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

"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.

I'm training for my CFII and had the same conversation with my instructor
over a similar situation.

In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The
reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to
your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue
that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows
you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for
all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185.

The deal is this: unless you loose comms early on in the flight and no radar
services are available, they'll see you on radar and will provide separation
accordingly. If you lost your transponder as well, you've likely
experienced total electrical failure, and now 91.3(b) applies, meaning get
on the ground.

Don't circle over Evansville for an hour NORDO, they might shoot you down.


"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?
>
> 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

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:uAJOb.97275$xy6.175256@attbi_s02...
>
> In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The
> reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to
> your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue
> that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows
> you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for
> all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185.
>

Actually, it's unlikely the controller knows you're early as it's unlikely
he knew your original ETA.

No guru, no expert, no nuthin' here, but--a problem I see is that the answer
from the regs depends on the clearance limit, and they don't specify what to do
when the clearance limit is an airport. That's the most common case. I've
discussed it with several instructors and controllers; consensus is in that case
to procede to an airport and land without delay.

David (PP-instr.)

Mike Ciholas wrote:
>
> 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

In article >,
(Mike Ciholas) wrote:

> 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.

I'm not sure what "bias" means, but I'm assuming he said something like,
"turn left heading 030, vectors for the approach".

> What do you do?

Shoot the approach, land, taxi off the runway, wait for the "follow me"
truck to come out and get you.

The overwhelmingly most likely scenario is that they've still got you on
radar. Your transponder is probably still working. Even if it's not
(total electrical failure?), they've probably still got a primary
target. They'll watch you and clear everybody away.

What's the other possibility? That they don't know where you are? In
which case you're going to burn circles in the sky at the OM for an
hour? Get real.

> 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.

That's the correct book answer. Unfortunately, it's the wrong real-life
answer.

> 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.

Sounds like a well-thought out analysis of the situation. You've got a
lot more common sense than your instructor.

I had a lost comm once. We lost the ability to transmit (turned out to
be a stuck relay in the audio panel) immediately after takeoff. We
could hear ATC, but they could not hear us (they said they were getting
carrier only, no voice). They told us to "follow the flight planned
route", which we did until we got near the ILS. Our flight planned
route would take us past the airport, then we'd have to double back to
get to the ILS. Instead, we left the airway and intercepted the
localizer about 10 miles out. Saved us probably about 20-25 miles of
back-and-forth. As soon as we did that, ATC said, "You appear to be
flying the ILS-16, cleared ILS approach". We landed, called the tower
to assure them we were OK, and that was that.

BTW, if you ever think you're going to lose comm (say, the lights are
slowly diming and the radios are getting crackly), be pro-active. Make
a plan and tell the controller what it is while you still can so
everybody's on the same page.

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> news:uAJOb.97275$xy6.175256@attbi_s02...
> >
> > In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The
> > reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to
> > your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue
> > that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows
> > you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for
> > all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185.
> >
>
> Actually, it's unlikely the controller knows you're early as it's unlikely
> he knew your original ETA.
>
>

Yeah, but the point is, he knows where you are now.

The instructor not only lacks common sense, he lacks an in-depth understanding of
91.185. Since the flight was already in contact with approach control and being
vectored to an approach, the "ETA gates" of the regulation have already being passed
and approach control has certain and direct knowledge of the flight's existence in
approach control airspace.

Because a radar vector to an approach is a substitution for an initial approach
segment, they were already in the initial "segment" of the approach. At this point
completing the approach and landing while squawking 7600 is the only sensible and,
probably, legal course of action.

91.185 is old and outdated. But, the feds won't rewrite it because they can't form
a consensus on what to say differently. Holding for an hour after losing com duing
arrival vectors is way beyond any stretch of that reg, though, and actually sounds
like danger ahead of common sense.

David Kazdan wrote:

> No guru, no expert, no nuthin' here, but--a problem I see is that the answer
> from the regs depends on the clearance limit, and they don't specify what to do
> when the clearance limit is an airport. That's the most common case. I've
> discussed it with several instructors and controllers; consensus is in that case
> to procede to an airport and land without delay.
>
> David (PP-instr.)
>
> Mike Ciholas wrote:
> >
> > 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

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, but the point is, he knows where you are now.
>

Yeah, but his argument is if the controller is giving you vectors for the
approach, he knows you're early.

(Mike Ciholas) wrote in message >...
> 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.

> 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.

I think you're both wrong :), but you're more right than your
instructor.

Your instructor's answer is correct according to 91.185, but
that doesn't mean it is what you have to do. 91.3 authorizes
you to deviate from "any rule of this part" to the extent necessary
to meet an emergency.

IOW, it is totally "by the book" to use your best judgement to
minimize the potential impact of the situation first on yourself
and your aircraft, then on the NAS.

That might actually lead to a third answer neither of you gave
(see below).

> 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.

YOu are entirely correct with the latter part of your answer. If
I lose both comms, which have in common only the plane's electrical
system, I am not going to make the assumption that everything else
in the plane is just ducky. I am going to treat the situation as
an emergency and consider myself authorized to use my best judgement
to meet it under 91.3. I don't know what's going wrong and it's
my business to get my plane on the ground and troubleshoot there.
FWIW, "lost comm" is listed in the controller's handbook 7110.65
under "emergency procedures". I don't believe anyone will argue
with your decision to treat the situation as an emergency and
exercise emergency authority.

However, I don't think it's necessarily the best thing to play
ATC and "vector yourself". Even in flatlands, there are often
radio towers and MVAs can vary steeply with position. Other
things being equal, I think it would be best to adhere to "the
book" 91.175 which says basically thou shalt start an approach
two ways: 1) via radar vectors to the FAC
2) from the IAF, via the full approach procedure

In a potentially deteriorating situation, I don't want to be
"betting my life" on my awareness of every obstacle and my exact
knowledge of my position. I think in general, it's easier and safer
to follow the "chain of beads" developed by TERPS people who had all
the time they wanted to scrutinize terrain and obstacles in the area
and develop procedures to avoid them.

I don't say "that's what you should do" prescriptively, because
it's clearly not always the safest most sensible thing to do. If you're
pointed at the FAC at a 90 degree angle and you're pretty confident
of the terrain and your position, it seems sensible to just turn
to a 30 degree intercept if that'll be outside the marker and
go on in. Ditto if you're able to intercept the FAC outside the
marker and below the glideslope. OTOH, if you're being vectored
on downwind, I'd be mighty leary of "doityerself vectors". At our
home airport in the flatlands, there's an area of 2100 ft towers
just a bit to the east of the area where ATC vectors aircraft for
approach at 2000 ft. The towers don't show on the typical handheld
or panel GPS; if ATC had the game plan to swing you wide around them
for traffic or to turn you in before you got there, but you weren't
"in" on the plan and didn't notice them on your VFR sectional
in the furball or didn't turn quite soon enough -- Oh, Well.

Last point. Low IMC all around. Where's the nearest weather
where you could land VFR? If you're flying a plane without
redundant electrical systems, and the answer is "I don't know"
or "I don't have fuel to get there, even at maximum range airspeed"
IMHO your flight planning needed catsup. And btw, a number of twins
with two generators or alternators still have single-point failure
scenarios in the electrical system.

In a plane equipped with two comms and two antennae, I think the
most likely reason to lose both is that the electrical system is
going.

If you have any reason to suspect a flaky electrical system, the
safest thing to do may be to head to a locale where you can land
under VFR, perhaps after a low-precision cloudbreak maneuver,
rather than to commence a demanding precision approach with
course guidance which may leave you at any time. Of course (pun
intended) if you have a handheld GPS set up to provide backup, you
might want to try it, proceding below LOC minima only if you're
happy and stabilized and everything adds up (descent rate for the
glideslope consistant w/ groundspeed etc). But ask yourself
these two questions first: 1) where is the nearest VMC?
2) can I get there?
and bear the answers in mind at all times.

Some of the saddest accidents I've heard about are those where
someone arrives somewhere in low IMC, shoots multiple approaches
unsuccessfully, maybe diverts elsewhere which is also low and
shoots multiple approaches. The reasons vary: maybe the wx was
too low, maybe the pilot's skill wasn't up to the challenge,
maybe there were equipment problems in the plane. Whatever the
reason, these are IMO accidents which should never have happened,
because the pilot should have known the answer to question 1) and
broken it off while the answer to 2) was still 'yes'.

> 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

Cumulo granite is not an issue but cumulo steel might be.

> In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I
> would hold for any reason.

I think that might be going too far. It might benefit you to
fly a full procedure, including a holding pattern to lose altitude
if necessary. It might also benefit you to hold for a bit with
nice long legs, while you troubleshoot a bit and decide whether you
want to attempt a precision approach vs. head elsewhere.

> 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.

Given radar contact, I think you're correct. I don't think ATC
will be expecting a NORDO plane to hold for an hour until its ETA;
I know they will be hoping you land ASAP. Do keep in mind though
in the boonies, there are still plenty of approaches which are
done under non-radar procedures and sometimes NORAC (no radio contact)
once the plane commences the approach. I didn't go into that above
because your scenario specified radar approach control, but I've been
#3 of 4 for an approach to an obscure little rural airport and
clearly if #4 lost radios and decided to head for the FAC and go
on in while I was on the approach, it could be a Bad Thing.

Probably more answer than you wanted?
Sydney

One other suggestion in this scenario (apologies if someone has already
mentioned this): even if you have no reception on your radios, you might
still be transmitting, so you should continue to announce your intentions
and your progress as you fly.

--Gary

(Snowbird) wrote:
> The towers don't show on the typical handheld or panel GPS

No, but I bet they do show up on the approach plate, if not explicitly,
then at least reflected in the MSA values.

I certainly agree with you that ad-libbing an approach is a bad idea,
but as long as you're above the MSA, it's hard to see how you could get
into trouble.

"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.

"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.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:OpWOb.100956$xy6.181890@attbi_s02...
>
> I'd add a bit:
>
> Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC,
>

Squawking 7600 briefly will get all the attention needed.


>
> and to give
> some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to
"bend"
> the regulations.
>

The controller will treat you as an emergency either way.


>
> 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...
>

I'm an ATC guy, returning to the assigned squawk is preferable.

"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?

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.

John R Weiss wrote:

> I'd add a bit:
>
> Squawk 7700 briefly (15 seconds?) to get the attention of ATC,

Not necessary. Any emergency squawk gets the attentioon of ATC equally.


and to give
> some notice of your intention to exercise your PIC emergency authority to "bend"
> the regulations.

That will be assumed when you squawk 7600.


>
> 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...

In reality most of the time we know before you do that you are NORDO.
You are supposed to squawk 7600 continuously when you realize it it,
however once we know you are NORDO there is no reason for you to
continue the 7600 squawk. It sets off a pretty annoying alarm in the
tower cab that we have to keep silenced with a rubber band that holds
the mute switch down.

"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.

"John R Weiss" > 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.

John, this used to be true way-back in the old days when only 7700
rang the bell, but several years back, they re-wrote the software
so that now, 7500, 7600 and 7700 all ring the bell.

Bob Moore

"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

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:_LWOb.84380$Rc4.305921@attbi_s54...

<snip>
> 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.

It apears Weiss needs some remedial training.

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> > 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.

> That's the correct book answer. Unfortunately, it's the wrong real-life
> answer.

Roy,

I'm not persuaded it's even the correct book answer.

> I had a lost comm once. We lost the ability to transmit (turned out to
> be a stuck relay in the audio panel) immediately after takeoff. We
> could hear ATC, but they could not hear us

Interesting -- any details about what model of audio panel? Did
it block both hand mic and headsets?

Obviously, what you did wrt shooting the ILS was 100% the right
call for your circumstances but I'll toss a couple different circs
out.

We had a brief lost comm IFR in IMC. It was caused by me. In
response to smoke coming out of the panel and a strong smell of
burning, I advised ATC we were going off freq due to smoke in the
cockpit and shut off the electrical system.

Plan A if the smoke didn't stop was to turn left, fly out over
the ocean, do an emergency descent and fly back in to ditch on
a beach.

Plan B if the smoke stopped was to remain at our current altitude
and procede to known VMC ahead of us.

The smoke stopped and we eventually completed the flight with
most of the plane's electrical equipment operating and normal
comms.

We were offered Plan C (shoot an ILS at the nearest airport)
but shooting an approach to minimums or below with a questionable
electrical system simply wasn't on our menu.

My husband had a lost comm VFR on the very first flight I took with
him when he'd first gotten his license (my 2nd flight in a small
plane). It was caused by electrical failure. The ability to
transmit on the radios went first, followed by the ability to
receive followed by the rest of the electrical system. We were
VFR but if we'd been IFR, I don't think shooting an ILS would
have been a bright call there either.

> BTW, if you ever think you're going to lose comm (say, the lights are
> slowly diming and the radios are getting crackly), be pro-active. Make
> a plan and tell the controller what it is while you still can so
> everybody's on the same page.

Concur!
Sydney

In article >,
(Snowbird) wrote:

> > I had a lost comm once. We lost the ability to transmit (turned out to
> > be a stuck relay in the audio panel) immediately after takeoff. We
> > could hear ATC, but they could not hear us
>
> Interesting -- any details about what model of audio panel? Did
> it block both hand mic and headsets?

I don't remember what model. We tried both headsets and the hand mike.
I'm not 100% sure it was in the audio panel per-se. Might have been in
the intercomm box, but it was definately a problem with a relay, and
definately in the "audio stuff".

..
>
> 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.

"David Brooks" > wrote in message ...
> 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.

Should we fly triangular patterns too?

Don't forget the dropping chaff gambit.

Jim


"Ron Natalie" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
->> 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.
->
->Should we fly triangular patterns too?



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"Ron Natalie" > wrote...
>
>> 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.

My '98 AIM (only one I have at home) says "ATC service will be provided on the
basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with FAR Part 91.185." It also
says squawk 7600 when operating NORDO.

So, it still leaves open the question of squawk if the pilot chooses to deviate
from 91.185 via 91.3(b) (emergency authority) or per AIM 6-4-1.a ("exercise good
judgement"); and is counter to the 'change back to assigned squawk' preference
expressed by the resident controllers.

The question also arises as to when the "filed" ETE is "amended" by ATC in the
OP's original scenario, or similar situations. If in radar contact the entire
route, the pilot is not required to update his ETE if he maintains filed TAS.
When the tailwind significantly changes the ETE, on what basis would a pilot be
able to predict what ATC might "expect"?

I agree with a previous poster that IF the pilot has already been talking with
Approach and has received a vector toward an IAF or ILS intercept, it is
reasonable to expect to commence approach on arrival. However, what if comm is
lost on a center freq, in IMC and relatively near the destination? What is a
"reasonable" time to be holding over the IAF, from the ATC perspective?

"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.
>

You should have been told what you were getting vectors for. As someone
else said - I am not sure what "bias your flight path" means. You should
not take vectors unless you know what they are for.

I hope I don't ever loose my comms in IMC - it might land on someone...
<grin>

> What do you do?

<snip>
>
> 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.

That is scary. What if you lost comms in a hold? Just go to the
destination and shoot an approach? I hope this was just an off-the-cuff
remark and that you really don't mean that. That is what clearance limits
and EFC and EACs are for.


>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.


That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
agreement about what to do.


>
> 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

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) wrote:
> > The towers don't show on the typical handheld or panel GPS

> No, but I bet they do show up on the approach plate, if not explicitly,
> then at least reflected in the MSA values.

Yes, they're reflected in the MSA values.

> I certainly agree with you that ad-libbing an approach is a bad idea,
> but as long as you're above the MSA, it's hard to see how you could get
> into trouble.

I agree, but there are two big "ifs" which weren't explicit in
the original scenario:
1) you're w/in 25 nm of the navaid on which the MSA is depicted;
we've certainly started getting vectors for the approach more
than 25 miles out at times
2) you're above the MSA. For example, in one local approach I
mentioned, it's typical to vector small aircraft between 2000
and 2400 ft, but there's a tower farm just to the east of the
usual area. The MSA is 3100 ft. You'd need to be what, a good
4 miles out from the marker to intercept below glideslope?

I would think such scenarios (MSA much higher than typical MVAs
used for the approach) are pretty common. But I dunno.

Cheers,
Sydney

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:3%0Pb.88422$5V2.144302@attbi_s53...
>
> When the tailwind significantly changes the ETE, on what basis would a
pilot be
> able to predict what ATC might "expect"?
>

None.


>
> I agree with a previous poster that IF the pilot has already been talking
with
> Approach and has received a vector toward an IAF or ILS intercept, it is
> reasonable to expect to commence approach on arrival. However, what if
comm is
> lost on a center freq, in IMC and relatively near the destination? What
is a
> "reasonable" time to be holding over the IAF, from the ATC perspective?
>

None.

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
et...
>
> That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
> agreement about what to do.
>

But they're not well-defined, and if everyone was in agreement about what to
do we wouldn't have this same discussion periodically.

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
> > agreement about what to do.
> >
>
> But they're not well-defined, and if everyone was in agreement about what to
> do we wouldn't have this same discussion periodically.
>
>

Actually, I think they are pretty well defined. The problem is that
most people here agree that the way they're defined is stupid (or, at
least, outdated).

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, I think they are pretty well defined.
>

How so? In most cases the clearance limit is the destination airport, how
do you comply with FAR 91.185(c)(3)?

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Snowbird) wrote:

> > > I had a lost comm once. We lost the ability to transmit (turned out to
> > > be a stuck relay in the audio panel) immediately after takeoff. We
> > > could hear ATC, but they could not hear us

> > Interesting -- any details about what model of audio panel? Did
> > it block both hand mic and headsets?

> I don't remember what model. We tried both headsets and the hand mike.
> I'm not 100% sure it was in the audio panel per-se. Might have been in
> the intercomm box, but it was definately a problem with a relay, and
> definately in the "audio stuff".

Bummer. I've been thinking about the failure possibilities in our
audio panel etc. I rather would like mic jacks directly wired into
our #1 comm but our avionics guy seems a bit reluctant for some reason
I'm still trying to draw out of him.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message >...

<snippola>
> That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
> agreement about what to do.

Um...why do you think lost comms procedures are well-defined?

Sydney

In article >,
(Snowbird) wrote:

> Roy Smith > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > (Snowbird) wrote:
>
> > > > I had a lost comm once. We lost the ability to transmit (turned out to
> > > > be a stuck relay in the audio panel) immediately after takeoff. We
> > > > could hear ATC, but they could not hear us
>
> > > Interesting -- any details about what model of audio panel? Did
> > > it block both hand mic and headsets?
>
> > I don't remember what model. We tried both headsets and the hand mike.
> > I'm not 100% sure it was in the audio panel per-se. Might have been in
> > the intercomm box, but it was definately a problem with a relay, and
> > definately in the "audio stuff".
>
> Bummer. I've been thinking about the failure possibilities in our
> audio panel etc. I rather would like mic jacks directly wired into
> our #1 comm but our avionics guy seems a bit reluctant for some reason
> I'm still trying to draw out of him.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

Another thing we learned on that flight was that handhelds aren't worth
crap inside the airplane. We both had handhelds, and we tried them
both, to no avail. First, hearing anything over the cabin noise was
very difficult (neither of us had adapters to plug our headsets into the
handheld radios). Second, the little rubber ducky antennas don't work
for ****, especially inside a metal airplane cabin.

What I think would make the most sense is a way to connect your handheld
directly to the external antenna in the plane, and make sure you've got
a way to plug your headsets directly into your handheld radio.

This is why I carry a handheld, with rechargeable batteries in it, and
spare batteries if those aren't charged, with its own outside
antennae. I can plug my headset directly into the handheld and
talk/listen through my headset. So my chances of going totally lost
comm are pretty small.

Also, in the even of lost comm, I am heading for nearest VMC, and I
know where that is due to getting the weather. I always try and have
enough fuel to make it to VMC. Lost comm has never happened, but in
the west there is seldom massive areas of cloud cover, you can usually
find VFR weather not too far away, IF you know where it is.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > That is why lost comms procedures are well-defined. Everyone should be in
> > agreement about what to do.
> >
>
> But they're not well-defined, and if everyone was in agreement about what to
> do we wouldn't have this same discussion periodically.

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Also, in the even of lost comm, I am heading for nearest VMC, and I
> know where that is due to getting the weather. I always try and have
> enough fuel to make it to VMC. Lost comm has never happened, but in
> the west there is seldom massive areas of cloud cover, you can usually
> find VFR weather not too far away, IF you know where it is.
>

In other words, you'd take the position that lost comms in IMC is an
in-flight emergency requiring immediate action and use the emergency
authority of FAR 91.3(b).

In article >, Roy Smith
> writes:

>But they're not well-defined, and if everyone was in agreement about what to
>> do we wouldn't have this same discussion periodically.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I think they are pretty well defined. The problem is that
>most people here agree that the way they're defined is stupid (or, at
>least, outdated).

It bothers me that the 7600 code continues to "ring" at Control so they want me
to switch back to the original code after some period of time. What period?
How do I know that Control has got the message? Don't I have enough to do if
in IMC and lost comm? Why doesn't Control have the onus (other than 'Put a
bandaide over the button') to stop the ring. They are in a nice airconditioned
area separate from the problem at hand. Kind a like the pig/chicken joke of
han and eggs, I'm dedicated while with them it's a passing fancy. If a lost
com ever happens to me, I hope I remember to set 7600, and if I do, I plan to
change it back on a taxiway somewhere.

Chuck

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
>> However, what if comm is
>> lost on a center freq, in IMC and relatively near the destination? What is a
>> "reasonable" time to be holding over the IAF, from the ATC perspective?
>
> None.

Is that "there is no time estimate that is reasonable" or "zero"?

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
>
> It bothers me that the 7600 code continues to "ring" at Control so they
want me
> to switch back to the original code after some period of time. What
period?
>

About thirty seconds will be fine. If they haven't noticed it in that time
it's because they disabled it the last time someone decided to squawk 7600
down to the ground and forgot to restore it.


>
> How do I know that Control has got the message?
>

It's a very annoying alarm, it's simply not something that can be ignored.


>
> Don't I have enough to do if in IMC and lost comm? Why doesn't
> Control have the onus (other than 'Put a bandaide over the button')
> to stop the ring. They are in a nice airconditioned area separate
> from the problem at hand. Kind a like the pig/chicken joke of
> han and eggs, I'm dedicated while with them it's a passing fancy.
>

Well, what do you think is better for you, forcing the controller to step
away from his scope several times every minute in order to be able to
communicate with the aircraft that are potentially in your way, or returning
your transponder to it's previously assigned code?


>
> If a lost
> com ever happens to me, I hope I remember to set 7600, and if I do, I plan
to
> change it back on a taxiway somewhere.
>

Do whatever you feel is in your own best interest.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> In most cases the clearance limit is the destination airport, how
> do you comply with FAR 91.185(c)(3)?

Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a Standard
pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c. If there is no VOR or NDB co-located at the airport
and airplane was not equipped with RNAV, the holding point could be determined
from the description in the IFR Supplement, approach plate, or other publication
of the position (heading/distance) from the airport of a nearby VOR or NDB.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> In other words, you'd take the position that lost comms in IMC is an
> in-flight emergency requiring immediate action and use the emergency
> authority of FAR 91.3(b).

It is not ALWAYS an emergency requiring immediate action; but it could be,
depending on the situation, and it may develop into one later. The AIM gives
the discretion to the PIC.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:qSdPb.92920$nt4.227694@attbi_s51...
>
> Is that "there is no time estimate that is reasonable" or "zero"?
>

Zero.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:00ePb.92950$nt4.228782@attbi_s51...
>
> It is not ALWAYS an emergency requiring immediate action; but it could be,
> depending on the situation, and it may develop into one later. The AIM
gives
> the discretion to the PIC.
>

If it's not an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, how can he
head for the nearest VMC?

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:00ePb.89430$Rc4.449664@attbi_s54...
>
> Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a
Standard
> pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c. If there is no VOR or NDB co-located at the
airport
> and airplane was not equipped with RNAV, the holding point could be
> determined from the description in the IFR Supplement, approach plate, or
> other publication of the position (heading/distance) from the airport of a
> nearby VOR or NDB.
>

Okay. I'm heading to Milwaukee from Grand Rapids. I've filed the
preferential, GRR..MKG.V2.SUDDS..MKE, and have been cleared as filed.
I'm flying a BE35/U; two nav/comms, GS receiver, ADF, and marker
beacon receiver. At MINNY I discover I cannot transmit or receive on
either comm radio. How do I hold over the airport?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> Okay. I'm heading to Milwaukee from Grand Rapids. I've filed the
> preferential, GRR..MKG.V2.SUDDS..MKE, and have been cleared as filed.
> I'm flying a BE35/U; two nav/comms, GS receiver, ADF, and marker
> beacon receiver. At MINNY I discover I cannot transmit or receive on
> either comm radio. How do I hold over the airport?

Per AIM 5-3-7.c:

Over MKE
Standard pattern (right turn, 1 or 1 1/2 minute legs)
On the course from SUDDS to MKE
At your cleared altitude
Until the time calculated per 91.185(c)(3)(ii)

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:RJePb.93042$nt4.231643@attbi_s51...
>
> Per AIM 5-3-7.c:
>
> Over MKE
> Standard pattern (right turn, 1 or 1 1/2 minute legs)
> On the course from SUDDS to MKE
> At your cleared altitude
> Until the time calculated per 91.185(c)(3)(ii)
>

How do I navigate from SUDDS to MKE?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> How do I navigate from SUDDS to MKE?

I was under the impression you were an instrument-rated pilot as well as an ATC
controller...

Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning. [From the
question, I assume MKE doesn't have a VOR at the field. I'm in Seattle, and
don't have charts or other pubs for the MKE area, so I'll fast-forward you to
WA.]

If I was enroute to BFI (Boeing Field, WA, which does not have a co-located
VOR), I would know to look up the nearby NAVAIDS in the Airport/Facility
Directory, and find that BFI is at the SEA 341/5.7. I would plot the course and
distance from my previous waypoint (e.g., TAGOR, on V 120, SEA 069/16) on a
Sectional, and transfer it (approx 291/17) to my kneeboard Nav card.

In the airplane, if I lost comm prior to TAGOR, all I have to do is fly direct
from TAGOR to the SEA 341/5.7 (cross-checking with the PARKK NDB at the field,
if I don't have DME -- I could do this as an NDB hold, too, but I am assuming
that isn't an option at MKE), using the preplanned heading and time, adjusted
for any wind corrections I'd been using enroute to TAGOR.

This all strikes me as highly academic. The only likely reason for losing
both comms is an electrical failure. In that case you're on the mag
compass and dead reckoning, if you're in IMC. The only good reason for
knowing the official lost comm procedure is to pass your instrument
oral.

John

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:vHfPb.91560$5V2.229832@attbi_s53...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
> >
> > How do I navigate from SUDDS to MKE?
>
> I was under the impression you were an instrument-rated pilot as well as
an ATC
> controller...
>
> Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning.
[From the
> question, I assume MKE doesn't have a VOR at the field. I'm in Seattle,
and
> don't have charts or other pubs for the MKE area, so I'll fast-forward you
to
> WA.]
>
> If I was enroute to BFI (Boeing Field, WA, which does not have a
co-located
> VOR), I would know to look up the nearby NAVAIDS in the Airport/Facility
> Directory, and find that BFI is at the SEA 341/5.7. I would plot the
course and
> distance from my previous waypoint (e.g., TAGOR, on V 120, SEA 069/16) on
a
> Sectional, and transfer it (approx 291/17) to my kneeboard Nav card.
>
> In the airplane, if I lost comm prior to TAGOR, all I have to do is fly
direct
> from TAGOR to the SEA 341/5.7 (cross-checking with the PARKK NDB at the
field,
> if I don't have DME -- I could do this as an NDB hold, too, but I am
assuming
> that isn't an option at MKE), using the preplanned heading and time,
adjusted
> for any wind corrections I'd been using enroute to TAGOR.
>

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:vHfPb.91560$5V2.229832@attbi_s53...
> Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning.
[From the
> question, I assume MKE doesn't have a VOR at the field. I'm in Seattle,
and
> don't have charts or other pubs for the MKE area, so I'll fast-forward you
to
> WA.]

Is there such a thing as a holding pattern without a holding fix that can be
identified each time around?

"John Harper" > wrote...
> This all strikes me as highly academic. The only likely reason for losing
> both comms is an electrical failure. In that case you're on the mag
> compass and dead reckoning, if you're in IMC. The only good reason for
> knowing the official lost comm procedure is to pass your instrument
> oral.

I disagree.

I have flown many single-radio airplanes IFR. I have had that single radio fail
a few times... I have flown several airplanes with 2 radios installed, one of
which wasn't working on preflight. I have had that remaining radio fail a few
times. I have flown several airplanes with marginal radios. I have temporarily
lost comm many times...

I have had a few electrical failures, but they were in airplanes with backup
generators and backup instruments, and/or in VMC.

If you don't know what's "official," how do you know when you're following it or
deviating from it?

"Gary Drescher" > wrote...
>> Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning. [From
the
>> question, I assume MKE doesn't have a VOR at the field. I'm in Seattle, and
>> don't have charts or other pubs for the MKE area, so I'll fast-forward you to
>> WA.]
>
> Is there such a thing as a holding pattern without a holding fix that can be
> identified each time around?

I don't think so...

First, if you accepted the clearance, you accepted the fact you could navigate
to each waypoint or fix on that clearance, using installed equipment.

Second, many fixes can be identified in several ways -- GPS, FMS, RNAV, VOR/DME,
VOR/VOR, DME/DME, VOR/NDB... If you can't find it using primary means, use your
backups.

If you can't ID the fix because of equipment failure, you are in a situation
beyond simple lost comm.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:lahPb.93229$nt4.238743@attbi_s51...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote...
> >> Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning.
[From
> the
> >> question, I assume MKE doesn't have a VOR at the field. I'm in
Seattle, and
> >> don't have charts or other pubs for the MKE area, so I'll fast-forward
you to
> >> WA.]
> >
> > Is there such a thing as a holding pattern without a holding fix that
can be
> > identified each time around?
>
> I don't think so...
>
> First, if you accepted the clearance, you accepted the fact you could
navigate
> to each waypoint or fix on that clearance, using installed equipment.

Sure, but if the fix in question is your destination airport and your
clearance limit, then you might have equipment that lets you navigate to
that fix by a published approach to the airport (say, via an off-field NDB
or VOR), but not have any way to identify the fix as a holding fix.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote...
>
> Sure, but if the fix in question is your destination airport and your
> clearance limit, then you might have equipment that lets you navigate to
> that fix by a published approach to the airport (say, via an off-field NDB
> or VOR), but not have any way to identify the fix as a holding fix.

If you can navigate to a place once, you can do it again. If your navigational
ability is so degraded that you cannot find your position via VOR/DME, VOR/VOR,
VOR/NDB, or similar means, then you probably should declare an emergency and
navigate any way you can to any place you can identify.

In the situation I presented at BFI, the easiest means of determining the fix of
"BFI" was via an off-field VOR and on-field NDB (I would have used the SEA
VOR/DME if the OP had indicated he had DME available. The NDB was the actual
fix, but the crossing VOR radial was a very good means of confirming it. I
could have done it by off-field VOR/NDB or NDB/NDB, but not with as much
accuracy. Note that ALL of these were after departing a known fix determined by
VOR/VOR, 17 miles away, during which time a reasonable wind estimate could be
made.

Not all IFR flight is as easy as "follow the magenta line" in a "glass" cockpit,
or looking at a moving map display on a Garmin 530. Once in a while it's a good
idea to practice your basic instrument work -- that which you had to demonstrate
on your check ride.

I guess I was assuming two good working radios. I too have flown
planes with only one radio (all the acro planes I fly for a start)
or two ancient radios where on a good day one of them was
working well enough. But I wouldn't take them into IMC.

In my case my plane has dual Garmins (and nothing else except
the ADF) so if both comms failed it's just about impossible that
I'd have VOR, DME or GPS. Guess it's a good job I practice
NDB approaches regularly.

Of course my comment is a little tongue in cheek - yes, an instrument
pilot should know the official procedure, but they'll probably never
apply the bit about waiting until your planned arrival time.

John

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:18hPb.93226$nt4.238742@attbi_s51...
> "John Harper" > wrote...
> > This all strikes me as highly academic. The only likely reason for
losing
> > both comms is an electrical failure. In that case you're on the mag
> > compass and dead reckoning, if you're in IMC. The only good reason for
> > knowing the official lost comm procedure is to pass your instrument
> > oral.
>
> I disagree.
>
> I have flown many single-radio airplanes IFR. I have had that single
radio fail
> a few times... I have flown several airplanes with 2 radios installed,
one of
> which wasn't working on preflight. I have had that remaining radio fail a
few
> times. I have flown several airplanes with marginal radios. I have
temporarily
> lost comm many times...
>
> I have had a few electrical failures, but they were in airplanes with
backup
> generators and backup instruments, and/or in VMC.
>
> If you don't know what's "official," how do you know when you're following
it or
> deviating from it?
>

In article . net>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>Well, what do you think is better for you, forcing the controller to step
>away from his scope several times every minute in order to be able to
>communicate with the aircraft that are potentially in your way, or returning
>your transponder to it's previously assigned code?

No, Steve, I don't think the controller should have to jump thru hoops several
times a minute, either. The SYSTEM should allow you to disable MY 7600 after
you have seen and heard it and let me continue the code and still be armed for
another if it occurs (surely you don't get many overlaping emergencys). It
just seems that to put in 7600 and then return to my original (requiring me to
remember it) in 30 seconds is unnecessary load at a critical time.

Chuck

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:_biPb.92428$5V2.241427@attbi_s53...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote...
> >
> > Sure, but if the fix in question is your destination airport and your
> > clearance limit, then you might have equipment that lets you navigate to
> > that fix by a published approach to the airport (say, via an off-field
NDB
> > or VOR), but not have any way to identify the fix as a holding fix.
>
> If you can navigate to a place once, you can do it again.

Let's say you lack RNAV, and your destination airport has an off-field VOR
approach, no DME, and no other nearby navaid. How would you propose to use
that airport as a holding fix if you're going to hold for an hour?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote...
>
> Let's say you lack RNAV, and your destination airport has an off-field VOR
> approach, no DME, and no other nearby navaid. How would you propose to use
> that airport as a holding fix if you're going to hold for an hour?

I don't!

As I wrote previously, the decision to hold or not is situation-dependent. The
situation you describe would prompt me to squawk 7700/7600 and shoot the
approach on arrival.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:BskPb.93571$5V2.266461@attbi_s53...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote...
> >
> > Let's say you lack RNAV, and your destination airport has an off-field
VOR
> > approach, no DME, and no other nearby navaid. How would you propose to
use
> > that airport as a holding fix if you're going to hold for an hour?
>
> I don't!
>
> As I wrote previously, the decision to hold or not is situation-dependent.
The
> situation you describe would prompt me to squawk 7700/7600 and shoot the
> approach on arrival.

So then, Weiss remains incapable of learning.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:00ePb.89430$Rc4.449664@attbi_s54...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
> >
> > In most cases the clearance limit is the destination airport, how
> > do you comply with FAR 91.185(c)(3)?
>
> Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a
Standard
> pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c.

But if the clearance limit is the destination airport, then there won't be
and EFC, and so 91.185c3ii does *not* say to hold over the airport. Suppose
you lost comm shortly before getting to an IAF, and before being cleared for
the approach. In that case, compliance with 91.185c3ii as written would
require you fly from the IAF to the airport, then back to the IAF, then back
to the airport to land. Is that what you would do?

Since compliance would be nonsensical, it seems clear that 91.185c3 just
wasn't intended to address the case where the clearance limit is the
destination airport.

--Gary

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> Another thing we learned on that flight was that handhelds aren't worth
> crap inside the airplane.

Hmmm, based on our testing I wouldn't say that.

> First, hearing anything over the cabin noise was
> very difficult (neither of us had adapters to plug our headsets into the
> handheld radios). Second, the little rubber ducky antennas don't work
> for ****, especially inside a metal airplane cabin.

Ah. Well, yes, one definately needs the adaptor for the headset.
Another thing which is helpful is an adaptor cable with suction
cups, which allows one to place the antenna on the windshield.

It might also help that our plane probably has less metal and more
window in the upper half of the cockpit.

With the above, what we discovered in an afternoon of testing
is that it worked OK in areas where radio reception was strong,
but not nearly the same range. No surprise there.

> What I think would make the most sense is a way to connect your handheld
> directly to the external antenna in the plane, and make sure you've got
> a way to plug your headsets directly into your handheld radio.

Yes, that would definately make the most sense. It's also very
useful to have the headset adaptor and anything else which needs
setup, already set-up. If one needs the handheld the last thing
one needs is to be fumbling about trying to set it up.

Cheers,
Sydney

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, Steve, I don't think the controller should have to jump thru hoops
several
> times a minute, either. The SYSTEM should allow you to disable MY 7600
after
> you have seen and heard it and let me continue the code and still be armed
for
> another if it occurs (surely you don't get many overlaping emergencys).
It
> just seems that to put in 7600 and then return to my original (requiring
me to
> remember it) in 30 seconds is unnecessary load at a critical time.
>

How would the system distinguish between your 7600 code and another 7600
code?

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:vHfPb.91560$5V2.229832@attbi_s53...
>
> I was under the impression you were an instrument-rated pilot as
> well as an ATC controller...
>

I am.


>
> Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning.
>

Ah, via dead-reckoning. I see. Are you an instrument-rated pilot? Are you
a pilot at all?

>
> [From the question, I assume MKE doesn't have a VOR at the field.
> I'm in Seattle, and don't have charts or other pubs for the MKE area,
> so I'll fast-forward you to WA.]
>

Online versions are available, MKE is on the NACO IFR Area Chart
Chicago/Milwaukee.


>
> If I was enroute to BFI (Boeing Field, WA, which does not have a
> co-located VOR), I would know to look up the nearby NAVAIDS
> in the Airport/Facility Directory, and find that BFI is at the SEA
341/5.7.
> I would plot the course and distance from my previous waypoint (e.g.,
> TAGOR, on V 120, SEA 069/16) on a Sectional, and transfer it
> (approx 291/17) to my kneeboard Nav card.
>
> In the airplane, if I lost comm prior to TAGOR, all I have to do is fly
> direct from TAGOR to the SEA 341/5.7 (cross-checking with the
> PARKK NDB at the field, if I don't have DME -- I could do this as
> an NDB hold, too, but I am assuming that isn't an option at MKE),
> using the preplanned heading and time, adjusted for any wind
> corrections I'd been using enroute to TAGOR.
>

Nope, not an option at MKE. Given that you can navigate enroute and hold
using just dead-reckoning, why do you bother with navaids while enroute at
all?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:vHfPb.91560$5V2.229832@attbi_s53...
> >
> > I was under the impression you were an instrument-rated pilot as
> > well as an ATC controller...
> >
>
> I am.
>
>
> >
> > Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning.
> >
>
> Ah, via dead-reckoning. I see. Are you an instrument-rated pilot? Are
you
> a pilot at all?

Weiss is a 747-400 pilot for Atlas and seems in need of a psych exam, to
keep his ATP.

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1074631707.427512@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> This all strikes me as highly academic. The only likely reason for losing
> both comms is an electrical failure. In that case you're on the mag
> compass and dead reckoning, if you're in IMC. The only good reason for
> knowing the official lost comm procedure is to pass your instrument
> oral.
>

Well, dual communications radios are not required for IFR operations, but
you're essentially right. In a typical avionics package in any aircraft
used regularly for IFR transportation there are at least two communications
radios. If the installer did his job right they share no components and he
provided auxiliary jacks in the event of an audio panel failure. Most
pilots today seem to prefer wearing headsets, but if there's a problem with
the headset the cabin speaker and hand microphone are there. The chances of
losing both transmitters and both receivers simultaneously are extremely
remote, unless the loss is due to a failure in the electrical system, which
would leave the other installed avionics just as useless as the comm
radios.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:lahPb.93229$nt4.238743@attbi_s51...
>
> I don't think so...
>

And yet you just said you could hold at such a fix.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:_biPb.92428$5V2.241427@attbi_s53...
>
> If you can navigate to a place once, you can do it again. If your
> navigational ability is so degraded that you cannot find your
> position via VOR/DME, VOR/VOR, VOR/NDB, or similar
> means, then you probably should declare an emergency and
> navigate any way you can to any place you can identify.
>

Have you given up on dead-reckoning?

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:BskPb.93571$5V2.266461@attbi_s53...
>
> I don't!
>

You did less than a day ago:

>
> Okay. I'm heading to Milwaukee from Grand Rapids. I've filed the
> preferential, GRR..MKG.V2.SUDDS..MKE, and have been cleared as filed.
> I'm flying a BE35/U; two nav/comms, GS receiver, ADF, and marker
> beacon receiver. At MINNY I discover I cannot transmit or receive on
> either comm radio. How do I hold over the airport?

Per AIM 5-3-7.c:

Over MKE
Standard pattern (right turn, 1 or 1 1/2 minute legs)
On the course from SUDDS to MKE
At your cleared altitude
Until the time calculated per 91.185(c)(3)(ii)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> And yet you just said you could hold at such a fix.

"Could" and "would" are different concepts here.

It is physically possible to hold at many fixes in situations where such holding
is not desirable or sensible. OTOH, there are situations (e.g., lost comm
complicated by other emergency such as temporary disorientation) where a turn in
holding to 'get your stuff together' is a good idea.

I am NOT advocating an NDB hold or other hard-to-accomplish extended hold in a
lost comm situation. I am trying to point out that in some situations, a hold
makes sense and is in accordance with the rules.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:eaAPb.96486$Rc4.581993@attbi_s54...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...

<snip>
> I am NOT advocating an NDB hold or other hard-to-accomplish extended hold
in a
> lost comm situation. I am trying to point out that in some situations, a
hold
> makes sense and is in accordance with the rules.

Oh come on Weiss, you just want to be a bully.

Now you apologise to Steve and the group.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
>> Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning.
>
> Ah, via dead-reckoning. I see. Are you an instrument-rated pilot? Are you
> a pilot at all?

Take it out of context if you must -- I described much more than dead reckoning
after that.

Yes, I am an ATP, and currently work as such.


>> In the airplane, if I lost comm prior to TAGOR, all I have to do is fly
>> direct from TAGOR to the SEA 341/5.7 (cross-checking with the
>> PARKK NDB at the field, if I don't have DME -- I could do this as
>> an NDB hold, too, but I am assuming that isn't an option at MKE),
>> using the preplanned heading and time, adjusted for any wind
>> corrections I'd been using enroute to TAGOR.
>
> Nope, not an option at MKE. Given that you can navigate enroute and hold
> using just dead-reckoning, why do you bother with navaids while enroute at
> all?

The NACO IFR charts appear to be available by purchase/subscription only, and
are not actually available on line. However, there happens to be a TPP Change
Notice currently on line for the ILS 01L at MKE. From the plate, it looks like
you could find the airport using a VOR/VOR fix with BAE and HRK. You would have
a variety of MM and IM beacons to choose from and use for cross-checks.

Where did I claim to navigate via dead reckoning only? Have you never plotted
or flown point-to-point?

"Gary Drescher" > wrote...
>>
>> Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a
> Standard pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c.
>
> But if the clearance limit is the destination airport, then there won't be
> and EFC, and so 91.185c3ii does *not* say to hold over the airport. Suppose
> you lost comm shortly before getting to an IAF, and before being cleared for
> the approach. In that case, compliance with 91.185c3ii as written would
> require you fly from the IAF to the airport, then back to the IAF, then back
> to the airport to land. Is that what you would do?

In general, shortly before getting to an IAF, I have already been talking to
Approach, and have been told to "expect the ILS 24R." At that point,
91.185(c)(1)(iii) and 91.185(c)(2)(ii) would apply, and I would squawk 7600 and
continue with the approach.

If I have not been explicitly told to expect an approach, and an IAF was the
last filed point on my flight plan, I would consider that IAF as my clearance
limit. Note also that the "route filed in the flight plan" (91.185(c)(1)(iv))
generally terminates at an IAF (it is good practice to ensure it does). Seldom
is the airport itself in the route block. I have always been taught that
regardless of the "cleared to destination airport" terminology in the IFR
clearance received just prior to takeoff, the actual clearance limit -- and the
ETE calculation for the route -- is to the last NAVAID/Fix/waypoint entered in
the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF. This concept
is backed up in Para. 5-1-4.K and 5-1-7.f of the AIM, as well as 91.185(c)(3)(i)
and 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"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."

Note that the "descent and approach" are commenced at the derived ETA -- NOT the
departure from the non-IAF holding fix.

However, in the case where "Cleared direct Milwaukee" is given airborne, that
is, in fact, an amendment to the filed flight plan. That is where
91.185(c)(3)(ii) could come into play (assuming there is no NAVAID or Fix named
MKE or MLWKE). You navigate direct toward overhead the airport (and if you
cannot, you do not accept the clearance in the first place). If you lose comm
enroute in IMC, follow 91.185(c)(3)(ii) after arriving overhead the airport.


> Since compliance would be nonsensical, it seems clear that 91.185c3 just
> wasn't intended to address the case where the clearance limit is the
> destination airport.

I am not advocating any "nonsensical" compliance. I am advocating the use of
rules-based reasoning when making the decision whether or not to hold in the
lost-comm scenario.

I believe I clarified a [very common] case where 91.185c3 would indeed apply,
where the clearance limit is the destination airport, in my last paragraph
above. I believe I also provided a sound basis for my rationale regarding the
actual clearance limit -- a rationale that gives some sense to 91.185c3.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> Have you given up on dead-reckoning?

Nope. I use it all the time when sailing, kayaking, and rowing. I also use it
a lot when flying VFR. I use it as a basis for IFR navigation as well:

Dead Reckoning is the process of estimating your position by advancing a known
position using course, speed, time and distance to be traveled. In other words
figuring out where you will be at a certain time if you hold the speed, time and
course you plan to travel. (http://www.auxetrain.org/Nav1.html)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> "John R Weiss" > wrote...
> >
> > I don't!
> >
>
> You did less than a day ago:

It seems you're taking statements out of context again... The question was:

"Gary Drescher" > wrote...
>
> Let's say you lack RNAV, and your destination airport has an off-field VOR
> approach, no DME, and no other nearby navaid. How would you propose to use
> that airport as a holding fix if you're going to hold for an hour?

To make it a bit more clear, "I don't" propose to hold at such a fix for an
hour.

OTOH YOUR question, was "How do I hold over the airport?":

> > Okay. I'm heading to Milwaukee from Grand Rapids. I've filed the
> > preferential, GRR..MKG.V2.SUDDS..MKE, and have been cleared as filed.
> > I'm flying a BE35/U; two nav/comms, GS receiver, ADF, and marker
> > beacon receiver. At MINNY I discover I cannot transmit or receive on
> > either comm radio. How do I hold over the airport?

To which I responded:

> Per AIM 5-3-7.c:
>
> Over MKE
> Standard pattern (right turn, 1 or 1 1/2 minute legs)
> On the course from SUDDS to MKE
> At your cleared altitude
> Until the time calculated per 91.185(c)(3)(ii)

Since I don't know whether or not SUDDS is an IAF, I simply answered the
question, assuming that in the situation you described, you might choose to hold
over the airport.

After finding an approach plate for MKE (which does not show SUDDS) on line this
AM, I can further clarify by noting that you can use the BAE and HRK VORs to
plot a VOR/VOR fix over the airport, and use that as your holding point, should
you choose to hold over the airport. You can back up that fix by tuning your
ILS receiver to an appropriate frequency (e.g., 110.3 for the I-MKE ILS 01R) and
use your marker beacon receiver to note passage over a MM or IM. Depending on
your inbound course, you might be able to get some useful LOC information, but I
wouldn't rely on it.

WOULD I do that for an hour? I doubt it -- I can't come up with a rational
scenario.

COULD I do it for a couple turns, given a scenario where I decided it was the
right thing to do? Yes! An HSI would make it easier, but it could be done with
a pair of CDIs.

A fix defined by the intersection of 2 VOR radials is sufficient for navigation.
It may take a bit of time to plot the 2 radials, and a few more seconds to plot
the course and distance from SUDDS to MKE, but each of those is a basic
navigation process. You might have even done it in your preflight planning, and
annotated your Sectional and/or Low Alt IFR chart just for situational
awareness...

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote...
> >>
> >> Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a
> > Standard pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c.
> >
> > But if the clearance limit is the destination airport, then there won't
be
> > and EFC, and so 91.185c3ii does *not* say to hold over the airport.
Suppose
> > you lost comm shortly before getting to an IAF, and before being cleared
for
> > the approach. In that case, compliance with 91.185c3ii as written would
> > require you fly from the IAF to the airport, then back to the IAF, then
back
> > to the airport to land. Is that what you would do?
>
> If I have not been explicitly told to expect an approach, and an IAF was
the
> last filed point on my flight plan, I would consider that IAF as my
clearance
> limit.
> I have always been taught that
> regardless of the "cleared to destination airport" terminology in the IFR
> clearance received just prior to takeoff, the actual clearance limit --
and the
> ETE calculation for the route -- is to the last NAVAID/Fix/waypoint
entered in
> the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF.

But contrary to what you would construe, and contrary to what you have
always been taught, the AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary explicitly defines
"clearance limit" as "the fix, point, or location to which an aircraft is
cleared when issued an air traffic clearance". (Note that a clearance limit
doesn't even have to be a fix.) So you're essentially inventing your own
private definition of "clearance limit" in order to try to make 91.185c3ii
seem sensible. The very need to do that demonstrates that 91.185c3ii does
*not* make sense as written. We're then unfortunately left to guess at its
true intent.

> This concept
> is backed up in Para. 5-1-4.K and 5-1-7.f of the AIM, as well as
91.185(c)(3)(i)
> and 91.185(c)(3)(ii):
>
> "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."
>
> Note that the "descent and approach" are commenced at the derived ETA --
NOT the
> departure from the non-IAF holding fix.

I don't see how any of the text you cite addresses your proposed definition
of "clearance limit". The term is clearly defined in the P/CG.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:ciCPb.100983$nt4.300167@attbi_s51...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51...

<snip>
> > the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF.
>
> But contrary to what you would construe, and contrary to what you have
> always been taught, the AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary explicitly defines
> "clearance limit" as "the fix, point, or location to which an aircraft is
> cleared when issued an air traffic clearance". (Note that a clearance
limit
> doesn't even have to be a fix.) So you're essentially inventing your own
> private definition of "clearance limit" in order to try to make 91.185c3ii
> seem sensible. The very need to do that demonstrates that 91.185c3ii does
> *not* make sense as written. We're then unfortunately left to guess at
its
> true intent.

Many the original CFR 14 Parts require "interpreataion" and it is dangerous
to do otherwise. It is one of the reasons Part 145 had to be rewitten, so
that something that could work will be in the palce code that could never
have worked.

Onward and upward ...

In article . net>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>The chances of
>losing both transmitters and both receivers simultaneously are extremely
>remote, unless the loss is due to a failure in the electrical system, which
>would leave the other installed avionics just as useless as the comm
>radios.

A hand held GPS on battterys is a good emergency avionic. I have a 195 on
ship's power (with bateries installed) as well as a 430 in the panel. It might
not be legal to do an approach with the 195 but it's better than a ham
sandwich.

Chuck

In article . net>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>How would the system distinguish between your 7600 code and another 7600
>code?
>

I guess you do have to plan for two or more at one time. How often does one
occur and have you ever had two at once?

I thought that the code appeared on the CRT along with my position. Does it?

Chuck

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51...
> I believe I clarified a [very common] case where 91.185c3 would indeed
apply,
> where the clearance limit is the destination airport, in my last paragraph
> above. I believe I also provided a sound basis for my rationale regarding
the
> actual clearance limit -- a rationale that gives some sense to 91.185c3.

I notice here that you're drawing a distinction between the "clearance
limit" (a term defined in the AIM P/CG)--which you acknowledge can be the
destination airport--and the "actual clearance limit" (a term that is
nowhere defined)--which you say can be the IAF if the "clearance limit"
itself is the destination airport. Then, you're choosing to construe the
term "clearance limit" in 91.185c3 to refer not to the actual "clearance
limit", but rather to the "actual clearance limit", as you've defined the
latter phrase.

Again, the very need for such preposterous contortions demonstrates that
91.185c3 does not make sense as written.

--Gary

PaulaJay1 wrote:

> I guess you do have to plan for two or more at one time. How often does one
> occur and have you ever had two at once?

One in a billion chance.

>
> I thought that the code appeared on the CRT along with my position. Does it?

Yes. RF for radio failure, HJ for hijack and EM for emergency.

"Gary Drescher" > wrote...
>
> I notice here that you're drawing a distinction between the "clearance
> limit" (a term defined in the AIM P/CG)--which you acknowledge can be the
> destination airport--and the "actual clearance limit" (a term that is
> nowhere defined)--which you say can be the IAF if the "clearance limit"
> itself is the destination airport. Then, you're choosing to construe the
> term "clearance limit" in 91.185c3 to refer not to the actual "clearance
> limit", but rather to the "actual clearance limit", as you've defined the
> latter phrase.
>
> Again, the very need for such preposterous contortions demonstrates that
> 91.185c3 does not make sense as written.

I agree that the Lost Comm procedures need to be rewritten in their entirety --
I've been convinced of that since about 1978...

In 78-79 I was the Instrument Phase Head (Standards Evaluation Pilot) in VT-25,
an advanced jet training squadron. One of my collateral duties was Chief of
Naval Air Training (CNATRA) member/representative on the US Navy Instrument
Flight Standards Board. There were various fleet reps as well as a couple
FAA/ATC reps on the board. One of our functions was to review and update the
Navy Instrument Flight Manual. As the CNATRA rep, one of my other duties was to
ensure the changes in the manual were incorporated into the training curricula.

The specific scenarios brought up by specific pilots have changed since 1978,
but the same basic complaints with the same part 91 rules remain to this day --
you can't follow the rules in a high percentage of credible scenarios! Still,
we're stuck with them, including 91.185c3.

The concept of the 'final fix in the Route of Flight block of the flight plan as
the de facto clearance limit' was discussed at the review conference for the
Instrument Manual the year I attended. The FAA reps agreed that it was a
reasonable and proper interpretation of the rules, and confirmed its continued
use as a training standard. None of the ATC controllers in South TX where we
trained had any problems with our exercise of the concept in our training
scenarios.

In effect, the concept we taught resulted in essentially the same recommended
airborne action that one of the controllers expressed here the other day, using
different words and rationale -- ATC will, in most cases, expect/want you to fly
to an IAF, shoot an approach, and land. Whether or not you hold at that IAF for
positioning, descent, or awaiting an ETA will depend on the specific situation.
These days, at large, controlled airports with fancier radars than existed in
1978, it makes sense in many/most cases to do as little holding as possible, so
you get out of everyone else's way.

As somebody also pointed out the other day, the mere fact that questions such as
these continue to be asked and thrashed gives clear evidence that the rules need
changing, because they are often confusing and nowhere near universally
applicable. Unfortunately, the FAA was and is too busy with ARSAs, TRSAs, TCAs,
TFRs, WAAS, TCAS, and drug tests to take the time to fix what's been broke for
at least 30 years. Fortunately, most pilots have learned to deal with it, and
are able to make good decisions when confronted with a lost-comm situation.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It bothers me that the 7600 code continues to "ring" at Control so they
> want me
> > to switch back to the original code after some period of time. What
> period?
> >
>
> About thirty seconds will be fine. If they haven't noticed it in that
time
> it's because they disabled it the last time someone decided to squawk 7600
> down to the ground and forgot to restore it.
>
>

What happens when I then fly out of your airspace to the next? Do you just
tell the next controller that I'm NORDO? Does the radar indicate me as
NORDO somehow even if I change back to the originally assigned code?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> What happens when I then fly out of your airspace to the next? Do you
just
> tell the next controller that I'm NORDO? Does the radar indicate me as
> NORDO somehow even if I change back to the originally assigned code?
>

Either "NORDO" will be entered in the flight plan remarks or the next
controller will be told via landline.

(PaulaJay1) wrote in message >...
> In article . net>, "Steven P.
> McNicoll" > writes:
> >The chances of
> >losing both transmitters and both receivers simultaneously are extremely
> >remote, unless the loss is due to a failure in the electrical system, which
> >would leave the other installed avionics just as useless as the comm
> >radios.

> A hand held GPS on battterys is a good emergency avionic. I have a 195 on
> ship's power (with bateries installed) as well as a 430 in the panel. It might
> not be legal to do an approach with the 195 but it's better than a ham
> sandwich.

Personally I consider a handheld GPS essential equipment. I don't
want to fly IMC in a plane where a single-point failure can take
out the electrical system, without one. I also don't want to be
in a position where I can't just use it to navigate to VMC.

Cheers,
Sydney

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:0zGPb.97614$Rc4.594579@attbi_s54...
> I agree that the Lost Comm procedures need to be rewritten in their
entirety --
> I've been convinced of that since about 1978...
>
> Unfortunately, the FAA was and is too busy with ARSAs, TRSAs, TCAs,
> TFRs, WAAS, TCAS, and drug tests to take the time to fix what's been broke
for
> at least 30 years. Fortunately, most pilots have learned to deal with it,
and
> are able to make good decisions when confronted with a lost-comm
situation.

Hm, how about a grass-roots movement to rewrite the FARs to make them
coherent? We could all collaborate on the rec.aviation newsgroups, and
present the FAA with a finished product that they'd just have to ratify. :-)

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:tISPb.104072$nt4.332976@attbi_s51...

> Hm, how about a grass-roots movement to rewrite the FARs to make them
> coherent? We could all collaborate on the rec.aviation newsgroups, and
> present the FAA with a finished product that they'd just have to ratify.
:-)

That has already happened for Parts 61, 145, 21, 23 and 25.

"Gary Drescher" > wrote...
>
> Hm, how about a grass-roots movement to rewrite the FARs to make them
> coherent? We could all collaborate on the rec.aviation newsgroups, and
> present the FAA with a finished product that they'd just have to ratify. :-)

OK. I'll start with 91.185:

a) General.

1) VFR. Fly the airplane. Avoid Class B and C airspace.

2) IFR. If you lose comm, continue flying the airplane. If lost comm is
your only problem, squawk 7600 for 30 seconds, then return to your assigned
squawk.

3) Compound emergency. Squawk 7700. Proceed to the nearest suitable
airport and land.

b) Priorities

1). General

i) Aviate -- Fly the airplane.

ii) Navigate -- Confirm where you are. Decide where you need to go.
Figure out how to get there. Do it. Maintain your assigned altitude, or higher
MEA or Minimum Sector Altitude, until on an Arrival or Approach procedure that
has lower minimum altitude.

iii) Communicate -- If you can still receive ATC transmissions,
follow instructions and squawk IDENT to acknowledge when requested. If your
transponder is inoperative, see (ii) above. Otherwise, squawk 7700 if you
cannot follow your last ATC clearance or your flight plan. If you attain VMC
and can maintain VMC and VFR, squawk 1276 and continue VFR.

2). Route, Altitude, and timing

i) Comply with your last ATC clearance, including any expected
further clearances. If you filed for, were cleared for, or were told to expect
a published Arrival Procedure and/or Instrument Approach Procedure, execute the
Arrival and Approach procedures upon arrival at the fix at which the procedure
begins. For any segment where "Expect radar vectors" is specified, fly direct.
Hold only if ATC informed you of an expected delay or assigned you an Expected
Further Clearance time. Follow the published altitude profiles.

ii) If you get to a point where your last clearance no longer
applies, revert to your last requested route or flight plan route.

iii) If the situation is such that none of the above makes sense,
fly by the most expeditious route to your destination, filed alternate, or
nearest suitable airport. Use the most suitable Arrival Procedure and
Instrument Approach Procedure and land.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message news:vkTPb.101675$sv6.444366@attbi_s52...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote...
> >
> > Hm, how about a grass-roots movement to rewrite the FARs to make them
> > coherent? We could all collaborate on the rec.aviation newsgroups, and
> > present the FAA with a finished product that they'd just have to ratify. :-)
>
> OK. I'll start with 91.185:

91.1 Don't do nothing stupid.
91.3 See 91.1.

> Personally I consider a handheld GPS essential equipment. I don't
> want to fly IMC in a plane where a single-point failure can take
> out the electrical system, without one. I also don't want to be
> in a position where I can't just use it to navigate to VMC.

I can't imagine not having a handheld GPS in the plane. Both my
partner and i have them, so there's usually at least two, if not three
on board when we fly, instrument or not. One of these days I'll
actually have the guts to finish that rating... i'm finally
comfortable flying in actual enough to think i actually CAN do it <^;

(BTW, thanks to you and Tigger, I've got a little Lima Traveler that I
have been playing with up till recently. fantastic little plane!)

sue***
if you're not part of the solution, you must be part of the
precipitate....
email above is spam protected, make corrections to

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:eaAPb.96486$Rc4.581993@attbi_s54...
>
> "Could" and "would" are different concepts here.
>

How so?


>
> It is physically possible to hold at many fixes in situations where such
> holding is not desirable or sensible.
>

But it is not physically possible to hold at a fix that cannot be
determined.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:wNAPb.100744$nt4.298913@attbi_s51...
>
> Take it out of context if you must -- I described much more than dead
> reckoning after that.
>

What do you believe I took out of context? I gave you a scenario:

"Okay. I'm heading to Milwaukee from Grand Rapids. I've filed the
preferential, GRR..MKG.V2.SUDDS..MKE, and have been cleared as filed.
I'm flying a BE35/U; two nav/comms, GS receiver, ADF, and marker
beacon receiver. At MINNY I discover I cannot transmit or receive on
either comm radio. How do I hold over the airport?"

Your entire response was :

"Per AIM 5-3-7.c:

Over MKE
Standard pattern (right turn, 1 or 1 1/2 minute legs)
On the course from SUDDS to MKE
At your cleared altitude
Until the time calculated per 91.185(c)(3)(ii)"

Seeking clarification I asked; "How do I navigate from SUDDS to MKE?"

You answered; "Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight
planning. [From the question, I assume MKE doesn't have a VOR at the field.
I'm in Seattle, and don't have charts or other pubs for the MKE area, so
I'll fast-forward you to
WA.]"

So, again, what am I taking out of context? If you're not saying you'd
navigate to the clearance limit and hold over a navaid-free field using only
dead-reckoning then what are you saying?


>
> The NACO IFR charts appear to be available by purchase/subscription only,
> and are not actually available on line. However, there happens to be a
TPP
> Change Notice currently on line for the ILS 01L at MKE. From the plate,
it
> looks like you could find the airport using a VOR/VOR fix with BAE and
HRK. > You would have a variety of MM and IM beacons to choose from and use
for
> cross-checks.
>

I know how to find the field, that's not the question. The question is how
do I navigate from SUDDS direct to MKE and hold there?


>
> Where did I claim to navigate via dead reckoning only?
>

Answered above.


>
> Have you never plotted or flown point-to-point?
>

Many times. You?

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51...
>
> If I have not been explicitly told to expect an approach, and an IAF was
> the last filed point on my flight plan, I would consider that IAF as my
> clearance limit.
>

Your clearance limit is the point that followed "cleared to", normally the
destination airport.


>
> Note also that the "route filed in the flight plan" (91.185(c)(1)(iv))
> generally terminates at an IAF (it is good practice to ensure it does).
> Seldom is the airport itself in the route block.
>

Irrelevant. The clearance limit is always the point to which the aircraft
is cleared, it is not the last fix in the route block.


>
> I have always been taught that regardless of the "cleared to destination
> airport" terminology in the IFR clearance received just prior to takeoff,
> the actual clearance limit -- and the ETE calculation for the route -- is
> to the last NAVAID/Fix/waypoint entered in the Route of Flight block
> of the flight plan -- normally the IAF.
>

Then you have always been taught wrong.


>
> This concept is backed up in Para. 5-1-4.K and 5-1-7.f of the AIM,
> as well as 91.185(c)(3)(i) and 91.185(c)(3)(ii):
>

How so?


>
> However, in the case where "Cleared direct Milwaukee" is given airborne,
> that is, in fact, an amendment to the filed flight plan.
>

"Cleared direct Milwaukee" wasn't given at any time.


>
> That is where 91.185(c)(3)(ii) could come into play (assuming there is no
> NAVAID or Fix named MKE or MLWKE).
>

There are no navaids at MKE.


>
> You navigate direct toward overhead the airport (and if you
> cannot, you do not accept the clearance in the first place).
>

You're free to decline that clearance, but doing so means you've cancelled
your flight.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:0zGPb.97614$Rc4.594579@attbi_s54...
>
> The concept of the 'final fix in the Route of Flight block of the flight
> plan as the de facto clearance limit' was discussed at the review
> conference for the Instrument Manual the year I attended. The
> FAA reps agreed that it was a reasonable and proper interpretation
> of the rules,
>

It is neither.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:zqBPb.98986$5V2.329327@attbi_s53...
>
> Nope. I use it all the time when sailing, kayaking, and rowing.
> I also use it a lot when flying VFR. I use it as a basis for IFR
> navigation as well:
>

Swell. Please explain how you'd use it to navigate from SUDDS to MKE and
hold at MKE.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:n5CPb.98388$sv6.406983@attbi_s52...
>
> It seems you're taking statements out of context again... The question
> was:
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote...
> >
> > Let's say you lack RNAV, and your destination airport has an off-field
> > VOR approach, no DME, and no other nearby navaid. How would
> > you propose to use that airport as a holding fix if you're going to hold
> > for an hour?
>
> To make it a bit more clear, "I don't" propose to hold at such a fix for
> an hour.
>

No, the question was; "How do I navigate from SUDDS to MKE?"

You answered; "Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight
planning."


>
> OTOH YOUR question, was "How do I hold over the airport?":
>
> > > Okay. I'm heading to Milwaukee from Grand Rapids. I've filed the
> > > preferential, GRR..MKG.V2.SUDDS..MKE, and have been cleared as filed.
> > > I'm flying a BE35/U; two nav/comms, GS receiver, ADF, and marker
> > > beacon receiver. At MINNY I discover I cannot transmit or receive on
> > > either comm radio. How do I hold over the airport?
>
> To which I responded:
>
> > Per AIM 5-3-7.c:
> >
> > Over MKE
> > Standard pattern (right turn, 1 or 1 1/2 minute legs)
> > On the course from SUDDS to MKE
> > At your cleared altitude
> > Until the time calculated per 91.185(c)(3)(ii)
>
> Since I don't know whether or not SUDDS is an IAF, I simply answered the
> question, assuming that in the situation you described, you might choose
to
> hold over the airport.
>

SUDDS is not an IAF, and it wouldn't matter if it was.


>
> After finding an approach plate for MKE (which does not show SUDDS) on
> line this AM, I can further clarify by noting that you can use the BAE and
> HRK VORs to plot a VOR/VOR fix over the airport, and use that as your
> holding point, should you choose to hold over the airport.
>

It's not a matter of choosing, MKE is the clearance limit.


>
> You can back up that fix by tuning your ILS receiver to an appropriate
> frequency (e.g., 110.3 for the I-MKE ILS 01R) and use your marker
> beacon receiver to note passage over a MM or IM. Depending on
> your inbound course, you might be able to get some useful LOC
> information, but I wouldn't rely on it.
>
> WOULD I do that for an hour? I doubt it -- I can't come up with a
> rational scenario.
>
> COULD I do it for a couple turns, given a scenario where I decided it was
> the right thing to do? Yes! An HSI would make it easier, but it could be
> done with a pair of CDIs.
>
> A fix defined by the intersection of 2 VOR radials is sufficient for
> navigation. It may take a bit of time to plot the 2 radials, and a few
> more seconds to plot the course and distance from SUDDS to MKE,
> but each of those is a basic navigation process. You might have even
> done it in your preflight planning, and annotated your Sectional and/or
> Low Alt IFR chart just for situational awareness...
>

Or I could just track V2 to the runway 25 localizer and fly inbound, or
several other things that are simpler than what you suggest. But navigation
isn't the issue here, the issue is compliance with FAR 91.185.

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess you do have to plan for two or more at one time. How often does
> one occur and have you ever had two at once?
>

Rarely and never.


>
> I thought that the code appeared on the CRT along with my position.
> Does it?
>

It does if I select to see the codes.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:vkTPb.101675$sv6.444366@attbi_s52...
>
> If you attain VMC and can maintain VMC and VFR, squawk 1276
> and continue VFR.
>

Why 1276? 1276 is for use ADIZ penetration when contact cannot be
established with ATC.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> But it is not physically possible to hold at a fix that cannot be
> determined.

True. However, a fix over an airport CAN be determined. At MKE, that could be
an intersection of 2 VOR radials -- BAE and HRK. There are also several NDBs in
the area. Cross-checks can be made in some situations via LOC and Marker
Beacons.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
>
> So, again, what am I taking out of context? If you're not saying you'd
> navigate to the clearance limit and hold over a navaid-free field using only
> dead-reckoning then what are you saying?

I am saying, again, that you plot the fix, set the appropriate radials from
nearby navaids into your nav equipment, and fly to the intersection that defines
the fix.

> I know how to find the field, that's not the question. The question is how
> do I navigate from SUDDS direct to MKE and hold there?

Option 1: Find the bearing/distance from BAE and HRK to MKE, using your
Airport/Facility Directory.

Option 2: Plot (on your IFR chart or Sectional) the BAE and HRK radials that
extend overhead MKE.

Plot the course and distance from SUDDS to your fix over MKE.

Set the appropriate radials in your CDI/HSI.

Fly to the intersection.

Hold at that intersection as previously described.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:NIcQb.106147$sv6.507113@attbi_s52...
>
> True. However, a fix over an airport CAN be determined.
>

It can't be determined by dead reckoning.


>
> At MKE, that could be an intersection of 2 VOR radials -- BAE and HRK.
>

Please explain how you'd hold at MKE on the inbound course from SUDDS to MKE
using radials from BAE and HRK.


>
> There are also several NDBs in the area.
>

Please explain how you'd hold at MKE on the inbound course from SUDDS to MKE
using NDBs in the area.


>
> Cross-checks can be made in some situations via LOC and Marker Beacons.
>

Please explain how you'd hold at MKE on the inbound course from SUDDS to MKE
using LOC and Marker Beacons.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:RQcQb.106192$5V2.470678@attbi_s53...
>
> I am saying, again, that you plot the fix, set the appropriate radials
from
> nearby navaids into your nav equipment, and fly to the intersection that
defines
> the fix.
>

So you've changed your mind about doing it by dead reckoning?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> So you've changed your mind about doing it by dead reckoning?

Nope. I never said I would do it by dead reckoning.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
>> At MKE, that could be an intersection of 2 VOR radials -- BAE and HRK.

> Please explain how you'd hold at MKE on the inbound course from SUDDS to MKE
> using radials from BAE and HRK.

Already did. What part didn't you understand?

"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?

"Randy at Home" > wrote in
message able.rogers.com...
>
> 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).
>

It may be a bit hard to see the runway as well. But what will you do if you
don't see a light?


>
> 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?
>

Not necessarily. But what will you do if you don't see a light?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> It may be a bit hard to see the runway as well. But what will you do if you
> don't see a light?

After shooting a NORDO approach in IMC, the only lights I'm looking for
are the approach lights and the runway lights. And maybe the one on the
back of the jeep illuminating the "Follow Me" sign.

If the guy in the tower wants to get his jollies shining a green light
at me, that's his problem, not mine.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> After shooting a NORDO approach in IMC, the only lights I'm looking for
> are the approach lights and the runway lights. And maybe the one on the
> back of the jeep illuminating the "Follow Me" sign.
>
> If the guy in the tower wants to get his jollies shining a green light
> at me, that's his problem, not mine.
>

Easy, big fella. I'm not the one that said, "If there's a tower, don't
forget to look for the light." That was Ron Natalie. I wouldn't look for
landing clearance either. I was just curious what he would do if he saw no
light.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> I wouldn't look for
> landing clearance either. I was just curious what he would do if he saw no
> light.

I'd be looking for red lights... Green ones are good; but no lights means
everyone's asleep, gone home, or not concerned. Red ones mean trouble...

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:_pmQb.108146$sv6.540134@attbi_s52...
>
> I'd be looking for red lights... Green ones are good; but no lights means
> everyone's asleep, gone home, or not concerned. Red ones mean trouble...
>

They're not going to give you a red light.

In article <_pmQb.108146$sv6.540134@attbi_s52>,
"John R Weiss" > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
> >
> > I wouldn't look for
> > landing clearance either. I was just curious what he would do if he saw no
> > light.
>
> I'd be looking for red lights... Green ones are good; but no lights means
> everyone's asleep, gone home, or not concerned. Red ones mean trouble...
>

Once I've got the runway in sight, I can't think of anything short of a
raging inferno or a confirmed spotting of a FSDO guy doing ramp checks
that would get me back into the clouds nordo. Even if there was another
aircraft on the runway, I'd land behind him, or put it down on the grass.

Of course, I'm talking spam cans here. What makes sense for me may not
make sense for heavy metal.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
|
| "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
| news:_pmQb.108146$sv6.540134@attbi_s52...
| >
| > I'd be looking for red lights... Green ones are good; but no lights
means
| > everyone's asleep, gone home, or not concerned. Red ones mean
trouble...
| >
|
| They're not going to give you a red light.

Yeah, any red light could be: a) a lighted obstacle you're about to hit; b)
break lights from a car ;-)

"Randy at Home" > wrote in
message able.rogers.com...
>
> Yeah, any red light could be: a) a lighted obstacle you're about to hit;
b)
> break lights from a car ;-)
>

Think about it. If they don't give you any light gun signal and you land
without a clearance they're not at fault if you come to grief. If they give
you a red light gun signal and you put your NORDO airplane back in the
clouds and then come to grief somewhere they're gonna get a full share of
the blame.

"Roy Smith" > wrote...
>
> Once I've got the runway in sight, I can't think of anything short of a
> raging inferno or a confirmed spotting of a FSDO guy doing ramp checks
> that would get me back into the clouds nordo.

If the FSDO guy is Jack Seymour in ANC, go ahead and land. He's probably the
closest to a Fed actually "here to help" that I've ever run across!

> Another thing we learned on that flight was that handhelds aren't worth
> crap inside the airplane. We both had handhelds, and we tried them
> both, to no avail. First, hearing anything over the cabin noise was
> very difficult (neither of us had adapters to plug our headsets into the
> handheld radios). Second, the little rubber ducky antennas don't work
> for ****, especially inside a metal airplane cabin.
>
> What I think would make the most sense is a way to connect your handheld
> directly to the external antenna in the plane, and make sure you've got
> a way to plug your headsets directly into your handheld radio.

I did exactly that with my 172 and it works well. The avionics shop
installed a small jack that is connected to the #2 Com between the radio and
the antenna. When the cable is plugged into the jack, it disconnects the
built in radio from the antenna and connects the handheld directly to the
external antenna. I have a headset adapter attached to the lanyard clip on
the handheld so that it is always at hand, and the antenna adapter cable is
in the glove box along with a spare flashlight and a pair of vice-grips (in
case a knob falls off of something). I have tested the setup while flying
VMC and it works well. The only problem with it is that the internal VOR
capability on the handset (ICOM A22) doesn't work well because the antenna
orientation is wrong, but during a real failure I'll choose communications
with ATC over a NAV radio every time.

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:_biPb.92428$5V2.241427@attbi_s53...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote...
> >
> > Sure, but if the fix in question is your destination airport and your
> > clearance limit, then you might have equipment that lets you navigate to
> > that fix by a published approach to the airport (say, via an off-field
NDB
> > or VOR), but not have any way to identify the fix as a holding fix.
>
> If you can navigate to a place once, you can do it again. If your
navigational
> ability is so degraded that you cannot find your position via VOR/DME,
VOR/VOR,
> VOR/NDB, or similar means, then you probably should declare an emergency
and
> navigate any way you can to any place you can identify.

I disagree that the ability to navigate to a place once means you can do it
again. AIM 1-1-9.b clearly states that localizer goidance is only valid out
to 35 degrees each side of the course, and that the back course is
specifically not to be used for guidance unless a back course procedure
exists.

Assume a 90kt holding speed and an NDB colocated with the localizer antenna
to identify the fix. If there were a 20kt wind blowing across the holding
course and you did not correct for it in the hold, then 3 minutes later when
you begin the inbound segment of the hold you will have been blown about 1
mile to the left or right of where you want to be. At 1.5 miles from the
airport, that is just about 35 degrees off of the inbound course. Any
stronger wind, or unfavorable errors flying the pattern, and the localizer
may be giving incorrect guidance.

[I'm not trying to upset anyone with this admitadly academic exercise, but
as "homework" after passing my last BFR I was given the friendly advise to
go a read a page a day from the AIM. I found the section on localizers
interesting because I had previously had the incorrect idea in my head that
they are a special form of VOR. They use the same frequencies, but operate
on a totally different principal and their behavior outside of that 35
degree window can be quite bizarre.]

"Ron Garrison" > wrote:
> The only problem with it is that the internal VOR capability on the
> handset (ICOM A22) doesn't work well because the antenna orientation
> is wrong

Have you considered a steep turn? A couple of gees should be sufficient
to get you decent VOR reception :-)

> but during a real failure I'll choose communications
> with ATC over a NAV radio every time.

No question about that. If the ceiling is below the MVA, I vote for
vectors to the nearest ASR-equipped facility.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you considered a steep turn? A couple of gees should be sufficient
> to get you decent VOR reception :-)
>

Yeah, and so much more entertaining than tilting the radio.

"Ron Garrison" > wrote...
>
> I disagree that the ability to navigate to a place once means you can do it
> again. AIM 1-1-9.b clearly states that localizer goidance is only valid out
> to 35 degrees each side of the course, and that the back course is
> specifically not to be used for guidance unless a back course procedure
> exists.
>
> Assume a 90kt holding speed and an NDB colocated with the localizer antenna
> to identify the fix. If there were a 20kt wind blowing across the holding
> course and you did not correct for it in the hold, then 3 minutes later when
> you begin the inbound segment of the hold you will have been blown about 1
> mile to the left or right of where you want to be. At 1.5 miles from the
> airport, that is just about 35 degrees off of the inbound course. Any
> stronger wind, or unfavorable errors flying the pattern, and the localizer
> may be giving incorrect guidance.

All your information after the second sentence is good. However, it does not
bear directly on your first statement.

Holding over an NDB is a standard, practiced procedure even without any backup
NAVAIDs. Hopefully, if you are holding in IMC over an NDB, you have at least
some idea of the wind, and can make an initial correction on your first outbound
leg. If you don't, you must make a larger correction on the inbound course, but
you can still navigate back to the NDB.

If you are using other NAVAIDs as backups or crosschecks, that does not mean you
ignore your primary NAVAID. Assume you are holding over that NDB collocated
with the LOC. If your planned inbound course in the hold is close to the LOC
front course, you can use the LOC as a valid crosscheck, and possibly use it to
fine-tune your inbound heading in the crosswind. However, if your inbound
course in the hole was NOT coincident with the LOC course, you simply would not
choose to use the LOC as a backup. Still, you can use the NDB -- your primary
NAVAID -- and get back to the NDB.

Flying good IFR in IMC in "ideal" conditions (no wind, no turbulence, no
vertigo, no emergencies) requires practice. Flying in less-than-ideal
conditions is more challenging, and takes more practice and experience. As you
build on your experience, you will discover what YOU can do in specific
situations.