Flying IMC into Atlanta area (RYY) on the Turbow Eight Arrival, past TRBOW
heading for PUMIF, line of convective activity just NW of PUMIF. The comms
are becoming intermittent with intermittent communications. ATC issues
heading change and new altitude just prior to convective activity (as
expected) and assigns a 360 heading (again to miss some activity). After
acknowledging the new info the comms failed, I'm fumbling around with aux
mic., radar, Nexrad, etc... The end of convection was clearly on radar (on
board and NEXRAD), as well as being confirmed by ATIS from PDK and RYY.
Rather than squawking 7600 I flew assigned heading with a minor zig to avoid
a cell, then was VFR in about 3 / 4 minutes; squawked VFR and headed for
home below ATL airspace. My reasoning for not squawking 7600 was two fold;
1) Didn't want to upset traffic coming into ATL on a busy day with limited
corridors, 2) Could see end to situation in short amount of time. What
are your thoughts?

On 07/28/09 12:58, Gulfside wrote:
> Flying IMC into Atlanta area (RYY) on the Turbow Eight Arrival, past TRBOW
> heading for PUMIF, line of convective activity just NW of PUMIF. The comms
> are becoming intermittent with intermittent communications. ATC issues
> heading change and new altitude just prior to convective activity (as
> expected) and assigns a 360 heading (again to miss some activity). After
> acknowledging the new info the comms failed, I'm fumbling around with aux
> mic., radar, Nexrad, etc... The end of convection was clearly on radar (on
> board and NEXRAD), as well as being confirmed by ATIS from PDK and RYY.
> Rather than squawking 7600 I flew assigned heading with a minor zig to avoid
> a cell, then was VFR in about 3 / 4 minutes; squawked VFR and headed for
> home below ATL airspace. My reasoning for not squawking 7600 was two fold;
> 1) Didn't want to upset traffic coming into ATL on a busy day with limited
> corridors, 2) Could see end to situation in short amount of time. What
> are your thoughts?
>
>

Note: I haven't flown in such a busy environment, so my opinion about
your specific case may be worth nothing...

I think you should have squawked 7600 if for no other reason than to
let ATC know that you're comms failed. You are required to provide
reports of malfunctioning equipment, and this certainly counts.

I think I would have left it as 7600 until I was in clear VMC and
able to continue under VFR, then switched to 1200 to let them know
that I was VFR at that point. I think I would have made sure I was
squawking 7600 for at least 5 minutes or so, just to make sure they
saw it.

Since ATC was still seeing your primary (and secondary) radar returns,
they may have thought (for a while anyway) that you were just on the
wrong frequency or worse, ignoring them. Also, they would probably
expect you to squawk 7600 if your comms have failed, so by you not
doing so you may make them think something else is going on.

And by the way, thanks for sharing an actual IFR issue on the IFR
newsgroup. Not been much of that lately. :-\

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

"Gulfside" > wrote in message
g.com...
> Flying IMC into Atlanta area (RYY) on the Turbow Eight Arrival, past TRBOW
> heading for PUMIF, line of convective activity just NW of PUMIF. The comms
> are becoming intermittent with intermittent communications. ATC issues
> heading change and new altitude just prior to convective activity (as
> expected) and assigns a 360 heading (again to miss some activity). After
> acknowledging the new info the comms failed, I'm fumbling around with aux
> mic., radar, Nexrad, etc... The end of convection was clearly on radar
> (on board and NEXRAD), as well as being confirmed by ATIS from PDK and
> RYY. Rather than squawking 7600 I flew assigned heading with a minor zig
> to avoid a cell, then was VFR in about 3 / 4 minutes; squawked VFR and
> headed for home below ATL airspace. My reasoning for not squawking 7600
> was two fold; 1) Didn't want to upset traffic coming into ATL on a busy
> day with limited corridors, 2) Could see end to situation in short
> amount of time. What are your thoughts?

Chances are you upset them a lot more by NOT squawking 7600.

That's the nature of my question. Via earlier communications with ATL
leading up to the failure, it was obvious a problem was brewing. If a 7600
was squawked, would their hands of been tied from a procedural perspective?
If mid trip the 7600 would be a no brainier; but that close to the end, very
saturated airspace, VFR almost in sight, not so clear...
After poping out and while trying to remember light signals for my RYY
non-comm. VFR approach and landing, attempted to contact RYY tower and all
was well (10/10 comms). It appears ATL had a problem with equipment. Had
RYY tower contact ATL and let them know my equipment worked fine on other
frequencies. Flown two trips since and everything on my side has been fine.





"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
...
> "Gulfside" > wrote in message
> g.com...
>> Flying IMC into Atlanta area (RYY) on the Turbow Eight Arrival, past
>> TRBOW heading for PUMIF, line of convective activity just NW of PUMIF.
>> The comms are becoming intermittent with intermittent communications.
>> ATC issues heading change and new altitude just prior to convective
>> activity (as expected) and assigns a 360 heading (again to miss some
>> activity). After acknowledging the new info the comms failed, I'm
>> fumbling around with aux mic., radar, Nexrad, etc... The end of
>> convection was clearly on radar (on board and NEXRAD), as well as being
>> confirmed by ATIS from PDK and RYY. Rather than squawking 7600 I flew
>> assigned heading with a minor zig to avoid a cell, then was VFR in about
>> 3 / 4 minutes; squawked VFR and headed for home below ATL airspace. My
>> reasoning for not squawking 7600 was two fold; 1) Didn't want to upset
>> traffic coming into ATL on a busy day with limited corridors, 2) Could
>> see end to situation in short amount of time. What are your thoughts?
>
> Chances are you upset them a lot more by NOT squawking 7600.

"Gulfside" > wrote in message
g.com...
> That's the nature of my question. Via earlier communications with ATL
> leading up to the failure, it was obvious a problem was brewing. If a
> 7600 was squawked, would their hands of been tied from a procedural
> perspective? If mid trip the 7600 would be a no brainier; but that close
> to the end, very saturated airspace, VFR almost in sight, not so clear...
> After poping out and while trying to remember light signals for my RYY
> non-comm. VFR approach and landing, attempted to contact RYY tower and all
> was well (10/10 comms). It appears ATL had a problem with equipment. Had
> RYY tower contact ATL and let them know my equipment worked fine on other
> frequencies. Flown two trips since and everything on my side has been
> fine.

I assumed by your description that the problem was on your end. It's very
possible the problem could have been on their end. That's why it's always a
good idea to have an alternate frequency dialed in on the flip-flop. This
could be the previous or closest center frequency, or in the case of
approach an alternate frequency listed on the arrival procedure or VFR
chart. You might get the wrong controller, but at least they can find out
what the problem is and perhaps provide you with a vice frequency.