Hold "as published"?

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

If you are NORDO, your mode C might not work either... How would ATC
know who's below it?


Whoa there, big hearted fellow. If you're now gonna say the comm failure
might spread to your transponder and encoder leaving you nonradar as well as
NORDO, then I'm gonna say it can spread to your nav radios as well, leaving
you unable to hold anywhere. All the more reason to put it on the ground as
soon as possible.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

Second, what bizarre failure causes me to lose both of my completely
independent transceivers, and my transponder, but leaves me fully confident
of the continued flawless operation of my other avionics?

My 196 has a redundant power supply? Besides, you might not be fully
confident of the continued flawless operation of your other avionics,
but they're the best you've got.

I'm familiar with what the FARs and the AIM say. What I say comes from 20
years experience as an air traffic controller, Center, TRACON, and tower.
You can believe what I tell you, or you can believe your fantasies, I don't
care which.

Have you ever dealt with IFR NORDOs? When I was working on my rating,
the attitude in the school was "partial panel is important, but the
chances of that happening are low, and your chances of surviving one
are even lower, so don't worry about it too much beyond the
checkride." 70 logged hours later, I had a gyro failure in IMC, didn't
break out until 50' above MDA and lived to tell the tale. I haven't
lost radios so far, but ever since that incident, I'm curious about
"improbable failures" and how frequent they are.

That said, I hear what you are saying about dwelling too much on
developing procedures for infrequent, freak occurrences.

I'm curious, you're saying everything is shut down until the NORDO
lands. Is there a good reason pilots are taught one set of procedures,
while ATC follow another?

Ari.

Hi Steven,

So Air Traffic will shut down everything in reasonable distance of the
aircrafts routing until such time it lands its destination or a call is
received from the pilot saying he is on the ground after landing in vmc
conditions?

If this is the case (which I really hope it is) why are we taught that, in
the event of lost comms we are supposed to commence an approach at the ETA
or EFC time? Surely air traffic want us on the ground as soon as possible
to get us out of the way and to start the flow of normal traffic again.
Strange that pilots are taught one thing and air traffic follow slightly
different procedures / would like us to follow slightly different
procedures.

As you say this would really be a very unlikely situation where the
comm/xponder fail at the same time without the navs being affected also.
Handheld GPS could come in handy in this scenario though.

Sorry for the last post, these night shifts are really getting to me now
(its 4am in the morning in the UK)... I need to sleep!!!

Best wishes,

Richard Thomas.
EGFF / BT12

"Richard Thomas" wrote:

If this is the case (which I really hope it is) why are we taught that, in
the event of lost comms we are supposed to commence an approach at the ETA
or EFC time?

Is that really what we're taught?

I assume you're referring to 91.185(c)(3), but that only talks about leaving
a clearance limit. If you're cleared to the destination airport, as you
almost always are, there's no question as to when to leave the clearance
limit. You fly there and land and you're done.

All the more reason to have a handheld comm, a handheld GPS (turned on using
ship's power for the whole flight so you don't have to wait for it to find
itself), and plenty of fresh batteries.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

If you are NORDO, your mode C might not work either... How would ATC
know who's below it?


Whoa there, big hearted fellow. If you're now gonna say the comm failure
might spread to your transponder and encoder leaving you nonradar as well as
NORDO, then I'm gonna say it can spread to your nav radios as well, leaving
you unable to hold anywhere. All the more reason to put it on the ground as
soon as possible.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

Second, what bizarre failure causes me to lose both of my completely
independent transceivers, and my transponder,

.... and your cell phone (and all your passengers'), and your handheld,
....

but leaves me fully confident of the continued flawless operation of
my other avionics?

I agree with Steve. I didn't say anything indiscreet on my actual IFR
oral flight test, but on the practice test, when my instructor (a
2000-hour+ ATP) asked me about lost comms, I told him both what I was
supposed to say (the whole stupid holding thing) and what I would
actually do (fly to my destination and land ASAP to avoid screwing up
the airspace more than needed). Off the record, he agreed with me.

The problem is that once I'm squawking 7600, the controllers don't
really know what I'm going to do. Maybe I'm going to leave the hold
early. Maybe I'm using a new ETA, recalculated when ATC gave me a
clearance not as filed. Maybe I'm just not all that bright. Maybe,
as Steve mentioned, there are other problems as well. If I were a
controller, I'd be treating a 7600 in a hold the same as a loose
cannon on deck, and keeping everyone well clear. I've seen a few
discussions online on this point before, and I have yet to see a
posting from a single controller who *wants* you to hold at your
destination until your ETA.

I acknowledge that the situation would be different in a non-radar
environment like the Canadian far north -- in that case, you're flying
uncontrolled IFR at the lower altitudes anyway, and there's a good
chance nobody will see your 7600. ATS will notice that you're missing
your radio calls at the reporting points, but they won't know anything
else -- in that case, I would try to land as close to my ETA as
possible (probably by slowing down rather than holding at the IAF) in
the hopes that no one else would have release when I was scheduled to
arrive.


All the best,


David

"Richard Thomas" writes:

If this is the case (which I really hope it is) why are we taught
that, in the event of lost comms we are supposed to commence an
approach at the ETA or EFC time? Surely air traffic want us on the
ground as soon as possible to get us out of the way and to start the
flow of normal traffic again. Strange that pilots are taught one
thing and air traffic follow slightly different procedures / would
like us to follow slightly different procedures.

My guess is that we are still learning the procedures designed in the
1940's-1960's when radar coverage was less common -- it's a lot like
all the full-procedure ILS approaches we have to practice for our
instrument ratings.


All the best,


David

(K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:

If you've still got a radar target you can still separate from a NORDO
aircraft. If you've got no radar then everything beneath the NORDO is
effectively shut down until it's known to be on the ground.

If you are NORDO, your mode C might not work either... How would ATC
know who's below it?

You are supposed to be flying at your planned altitude. I don't know
how far ATC would be willing to trust that, though -- you'd certainly
be within your rights to choose a different altitude to avoid
turbulence or icing.

How good a job can primary surveillance radar do on picking out a
target's altitude? Obviously, SSR won't help.


All the best,


David

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

They want you on the ground, and they certainly don't want you squawking
7600 while you're putting it there.

You don't want to NORDO to squawk 7600?


All the best,


David

"John Harper" wrote in message
news:1063899550.668753@sj-nntpcache-5...

I've been chewed out by Bay (now Norcal) when told "cross
San Jose at xxx" - there was a solid undercast so I just aimed
for the VOR. At some point he said "I told you cross San Jose
at xxx" and gave me a vector which was in fact mid-field. This
was the same controller who a few minutes earlier had given
me a vector which would take me straight into the side of a
mountain in a small number of minutes (it was fortunately VMC above
the overcast), one of two times I've said "unable".

Otoh when cleared "direct Palo Alto" there's little ambiguity.

I guess I would always assume the navaid unless there was some
good reason not to, reading it back (now!) as "96S, direct Sacramento
VOR" for example.


When told to cross somewhere I would always assume a navaid versus an
airport. But where's the ambiguity with San Jose? The airport diagram
shows the VOR/DME to be on the field.