opinions are not shared by all his compatriots, but some do? Hmmmmm...where's the unanimity in that? I'm merely poking at you here Bob, no offense. I agree it's important to have a NORDO aircraft on the ground as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean at any cost. I contend, the entire DoD flying community contends, and the official guidance of the FAA contends that ASAP doesn't mean at any cost disregarding established procedure. I don't see how a responsible pilot can ignore procedure when there is no emergency. It's bad judgment. I find your second paragraph about not all of his compatriots sharing Don's "by the book" approach to be disheartening and dangerous. It dismays me that we stress, as instructors, procedure tempered with judgment to our students as the way to safely fly aircraft and yet there's outright advocacy for disregarding procedure by some pilots and controllers when there's no emergency. To disregard procedure with no "good" reason to do so other than convenience is, to me, bad judgment on the pilots part because it endangers others lives. If your point about sterilized airspace is correct and there's no danger, fine, but then what do you teach pilots about other procedures? If a group of pilots and controllers, but not all of us, agree a procedure can be safely ignored, it's bogus, then those pilots can pick and choose when to ignore it based on their reading of the non-emergency scenario? If these controllers and pilots are so sure that this situation can be handled in another way, safely, then why don't some of them try to get things changed to reflect their vision of reality and practicality? Change the procedure. I support that. I have to disagree with your changing procedure because you're flying in the flight levels. I've flown up there since 1973 and I've always had the fuel to fly the planned route to my destination. None of the jets I flew had an air-ground phone (B-52, B-1B and B-727). Best regards, Jim "Bob Gardner" wrote in message news I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year, so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO aircraft on the ground as soon as possible. I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the book" approach is not shared by all of his compatriots. If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination, using MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a good argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first contact with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not follow the same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay high until a moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the appropriate altitude. However, every jet I have ever been in has had an air-ground telephone and I suspect it would be used if VHF comms were lost. Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace is puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget? Bob Gardner "Jim Baker" wrote in message ... I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that the controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following that advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely unlikely event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot could follow that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that the controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you to follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind? In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any particular airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure, updated weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate runway. If there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at the altitude you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend in that holding pattern to make good the time described for NORDO procedures in the AIM. (Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in front of me). If there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF at the altitude I had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding pattern and descent in that pattern to make good the time at the airport or the IAF. Will this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the alternative, again in this unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe that I wonder why anyone would even consider it. Jim "Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as planned and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are identified as NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate, they will sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on the ground. They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you comply with the regs. You will not find this in writing in any official pub. Bob Gardner wrote in message oups.com... I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little bit annoying. But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd. First: Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS VXV is an IAF for TYS. Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA. That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!), fly back to VXV, then do full approach. It seems a tad ridiculous, no? Second: Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually, controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold? where? He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own judgement, etc. Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What would you do? -- dave j -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OK Bob, enjoyed the conversation.
Jim "Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... My mind isn't working too well today. You and I both know that when you do fuel planning for a jet flight you base the pph on flying at altitude, and if for some reason such as 91.185 you descend to the MEA for a flight segment, your fuel planning would go out the window. Bob "Jim Baker" wrote in message ... Bob....Your first paragraph is maybe not puerile, but certainly nonsensical. If the controllers at these annual meetings are unanimous, which I think is hyperbole merely to make your point, then how could Don disagree since, as you say, he is attending as a controller? You say his opinions are not shared by all his compatriots, but some do? Hmmmmm...where's the unanimity in that? I'm merely poking at you here Bob, no offense. I agree it's important to have a NORDO aircraft on the ground as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean at any cost. I contend, the entire DoD flying community contends, and the official guidance of the FAA contends that ASAP doesn't mean at any cost disregarding established procedure. I don't see how a responsible pilot can ignore procedure when there is no emergency. It's bad judgment. I find your second paragraph about not all of his compatriots sharing Don's "by the book" approach to be disheartening and dangerous. It dismays me that we stress, as instructors, procedure tempered with judgment to our students as the way to safely fly aircraft and yet there's outright advocacy for disregarding procedure by some pilots and controllers when there's no emergency. To disregard procedure with no "good" reason to do so other than convenience is, to me, bad judgment on the pilots part because it endangers others lives. If your point about sterilized airspace is correct and there's no danger, fine, but then what do you teach pilots about other procedures? If a group of pilots and controllers, but not all of us, agree a procedure can be safely ignored, it's bogus, then those pilots can pick and choose when to ignore it based on their reading of the non-emergency scenario? If these controllers and pilots are so sure that this situation can be handled in another way, safely, then why don't some of them try to get things changed to reflect their vision of reality and practicality? Change the procedure. I support that. I have to disagree with your changing procedure because you're flying in the flight levels. I've flown up there since 1973 and I've always had the fuel to fly the planned route to my destination. None of the jets I flew had an air-ground phone (B-52, B-1B and B-727). Best regards, Jim "Bob Gardner" wrote in message news I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year, so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO aircraft on the ground as soon as possible. I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the book" approach is not shared by all of his compatriots. If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination, using MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a good argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first contact with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not follow the same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay high until a moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the appropriate altitude. However, every jet I have ever been in has had an air-ground telephone and I suspect it would be used if VHF comms were lost. Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace is puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget? Bob Gardner "Jim Baker" wrote in message ... I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that the controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following that advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely unlikely event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot could follow that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that the controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you to follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind? In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any particular airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure, updated weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate runway. If there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at the altitude you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend in that holding pattern to make good the time described for NORDO procedures in the AIM. (Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in front of me). If there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF at the altitude I had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding pattern and descent in that pattern to make good the time at the airport or the IAF. Will this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the alternative, again in this unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe that I wonder why anyone would even consider it. Jim "Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as planned and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are identified as NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate, they will sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on the ground. They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you comply with the regs. You will not find this in writing in any official pub. Bob Gardner wrote in message oups.com... I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little bit annoying. But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd. First: Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS VXV is an IAF for TYS. Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA. That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!), fly back to VXV, then do full approach. It seems a tad ridiculous, no? Second: Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually, controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold? where? He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own judgement, etc. Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What would you do? -- dave j -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA. That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!), fly back to VXV, then do full approach. It seems a tad ridiculous, no? The way I see it, if you are cleared to the airport (TYS), that clearance would include the approach needed to get there, or at least to within the DH or DA. Getting to the airport involves doing the approach (beforehand). So, if the altitudes were appropriate, I'd start the approach from the IAF (VXV) without overflying the airport. In this case, it means arriving at VXV at our 6000 foot altitude, and turning outbound to make the procedure turn, descending outbound to the procedure altitude. I see no reason to head for the airport before heading for the airport. Jose -- You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote:
Mary Yodice, writing a legal column in either the AOPA Pilot or Flight Training, I can't remember which, warned pilots that relying on the non-regulatory status of the AIM was a mistake. An NTSB administrative law judge gets to decide if a particular action or fail to act constitutes "careless and reckless," and failing to use the guidance in the AIM puts you right in their crosshairs. Bob Gardner Bob, thanks for the reference. It took a little while but here's the link. http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...m?article=4421 So basically the AIM is non-regulatory but following those 'mere suggestions' is a good idea as they might come back to haunt you in the worst of times. thanks. Gerald Sylvester |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks to everyone who replied. I had no idea I would touch off so much passionate conversation, without a whole lot of consenus. I think I know what I would do in the situation in the article, but I'll keep it to myself. I'll just say that the exercise of good judgement is the essence of piloting. I did want to comment on the possibility of radio failure in a light aircraft while everything else navigational continued to work. I think it's very possible. COM antennas snapping off with ice on them, and stuck ptt's, broken headset cords (combined with missing hand microphones and/or broken overhead speakers) come to mind as just a few. My opinion on whether being NORDO in IMC is an emergency or not is simply that if you feel like you're in over your head, then that's an emergency. Later, when you're on the ground, you can further consider the point. -- dave j |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... Thanks to everyone who replied. I had no idea I would touch off so much passionate conversation, without a whole lot of consenus. I think I know what I would do in the situation in the article, but I'll keep it to myself. I'll just say that the exercise of good judgement is the essence of piloting. I did want to comment on the possibility of radio failure in a light aircraft while everything else navigational continued to work. I think it's very possible. COM antennas snapping off with ice on them, and stuck ptt's, broken headset cords (combined with missing hand microphones and/or broken overhead speakers) come to mind as just a few. The below paragraph is the essence of pilot judgment IMO Dave. The more one flies, the more comfortable you can become with different situations, including this one. Pilots flying frequently in IMC need to play stump the dummy with their other pilot friends and read read read the CFRs and AIM to know what they're gonna do when stuff like this happens. Good thread. Jim My opinion on whether being NORDO in IMC is an emergency or not is simply that if you feel like you're in over your head, then that's an emergency. Later, when you're on the ground, you can further consider the point. -- dave j |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|