Say Again #51

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

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

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.

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

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

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