What do you do in the real world?

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:31:00 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

The assigned route was not on an airway, and so there is no minimum IFR
altitude on the route. The first 250 miles or so are over pretty flat
terrain. It is only shortly before you get to the destination that the
mountains begin.

Of course there is.

And you can obtain it from a sectional, an enroute chart, or (at least in
my case) from my GPS.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Garret wrote:
Last night I flew from SJC to VNY. To my astonishment I was cleared
vectors to SNS, then direct VNY (despite having filed a more standard
routing) at 9000 feet. I knew perfectly well that the routing was going
to change because I've done that route a zillion times, and indeed, near
Bakersfield they switched me over to the standard LHS, LYNXX8 arrival,
followed by vectors to the ILS RWY 16R.

My question is: what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost comm
before they changed my routing? By the book I should have continued to
fly my clearance, which would have run me into a mountain around GMN, so
that's probably not the right answer. Viable possibilities seem to
include:

1. Divert (or climb) just enough to avoid the terrain around GMN, fly
to VNY, and commence an approach from there.

2. As above, but vector myself for the ILS before reaching VNY.

3&4 - as above but fly to LHS and the LYNXX8 arrival.

5. Divert to the nearest airport with an IAP.

My aircraft is /G so I know pretty much exactly where I am at all times.

rg

References:

LYNXX8 arrival:
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../00067LYNXX.PD
F

ILS RWY 16R approach:
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../00552I16R.PDF

If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
someone (including yourself killed.)

Mxsmanic wrote:
Travis Marlatte writes:


You can't file or accept a route you can't fly just because you're sure of a
re-route.


Sure you can. Aircraft do it all the time. For example, you can be assigned
a route and altitude from the West Coast (of the U.S.) that will take you
right into the side of a mountain if you continue on it long enough; but you
accept it anyway because you know that ATC will change your heading and
altitude long before that happens.


You have to assume that you will lose comm shortly after takeoff
and fly the whole thing, as filed, minimim altitudes included.


But what if you are given vectors and altitude well after take-off, and these
will _eventually_ lead you into a mountain, and you lose communications before
ATC can change them? Do you return to your original flight plan, no matter
what kind of altitude or course changes are required? Do you fly the last
vectors you were given, and veer away from them only when it becomes unsafe to
fly them (and which way do you go?)? What do you do?

If you receive vectors very different from your filed route in crowded
airspace and you then lose your radio, trying to return to your originally
filed route might be dangerous. At the same time, you can't indefinitely
follow vectors that will take you into terrain. If you follow the latter
vectors, at some point you must deviate from them to avoid terrain--which way
do you go then?


Don't worry about it. Keep playing the msfs game. It is beyond you.
However, if you feel like you really need to know you can pick up the
FARs and the AIM and read it. It is in plain English.

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


If it was a vector, that changes the whole story.

That is the story, the original basis for the question...what do you do
if while on a vector you go Nordo.




Oh, I agree. ATC would never vector a plane like that, don't
get me wrong.



ATC vectors like that everyday. You can't get into Denver, Salt Lake,
Boise, Kalispell, Butte, Missoula and a lot of other places efficiently
without being vectored. And if you go Nordo you better realize it
because you are well below the terrain within 20 miles of you.

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

If it was a vector, that changes the whole story.

It was indeed a vector from the beginning, so the story hasn't changed at all.

If it was a
clearance that he wasn't going to be able to accept, then there would
be some questions.

I don't recall any mention of a clearance.

Oh, I agree. ATC would never vector a plane like that, don't
get me wrong. But as the OP had mentioned, if he accepted a routing
that he believed he couldn't fly and the weather was IMC, the question
would have to be asked on why he accepted that routing in the first
place.

Since this was not the hypothetical situation, the way it would be handled is
moot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Tim writes:

If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
someone (including yourself killed.)

If you know, you should explain the answer here. If you don't, why bother
with the melodramatic lecture?

I'll assume that you don't know, and apparently nobody else here knows and
nobody can be bothered to look it up.

This situation is explicitly covered by FAR 91.185 in the United States, which
reads as follows:

==
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B--Flight Rules
Instrument Flight Rules

Sec. 91.185

IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way
radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the
rules of this section.

(b) VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR
conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the
flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.

(c) IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if paragraph
(b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the
flight according to the following:

(1) Route.
(i) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(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;
(iii) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has
advised may be expected in a further clearance; or
(iv) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has
advised may be expected in a further clearance, by the route filed
in the flight plan.

(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels
for the route segment being flown:
(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance
received;
(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight
level as prescribed in Sec. 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or
(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in
a further clearance.

(3) Leave clearance limit.
(i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins,
commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to
the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or
if one has not been received, as close as possible to the estimated
time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC)
estimated time en route.
(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins,
leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if
one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival
over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach
begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as
possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the
filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
==

So the (partial) answer is: Continue with the assigned heading, and maintain
altitude as in (c)(2) above. Part (c)(2)(ii) should keep you above terrain
(FAR 91.177). This still leaves some unanswered questions, though. If you
are given a heading without a fix, and the heading does not intercept your
flight plan or any approach or any expected routing, where do you go? In VMC
you are clearly expected to go VFR and land. In IMC, what do you do?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
Newps wrote:

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


If it was a vector, that changes the whole story.

That is the story, the original basis for the question...what do you do
if while on a vector you go Nordo.

Actually, it wasn't a vector, it was an off-airway direct clearance.
Similar to a vector in some respects, but not the same thing.

rg

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:41:34 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article ,
Newps wrote:

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


If it was a vector, that changes the whole story.

That is the story, the original basis for the question...what do you do
if while on a vector you go Nordo.

Actually, it wasn't a vector, it was an off-airway direct clearance.
Similar to a vector in some respects, but not the same thing.

It's still a clearance. You fly as cleared be it direct, vector, or
airway. Think of it this way. You have told they what your plan on
doing (fligth plan) If they amend it then you fly the amended
clearance be it a segment or one that takes you to your destination.
So if you were them they expect you to be where you told them you
would be when you told them you would be unless they have changed part
or all of it. So even without radio you are supposed to be where they
expect you to be. UNLESS you encounter VFR conditions. Then you are
expected to head for a nearby airport, and call. If the transponder is
still working follow lost com procedure.


rg
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tim writes:


If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
someone (including yourself killed.)


If you know, you should explain the answer here. If you don't, why bother
with the melodramatic lecture?

I'll assume that you don't know, and apparently nobody else here knows and
nobody can be bothered to look it up.

This situation is explicitly covered by FAR 91.185 in the United States, which
reads as follows:

snip

I know the answer. My point is that a pilot should not get anywhere
near an IFR flight plan if he/she doesn't know the answer to that
question. I am not being melodramatic. It can get you killed. You
NEED to know that stuff.


The fact that the person did not even look it up and instead came to a
newsgroup for an answer is also a problem.

Your assumption tht those who don't post the answer don't know the
answer is ridiculous.

Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
disaster.

In your little world of games, icing, lost comms, etc don't happen, and
when they do no one dies. In the real world pilots like these can kill
themselves and others. I don't want them flying around when I am up
there flying around.

Tim writes:

I know the answer. My point is that a pilot should not get anywhere
near an IFR flight plan if he/she doesn't know the answer to that
question. I am not being melodramatic. It can get you killed. You
NEED to know that stuff.

So what is the answer?

The fact that the person did not even look it up and instead came to a
newsgroup for an answer is also a problem.

Where would he look it up?

Your assumption tht those who don't post the answer don't know the
answer is ridiculous.

It's actually very logical. People who have the answer are usually more than
willing to give it. Those who don't are usually eager to find a way to
distract attention from their failure to provide an answer. And, of course,
some people just make things up.

Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
disaster.

So when I don't look something up, it's bad; and when I do look something up,
it's bad. Do you see a problem here?

In your little world of games, icing, lost comms, etc don't happen, and
when they do no one dies. In the real world pilots like these can kill
themselves and others. I don't want them flying around when I am up
there flying around.

Since you don't know what to do in this situation, I suppose yours would be
the first NTSB report.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.