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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comms after radar vector
I had a "discussion" with my instructor about lost comms in IMC after
a radar vector. To illustrate, consider this scenario (gratuitously enhanced with specifics): Depart BJC (Boulder, CO) for a flight to EVV (Evansville, IN). You expect the flight to take 4:30. You depart at 1200Z. Once airborne, you get established on a clearance route and you realize that the tailwinds are much stronger than forecast. After 3 hours have passed, you find the GPS saying EVV is only another 30 minutes enroute (thus the flight now should take 3:30 instead of 4:30). You get the ATIS, using ILS RWY 22, relatively low IMC conditions at EVV. ATC then gives you a radar vector to bias your flight path north for the approach. At this moment, you loose comms. All attempts to establish comms are in vain. The weather is also low IMC in every direction. What do you do? My instructors answer was this: when lost comms is noticed and no attemp to establish alternate comms works, then proceed to the outer marker of the ILS22 approach (VICCI) and hold as diagrammed until your flight planned expected arrival time, then shoot the approach. In this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than planned). My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the simplest and most direct way possible. My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the book" and that's what you have to do. I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this. My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up directly for the approach. This is really an academic question because I pretty much doubt anyone would convince me anything other than landing at my earliest and safest opportunity would be the right course of action, rules or no rules to the contrary. In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I would hold for any reason. My thinking about ATC response is that they cannot assume any behavior of a lost comm aircraft, there could be more wrong than just the lost comms (such as the pilot is incapacitated and a passenger is flying, thus no behavior is predictable). So I would think they would vector everyone else away and hope the plane gets on the ground as soon as possible. Curious what the group reg gurus and ATC types think about this. -- Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101 CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax 255 S. Garvin St, Suite B Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Ciholas" wrote in message m... I had a "discussion" with my instructor about lost comms in IMC after a radar vector. To illustrate, consider this scenario (gratuitously enhanced with specifics): Depart BJC (Boulder, CO) for a flight to EVV (Evansville, IN). You expect the flight to take 4:30. You depart at 1200Z. Once airborne, you get established on a clearance route and you realize that the tailwinds are much stronger than forecast. After 3 hours have passed, you find the GPS saying EVV is only another 30 minutes enroute (thus the flight now should take 3:30 instead of 4:30). You get the ATIS, using ILS RWY 22, relatively low IMC conditions at EVV. ATC then gives you a radar vector to bias your flight path north for the approach. At this moment, you loose comms. All attempts to establish comms are in vain. The weather is also low IMC in every direction. What do you do? Squawk 7600 briefly, return to my assigned beacon code, fly the approach, land, clear the runway. My instructors answer was this: when lost comms is noticed and no attemp to establish alternate comms works, then proceed to the outer marker of the ILS22 approach (VICCI) and hold as diagrammed until your flight planned expected arrival time, then shoot the approach. In this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than planned). My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the simplest and most direct way possible. My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the book" and that's what you have to do. I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this. My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up directly for the approach. This is really an academic question because I pretty much doubt anyone would convince me anything other than landing at my earliest and safest opportunity would be the right course of action, rules or no rules to the contrary. In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I would hold for any reason. My thinking about ATC response is that they cannot assume any behavior of a lost comm aircraft, there could be more wrong than just the lost comms (such as the pilot is incapacitated and a passenger is flying, thus no behavior is predictable). So I would think they would vector everyone else away and hope the plane gets on the ground as soon as possible. Curious what the group reg gurus and ATC types think about this. I've been a controller for over twenty years; center, approach, and tower, and an IFR pilot longer than that, and I think you show more sense than your instructor. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...
Squawk 7600 briefly, return to my assigned beacon code, fly the approach, land, clear the runway. I'd add a bit: Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC, and to give some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to "bend" the regulations. Squawk 7600 to let them know the emergency is "just" lost comm, with no other complications. I'm not sure whether continuing on 7600 or returning to assigned squawk is preferable to the ATC guys... Fly the approach, land, clear the runway, taxi to the FBO, call the tower. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:OpWOb.100956$xy6.181890@attbi_s02... Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC, and to give some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to "bend" the regulations. Not necessary. If squawking anything is working, 7600 will get their attention just find. You don't need to give them any such notification. Fly the approach, land, clear the runway, taxi to the FBO, call the tower. If there's a tower, don't forget to look for the light. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... If there's a tower, don't forget to look for the light. What will you do if there's no light? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... If there's a tower, don't forget to look for the light. What will you do if there's no light? Take off, hold at the FAF for an hour, land and check for the light again. Repeat until you run out of fuel. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net... | | "Ron Natalie" wrote in message | m... | | If there's a tower, don't forget to look for the light. | | | What will you do if there's no light? If you're in IMC, a light is going to be a bit hard to see anyway (assuming the tower knows where to point it). If you can see the light far enough in advance to be meaningful, wouldn't you be in VMC - or close enough to it for government work? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote...
Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC, and to give some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to "bend" the regulations. Not necessary. If squawking anything is working, 7600 will get their attention just find. You don't need to give them any such notification. I don't know the current state of the art of ATC radars. However, the 7700/7600 switch was a part of the Navy Instrument Flight Manual as late as 1994. The rationale was that not all ATC radars had the same level of alerting for 7600 squawks as 7700, and/or that the alert might be manually disabled. If all ATC radars now have the same level of alert for a 7600 squawk, then 7600 only makes sense. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:_LWOb.84380$Rc4.305921@attbi_s54... "Ron Natalie" wrote... Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC, and to give some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to "bend" the regulations. Not necessary. If squawking anything is working, 7600 will get their attention just find. You don't need to give them any such notification. I don't know the current state of the art of ATC radars. However, the 7700/7600 switch was a part of the Navy Instrument Flight Manual as late as 1994. The rationale was that not all ATC radars had the same level of alerting for 7600 squawks as 7700, and/or that the alert might be manually disabled. If all ATC radars now have the same level of alert for a 7600 squawk, then 7600 only makes sense. 7700 for one minute, followed by 7600, is one of the "wrong" answers in two questions on the IFR knowledge test, and I always assumed that was because it is a known incorrect or obsolete practice. However, one of the questions specifies "you do not exercise emergency authority", so isn't exactly appropriate to the specified scenario. -- David Brooks |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
.. I don't know the current state of the art of ATC radars. However, the 7700/7600 switch was a part of the Navy Instrument Flight Manual as late as 1994. It's been gone from the AIM longer than that I believe. |
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 |