Say Again #51

[[email protected]]

I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html

This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
bit annoying.

But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.

First:

Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
VXV is an IAF for TYS.

Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
fly back to VXV, then do full approach.

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
where?

He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
judgement, etc.

Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
would you do?

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

[Bob Gardner]

Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed
this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as planned
and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are identified as
NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate, they will
sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on the ground.
They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you comply with the
regs.

You will not find this in writing in any official pub.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>
> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
> bit annoying.
>
> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>
> First:
>
> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>
> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>
> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>
>
> Second:
>
> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
> where?
>
> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
> judgement, etc.
>
> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
> would you do?
>
> -- dave j
> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>

[Jim Baker]

I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they said
fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his articles, or
fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down enroute and land?
Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that the controllers were
urging the later. I sure diagree with following that advice. Of course
we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely unlikely event, but worth, of
course, the discussion. How any pilot could follow that advice is beyond
me. Who here is willing to bet that the controller(s) is/are sterilizing
the airspace and not expecting you to follow procedure? Who here is willing
to bet they won't hit another aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a
supervisor or a grouchy controller isn't going to file against them for
violating the regs? At the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers
that we hear about urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence
are going to show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and
put an airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?

In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any particular
airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure, updated weather
if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate runway. If there's a
holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at the altitude you've
chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend in that holding pattern
to make good the time described for NORDO procedures in the AIM. (Pretty
general here since I don't have an AIM in front of me). If there's no
holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF at the altitude I had picked
(see above) and set up a standard holding pattern and descent in that
pattern to make good the time at the airport or the IAF. Will this
inconveniece people? Maybe. But the alternative, again in this unlikely
scenario, is potentially so unsafe that I wonder why anyone would even
consider it.

Jim


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed
> this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as planned
> and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are identified as
> NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate, they will
> sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on the ground.
> They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you comply with the
> regs.
>
> You will not find this in writing in any official pub.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
>> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>>
>> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
>> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
>> bit annoying.
>>
>> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>>
>> First:
>>
>> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
>> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>>
>> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
>> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
>> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
>> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
>> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>>
>> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>>
>>
>> Second:
>>
>> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
>> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
>> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
>> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
>> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
>> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
>> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
>> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
>> where?
>>
>> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
>> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
>> judgement, etc.
>>
>> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
>> would you do?
>>
>> -- dave j
>> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>>
>
>

[G. Sylvester]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed
> this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as planned
> and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are identified as
> NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate, they will
> sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on the ground.
> They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you comply with the
> regs
> You will not find this in writing in any official pub.

Interesting. I just took my IA checkride and of course they asked
about NRODO rules. The DE said "what would *you* do?" I told
him.

"The regs say .... but after reading a heck of a lot, apparently
controllers expect you to shoot you choice of IAP as soon as
possible as not to tie up air space." He said "perfect." I
specifically ask him about holding until your planned arrival
time and his reponse was that it was nonsense and the FAR's have
not been updated to follow the controller's bible.

Can a controller confirm this?

Gerald

[Jose]

> Who here is willing to bet that a
> supervisor or a grouchy controller isn't going to file against them for
> violating the regs?

In an emergency, you are permitted to... in fact supposed to... violate
the regs to the extent necessary to meet the emergency. It's your call,
but I'd bet my ticket the FAA would back the pilot in that case.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for,
but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

"G. Sylvester" wrote:

> Bob Gardner wrote:
> > Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed
> > this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as planned
> > and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are identified as
> > NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate, they will
> > sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on the ground.
> > They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you comply with the
> > regs
> > You will not find this in writing in any official pub.
>
> Interesting. I just took my IA checkride and of course they asked
> about NRODO rules. The DE said "what would *you* do?" I told
> him.
>
> "The regs say .... but after reading a heck of a lot, apparently
> controllers expect you to shoot you choice of IAP as soon as
> possible as not to tie up air space." He said "perfect." I
> specifically ask him about holding until your planned arrival
> time and his reponse was that it was nonsense and the FAR's have
> not been updated to follow the controller's bible.
>
> Can a controller confirm this?
>
> Gerald

The regulation is painfully obsolete. Nonetheless, it is the regulation. ATC
does not write or interpret regulations, at least not for pilots.

If you are in a low-traffic, especially non-radar area, you should follow 91.185
exactly, if you can. If you are in a robust, busy radar terminal area, best to
use emergency authority and keep on trucking similar to what controllers suggest
for those locations. After the fact, you don't cite ad hoc controller advice as
your reason for deviating from 91.185, rather you cite the inconsistency of that
regulation with NORDO operations in busy terminal airspace, and thus a
reasonable excerise of pilot emergency authority.

Having said that, how often is a light aircraft going to still have nav radios
and no comm capability?

[David Rind]

wrote:
> Having said that, how often is a light aircraft going to still have nav radios
> and no comm capability?

Assuming by "nav radios" you're willing to count anything I can navigate
with, this can easily happen since I always have a handheld GPS with me.
I do also carry a handheld comm, but do not have a link to an external
antenna so I'm not convinced I could always reach someone with it.

--
David Rind

[Paul Lynch]

Don't forget, the AIM is not regulatory. It is an informational source.
You can't violate it. You can violate 91.185.

The military taught me (and they generally teach exactly what is in the FARs
with some exceptions) to fly as the AIM says. They still teach that (See
USAF instrument flight procedures manual; its online). You commence your
approach at your ETA, hold if you are early. Practically, unless you got
there very early, you commence the approach (any one you want). ATC will
clear the airspace. You have to trust the controllers to do their job just
like they are trusting you will do yours and follow the published guidance
in the FARs (excuse me 14 CFR 91, the aquisition folks trademarked "FAR")

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>
> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
> bit annoying.
>
> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>
> First:
>
> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>
> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>
> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>
>
> Second:
>
> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
> where?
>
> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
> judgement, etc.
>
> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
> would you do?
>
> -- dave j
> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>

[[email protected]]

David Rind wrote:

> wrote:
> > Having said that, how often is a light aircraft going to still have nav radios
> > and no comm capability?
>
> Assuming by "nav radios" you're willing to count anything I can navigate
> with, this can easily happen since I always have a handheld GPS with me.
> I do also carry a handheld comm, but do not have a link to an external
> antenna so I'm not convinced I could always reach someone with it.
>

That could work. But, someone flying a jet probably can't do that.

[[email protected]]

Paul Lynch wrote:

> Don't forget, the AIM is not regulatory. It is an informational source.
> You can't violate it. You can violate 91.185.

That isn't quite correct. Some of the information in the AIM is informational.
But, some of it is directive and expands upon regulatory requirements. There
have been many enforcement actions under FAR 91.13 for failure to adhere to
directive language in the AIM.

The introduction to the AIM reads:

"This manual is designed to provide the aviation community with basic flight
information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System (NAS) of
the United States. An international version called the Aeronautical Information
Publication contains parallel information, as well as specific information on
the international airports for use by the international community.

This manual contains the fundamentals required in order to fly in the United
States NAS. It also contains items of interest to pilots concerning health and
medical facts, factors affecting flight safety, a pilot/controller glossary of
terms used in the ATC System, and information on safety, accident, and hazard
reporting."

Note the second paragraph about "required fundamentals" and also "items of
interest."

An example is the additional reporting requirements listed in the AIM:

"5-3-3. Additional Reports
a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a
specific ATC request:
1. At all times.
(a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly
assigned altitude or flight level.
(b) When an altitude change will be made if operating on a clearance specifying
VFR-on-top.
(c) When unable to climb/descend at a rate of a least 500 feet per minute.
(d) When approach has been missed. (Request clearance for specific action; i.e.,
to alternative airport, another approach, etc.)
(e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it varies by
5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight plan.

(f) The time and altitude or flight level upon reaching a holding fix or point
to which cleared.
(g) When leaving any assigned holding fix or point."

Failure to make one of those reports has resulted in enforcement proceedings
under 91.13 and 91.183 (c) many times over the years. The fact that 5-3-3 a
says "should" is only because the FAA legal folks have consistently held that
use of the word "shall" for such passages in the AIM would constitute
rule-making, per se. Then, they would have to run every change to the AIM
through the complete NPRM process. No country does that under the ICAO rules
for its AIP (which the AIM is a domestic version of the United State's AIP.

"Should" works with the effect of regulation when coupled (in this case) with
91.183 (c), which is in accordance with ICAO international conventions.

[Jim Baker]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Paul Lynch wrote:
>
>> Don't forget, the AIM is not regulatory. It is an informational source.
>> You can't violate it. You can violate 91.185.
>
> That isn't quite correct. Some of the information in the AIM is
> informational.
> But, some of it is directive and expands upon regulatory requirements.
> There
> have been many enforcement actions under FAR 91.13 for failure to adhere
> to
> directive language in the AIM.
>
> The introduction to the AIM reads:
>
> "This manual is designed to provide the aviation community with basic
> flight
> information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System
> (NAS) of
> the United States. An international version called the Aeronautical
> Information
> Publication contains parallel information, as well as specific information
> on
> the international airports for use by the international community.
>
> This manual contains the fundamentals required in order to fly in the
> United
> States NAS. It also contains items of interest to pilots concerning health
> and
> medical facts, factors affecting flight safety, a pilot/controller
> glossary of
> terms used in the ATC System, and information on safety, accident, and
> hazard
> reporting."
>
> Note the second paragraph about "required fundamentals" and also "items of
> interest."
>
> An example is the additional reporting requirements listed in the AIM:
>
> "5-3-3. Additional Reports
> a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a
> specific ATC request:
> 1. At all times.
> (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a
> newly
> assigned altitude or flight level.
> (b) When an altitude change will be made if operating on a clearance
> specifying
> VFR-on-top.
> (c) When unable to climb/descend at a rate of a least 500 feet per minute.
> (d) When approach has been missed. (Request clearance for specific action;
> i.e.,
> to alternative airport, another approach, etc.)
> (e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it
> varies by
> 5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight
> plan.
> (f) The time and altitude or flight level upon reaching a holding fix or
> point
> to which cleared.
> (g) When leaving any assigned holding fix or point."
>
> Failure to make one of those reports has resulted in enforcement
> proceedings
> under 91.13 and 91.183 (c) many times over the years. The fact that 5-3-3
> a
> says "should" is only because the FAA legal folks have consistently held
> that
> use of the word "shall" for such passages in the AIM would constitute
> rule-making, per se. Then, they would have to run every change to the AIM
> through the complete NPRM process. No country does that under the ICAO
> rules
> for its AIP (which the AIM is a domestic version of the United State's
> AIP.
>
> "Should" works with the effect of regulation when coupled (in this case)
> with
> 91.183 (c), which is in accordance with ICAO international conventions.

Wow, Tim, you're going to open a huge can of worms with that!! LOL. About 2
to 3 years ago I wrote practically the same thing regarding 5-3-3 and got in
a big thread with the inhabitants here, especially Newps, about it. The
thread began with whether you should make a report when vacating a
previously assigned altitude or flight level. The controllers and many
other pilots contended, this from memory, that it wasn't required and
garbaged up the freq. I cited 5-3-3, the "should" and "at all times"
language, and rec'd a barrage of return fire. In particular, when I played
devils advocate and told Newps and the other naysayers I must not be
required then to make any of the other reports therein, since I didn't have
to make 5-3-3, 1, (a), and could apply their logic to the rest of the para,
I was castigated for trolling, IIRC, LOL. I stopped, but about 3 months
later rec'd an email from Don Brown, who had read the thread. He agreed
with my position and the others in the thread who read 5-3-3 as I did.

My point in that thread, and this, is to wonder why any pilot would stake
his ticket, his life, or others lives on the opinions of controllers or
anyone else who advocated not adhering to procedure for convenience sake.
Jose, above, said he'd stake his ticket on it. I don't know him, am sure
he's an upstanding citizen etc., but think that's a very foolhardy and
dangerous attitude/opinion. I wonder about a pilot who is skilled enough to
fly IMC in the NAS yet considers the loss of a radio an emergency (assuming
of course that nothing else is wrong). The aircraft is still flying,
there's procedure to keep him and all around him safe, and he doesn't have
the distraction of someone talking in his ear telling him what to do. I
just don't see that angle as being justification to make up your own game
plan, in IMC, and hope that someone on the ground is going to defend you
when theres an inquiry. If I was doing the investigation, I'd have to ask
the guy why he thought he was in an emergency situation and the answer had
better contain more failures than just a radio.

Anyway, in a time far far away, that's what they taught me at the SAC
Instrument Flight Course, to say nothing of UPT and the annual required
instrument refresher courses we had to endure in the USAF.

Jim

[Jim Baker]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy controller
>> isn't going to file against them for violating the regs?
>
> In an emergency, you are permitted to... in fact supposed to... violate
> the regs to the extent necessary to meet the emergency. It's your call,
> but I'd bet my ticket the FAA would back the pilot in that case.
>
> Jose
> --
I agree with you Jose, but what is the emergency? Loss of a radio in IMC
when there's a procedure to get you on the ground? I just don't see it and,
although many cite controller opinions on this that violating the procedure
is expected and condoned, I think it dangerous and foolhardy for anyone to
do so. Until the procedure(s) is/are rescinded, I think its unlikely that
you'd convince all your "judges" that you had an emergency situation because
the procedure was inconvenient. As you say, it's your call although that
call could, potentially (unlikely I agree), kill someone.

Jim

[Bob Gardner]

I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year,
so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are
unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO
aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.

I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting
conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the book"
approach is not shared by all of his compatriots.

If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination, using
MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a good
argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first contact
with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not follow the
same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay high until a
moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the appropriate altitude.
However, every jet I have ever been in has had an air-ground telephone and I
suspect it would be used if VHF comms were lost.

Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace is
puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have
confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget?

Bob Gardner



"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they
> said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his
> articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down
> enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that the
> controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following that
> advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely unlikely
> event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot could follow
> that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that the
> controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you to
> follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another
> aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy
> controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At
> the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about
> urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to
> show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an
> airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?
>
> In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any particular
> airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure, updated
> weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate runway. If
> there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at the altitude
> you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend in that holding
> pattern to make good the time described for NORDO procedures in the AIM.
> (Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in front of me). If
> there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF at the altitude I
> had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding pattern and descent
> in that pattern to make good the time at the airport or the IAF. Will
> this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the alternative, again in this
> unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe that I wonder why anyone would
> even consider it.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed
>> this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as planned
>> and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are identified as
>> NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate, they will
>> sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on the
>> ground. They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you comply
>> with the regs.
>>
>> You will not find this in writing in any official pub.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
>>> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>>>
>>> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
>>> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
>>> bit annoying.
>>>
>>> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>>>
>>> First:
>>>
>>> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
>>> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>>>
>>> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
>>> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
>>> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
>>> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
>>> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>>>
>>> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>>>
>>>
>>> Second:
>>>
>>> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
>>> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
>>> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
>>> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
>>> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
>>> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
>>> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
>>> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
>>> where?
>>>
>>> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
>>> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
>>> judgement, etc.
>>>
>>> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
>>> would you do?
>>>
>>> -- dave j
>>> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Baker]

Bob....Your first paragraph is maybe not puerile, but certainly nonsensical.
If the controllers at these annual meetings are unanimous, which I think is
hyperbole merely to make your point, then how could Don disagree since, as
you say, he is attending as a controller? You say his opinions are not
shared by all his compatriots, but some do? Hmmmmm...where's the unanimity
in that? I'm merely poking at you here Bob, no offense. I agree it's
important to have a NORDO aircraft on the ground as soon as possible, but
that doesn't mean at any cost. I contend, the entire DoD flying community
contends, and the official guidance of the FAA contends that ASAP doesn't
mean at any cost disregarding established procedure. I don't see how a
responsible pilot can ignore procedure when there is no emergency. It's bad
judgment.

I find your second paragraph about not all of his compatriots sharing Don's
"by the book" approach to be disheartening and dangerous. It dismays me
that we stress, as instructors, procedure tempered with judgment to our
students as the way to safely fly aircraft and yet there's outright advocacy
for disregarding procedure by some pilots and controllers when there's no
emergency. To disregard procedure with no "good" reason to do so other than
convenience is, to me, bad judgment on the pilots part because it endangers
others lives. If your point about sterilized airspace is correct and there's
no danger, fine, but then what do you teach pilots about other procedures?
If a group of pilots and controllers, but not all of us, agree a procedure
can be safely ignored, it's bogus, then those pilots can pick and choose
when to ignore it based on their reading of the non-emergency scenario? If
these controllers and pilots are so sure that this situation can be handled
in another way, safely, then why don't some of them try to get things
changed to reflect their vision of reality and practicality? Change the
procedure. I support that.

I have to disagree with your changing procedure because you're flying in the
flight levels. I've flown up there since 1973 and I've always had the fuel
to fly the planned route to my destination. None of the jets I flew had an
air-ground phone (B-52, B-1B and B-727).

Best regards,

Jim


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year,
>so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are
>unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO
>aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.
>
> I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting
> conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the
> book" approach is not shared by all of his compatriots.
>
> If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination,
> using MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a
> good argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first
> contact with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not
> follow the same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay
> high until a moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the
> appropriate altitude. However, every jet I have ever been in has had an
> air-ground telephone and I suspect it would be used if VHF comms were
> lost.
>
> Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace is
> puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have
> confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget?
>
> Bob Gardner
>
>
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they
>> said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his
>> articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down
>> enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that the
>> controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following that
>> advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely
>> unlikely event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot
>> could follow that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that
>> the controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you
>> to follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another
>> aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy
>> controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At
>> the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about
>> urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to
>> show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an
>> airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?
>>
>> In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any particular
>> airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure, updated
>> weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate runway. If
>> there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at the altitude
>> you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend in that
>> holding pattern to make good the time described for NORDO procedures in
>> the AIM. (Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in front of me).
>> If there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF at the
>> altitude I had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding pattern
>> and descent in that pattern to make good the time at the airport or the
>> IAF. Will this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the alternative, again
>> in this unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe that I wonder why
>> anyone would even consider it.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever discussed
>>> this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the destination as
>>> planned and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that once you are
>>> identified as NORDO, either by transponder or by failing to communicate,
>>> they will sterilize the airspace around the destination until you are on
>>> the ground. They do not want to keep other planes hanging while you
>>> comply with the regs.
>>>
>>> You will not find this in writing in any official pub.
>>>
>>> Bob Gardner
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
>>>> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>>>>
>>>> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
>>>> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
>>>> bit annoying.
>>>>
>>>> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>>>>
>>>> First:
>>>>
>>>> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
>>>> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>>>>
>>>> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
>>>> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
>>>> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
>>>> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
>>>> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>>>>
>>>> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Second:
>>>>
>>>> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
>>>> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
>>>> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
>>>> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
>>>> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
>>>> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
>>>> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
>>>> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
>>>> where?
>>>>
>>>> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
>>>> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
>>>> judgement, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
>>>> would you do?
>>>>
>>>> -- dave j
>>>> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Jim Baker wrote:

> Wow, Tim, you're going to open a huge can of worms with that!! LOL. About 2
> to 3 years ago I wrote practically the same thing regarding 5-3-3 and got in
> a big thread with the inhabitants here, especially Newps, about it. The
> thread began with whether you should make a report when vacating a
> previously assigned altitude or flight level. The controllers and many
> other pilots contended, this from memory, that it wasn't required and
> garbaged up the freq. I cited 5-3-3, the "should" and "at all times"
> language, and rec'd a barrage of return fire.

Those who scoff at this stuff haven't been involved in rule-making or the
enforcement posture of the FAA. Because the FAA does not invoke enforcement for
things like these comm reports unless something really goes wrong, it becomes
easy to think they are optional.

Failure to report a previously assigned altitude in a radar environment would
almost certainly never result in an enforcement proceeding. Failure to make the
same report in a non-radar environment increases the chances of being sanctioned
to some degree.

I know, I have been through this stuff here before and am immune to those who
say "BS." ;-) I brought it up this time in the spirit of how I would include it
in a ground school course. In a training context, I would place it far below
the knowledge needed to survive in the system. But, neglecting to teach the
legal nuances of this "lesser" stuff is inappropriate.

[Jose]

> My point in that thread, and this, is to wonder why any pilot would stake
> his ticket, his life, or others lives on the opinions of controllers or
> anyone else who advocated not adhering to procedure for convenience sake.
> Jose, above, said he'd stake his ticket on it.

I did not say that. What I said was that I would do so in the case of
an =emergency=, not for the sake of =convenience=. And I also said that
in the context of "to the extent necessary to meet the emergency". Lost
comm under VFR is inconvenient. Lost comm under IFR can be an
emergency, depending on circumstances.

> The aircraft is still flying,
> there's procedure to keep him and all around him safe, and he doesn't have
> the distraction of someone talking in his ear telling him what to do.

That procedure may work in the midwest, where there's not so much
traffic, but in the Northeast, especially if my transponder has also
gone to lunch, that procedure may =not= actually keep me safe. I would
make a judgement call based on circumstances. I would expect the FAA to
back me if some controller got a bug up his posterior.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I agree with you Jose, but what is the emergency? Loss of a radio in IMC
> when there's a procedure to get you on the ground?

Loss of radio IMC at the beginning of a four hour IFR flight from just
south of DC to Islip on Long Island, which would take me NORDO through
or around the ADIZ, the DC Class B, the Philadelphia class B, and the NY
class B, when there's good weather to the southwest of me. I don't know
why the radio failed, I'm cleared to 5000 (tops at 5500), and I don't
know what else might be on the way to transistor heaven.

So, do you turn right and climb another thousand feet, or do you drone
into the wasp nests ahead on a clearance that is almost always changed
six or seven times enroute?

Sometimes is's safe, sometimes it's not. If the FAA lawyers were
aboard, what would they want me to do?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:

>
>
> Sometimes is's safe, sometimes it's not. If the FAA lawyers were
> aboard, what would they want me to do?

They would hope you have read the AIM as well as the regulation:

AIM 6-4-1. Two-way Radio Communications Failure
a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable
to all possible situations associated with two-way radio communications failure.
During two-way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not
covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in
whatever action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should
not be reluctant to use the emergency action contained in 14 CFR Section
91.3(b).

[Bob Gardner]

I didn't mean to imply that we had a show of hands at the controller's
conference. Many controllers have confided to me in e-mails and private
conversations that while no one can say that Don is wrong in his by-the-book
approach (how could he be?), there are work-arounds that make things easier
for them.

I can't cite chapter and verse, but the FAA considers lost comms to be an
emergency, and no one second-guesses a pilot who says s/he has/had an
emergency.

Re flying in the flight levels, how did fuel enter into the discussion? I
readily acknowledge that military aircraft do not have inflight phones....my
experience is with corporate jets and turboprops.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
> Bob....Your first paragraph is maybe not puerile, but certainly
> nonsensical. If the controllers at these annual meetings are unanimous,
> which I think is hyperbole merely to make your point, then how could Don
> disagree since, as you say, he is attending as a controller? You say his
> opinions are not shared by all his compatriots, but some do?
> Hmmmmm...where's the unanimity in that? I'm merely poking at you here
> Bob, no offense. I agree it's important to have a NORDO aircraft on the
> ground as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean at any cost. I contend,
> the entire DoD flying community contends, and the official guidance of the
> FAA contends that ASAP doesn't mean at any cost disregarding established
> procedure. I don't see how a responsible pilot can ignore procedure when
> there is no emergency. It's bad judgment.
>
> I find your second paragraph about not all of his compatriots sharing
> Don's "by the book" approach to be disheartening and dangerous. It
> dismays me that we stress, as instructors, procedure tempered with
> judgment to our students as the way to safely fly aircraft and yet there's
> outright advocacy for disregarding procedure by some pilots and
> controllers when there's no emergency. To disregard procedure with no
> "good" reason to do so other than convenience is, to me, bad judgment on
> the pilots part because it endangers others lives. If your point about
> sterilized airspace is correct and there's no danger, fine, but then what
> do you teach pilots about other procedures? If a group of pilots and
> controllers, but not all of us, agree a procedure can be safely ignored,
> it's bogus, then those pilots can pick and choose when to ignore it based
> on their reading of the non-emergency scenario? If these controllers and
> pilots are so sure that this situation can be handled in another way,
> safely, then why don't some of them try to get things changed to reflect
> their vision of reality and practicality? Change the procedure. I
> support that.
>
> I have to disagree with your changing procedure because you're flying in
> the flight levels. I've flown up there since 1973 and I've always had the
> fuel to fly the planned route to my destination. None of the jets I flew
> had an air-ground phone (B-52, B-1B and B-727).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year,
>>so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are
>>unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO
>>aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.
>>
>> I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting
>> conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the
>> book" approach is not shared by all of his compatriots.
>>
>> If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination,
>> using MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a
>> good argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first
>> contact with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not
>> follow the same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay
>> high until a moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the
>> appropriate altitude. However, every jet I have ever been in has had an
>> air-ground telephone and I suspect it would be used if VHF comms were
>> lost.
>>
>> Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace
>> is puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have
>> confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget?
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they
>>> said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his
>>> articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down
>>> enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that
>>> the controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following
>>> that advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely
>>> unlikely event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot
>>> could follow that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that
>>> the controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you
>>> to follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another
>>> aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy
>>> controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At
>>> the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about
>>> urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to
>>> show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an
>>> airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?
>>>
>>> In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any
>>> particular airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure,
>>> updated weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate
>>> runway. If there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at
>>> the altitude you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend
>>> in that holding pattern to make good the time described for NORDO
>>> procedures in the AIM. (Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in
>>> front of me). If there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF
>>> at the altitude I had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding
>>> pattern and descent in that pattern to make good the time at the airport
>>> or the IAF. Will this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the
>>> alternative, again in this unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe
>>> that I wonder why anyone would even consider it.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever
>>>> discussed this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the
>>>> destination as planned and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that
>>>> once you are identified as NORDO, either by transponder or by failing
>>>> to communicate, they will sterilize the airspace around the destination
>>>> until you are on the ground. They do not want to keep other planes
>>>> hanging while you comply with the regs.
>>>>
>>>> You will not find this in writing in any official pub.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Gardner
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
>>>>> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>>>>>
>>>>> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
>>>>> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
>>>>> bit annoying.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>>>>>
>>>>> First:
>>>>>
>>>>> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
>>>>> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
>>>>> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs
>>>>> say
>>>>> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
>>>>> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport
>>>>> (?!),
>>>>> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Second:
>>>>>
>>>>> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
>>>>> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
>>>>> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
>>>>> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
>>>>> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before.
>>>>> Usually,
>>>>> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
>>>>> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
>>>>> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
>>>>> where?
>>>>>
>>>>> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
>>>>> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
>>>>> judgement, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
>>>>> would you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- dave j
>>>>> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

Mary Yodice, writing a legal column in either the AOPA Pilot or Flight
Training, I can't remember which, warned pilots that relying on the
non-regulatory status of the AIM was a mistake. An NTSB administrative law
judge gets to decide if a particular action or fail to act constitutes
"careless and reckless," and failing to use the guidance in the AIM puts you
right in their crosshairs.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Lynch" > wrote in message
news:vgdve.27603$%Z2.20038@lakeread08...
> Don't forget, the AIM is not regulatory. It is an informational source.
> You can't violate it. You can violate 91.185.
>
> The military taught me (and they generally teach exactly what is in the
> FARs with some exceptions) to fly as the AIM says. They still teach that
> (See USAF instrument flight procedures manual; its online). You commence
> your approach at your ETA, hold if you are early. Practically, unless you
> got there very early, you commence the approach (any one you want). ATC
> will clear the airspace. You have to trust the controllers to do their
> job just like they are trusting you will do yours and follow the published
> guidance in the FARs (excuse me 14 CFR 91, the aquisition folks
> trademarked "FAR")
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
>> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>>
>> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
>> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
>> bit annoying.
>>
>> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>>
>> First:
>>
>> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
>> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>>
>> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
>> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
>> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
>> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
>> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>>
>> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>>
>>
>> Second:
>>
>> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
>> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
>> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
>> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
>> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before. Usually,
>> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
>> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
>> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
>> where?
>>
>> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
>> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
>> judgement, etc.
>>
>> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
>> would you do?
>>
>> -- dave j
>> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>>
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

My mind isn't working too well today. You and I both know that when you do
fuel planning for a jet flight you base the pph on flying at altitude, and
if for some reason such as 91.185 you descend to the MEA for a flight
segment, your fuel planning would go out the window.

Bob

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
> Bob....Your first paragraph is maybe not puerile, but certainly
> nonsensical. If the controllers at these annual meetings are unanimous,
> which I think is hyperbole merely to make your point, then how could Don
> disagree since, as you say, he is attending as a controller? You say his
> opinions are not shared by all his compatriots, but some do?
> Hmmmmm...where's the unanimity in that? I'm merely poking at you here
> Bob, no offense. I agree it's important to have a NORDO aircraft on the
> ground as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean at any cost. I contend,
> the entire DoD flying community contends, and the official guidance of the
> FAA contends that ASAP doesn't mean at any cost disregarding established
> procedure. I don't see how a responsible pilot can ignore procedure when
> there is no emergency. It's bad judgment.
>
> I find your second paragraph about not all of his compatriots sharing
> Don's "by the book" approach to be disheartening and dangerous. It
> dismays me that we stress, as instructors, procedure tempered with
> judgment to our students as the way to safely fly aircraft and yet there's
> outright advocacy for disregarding procedure by some pilots and
> controllers when there's no emergency. To disregard procedure with no
> "good" reason to do so other than convenience is, to me, bad judgment on
> the pilots part because it endangers others lives. If your point about
> sterilized airspace is correct and there's no danger, fine, but then what
> do you teach pilots about other procedures? If a group of pilots and
> controllers, but not all of us, agree a procedure can be safely ignored,
> it's bogus, then those pilots can pick and choose when to ignore it based
> on their reading of the non-emergency scenario? If these controllers and
> pilots are so sure that this situation can be handled in another way,
> safely, then why don't some of them try to get things changed to reflect
> their vision of reality and practicality? Change the procedure. I
> support that.
>
> I have to disagree with your changing procedure because you're flying in
> the flight levels. I've flown up there since 1973 and I've always had the
> fuel to fly the planned route to my destination. None of the jets I flew
> had an air-ground phone (B-52, B-1B and B-727).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each year,
>>so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are
>>unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO
>>aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.
>>
>> I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting
>> conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the
>> book" approach is not shared by all of his compatriots.
>>
>> If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination,
>> using MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a
>> good argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first
>> contact with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would not
>> follow the same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would stay
>> high until a moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the
>> appropriate altitude. However, every jet I have ever been in has had an
>> air-ground telephone and I suspect it would be used if VHF comms were
>> lost.
>>
>> Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace
>> is puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have
>> confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget?
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they
>>> said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his
>>> articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down
>>> enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that
>>> the controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following
>>> that advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely
>>> unlikely event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot
>>> could follow that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that
>>> the controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you
>>> to follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another
>>> aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy
>>> controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At
>>> the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about
>>> urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to
>>> show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an
>>> airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?
>>>
>>> In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any
>>> particular airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure,
>>> updated weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate
>>> runway. If there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter at
>>> the altitude you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and descend
>>> in that holding pattern to make good the time described for NORDO
>>> procedures in the AIM. (Pretty general here since I don't have an AIM in
>>> front of me). If there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to the IAF
>>> at the altitude I had picked (see above) and set up a standard holding
>>> pattern and descent in that pattern to make good the time at the airport
>>> or the IAF. Will this inconveniece people? Maybe. But the
>>> alternative, again in this unlikely scenario, is potentially so unsafe
>>> that I wonder why anyone would even consider it.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever
>>>> discussed this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the
>>>> destination as planned and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that
>>>> once you are identified as NORDO, either by transponder or by failing
>>>> to communicate, they will sterilize the airspace around the destination
>>>> until you are on the ground. They do not want to keep other planes
>>>> hanging while you comply with the regs.
>>>>
>>>> You will not find this in writing in any official pub.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Gardner
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
>>>>> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>>>>>
>>>>> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
>>>>> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a little
>>>>> bit annoying.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>>>>>
>>>>> First:
>>>>>
>>>>> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
>>>>> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
>>>>> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs
>>>>> say
>>>>> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
>>>>> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport
>>>>> (?!),
>>>>> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Second:
>>>>>
>>>>> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
>>>>> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
>>>>> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
>>>>> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
>>>>> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before.
>>>>> Usually,
>>>>> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend ourselves
>>>>> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
>>>>> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
>>>>> where?
>>>>>
>>>>> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
>>>>> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
>>>>> judgement, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation. What
>>>>> would you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- dave j
>>>>> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Baker]

OK Bob, enjoyed the conversation.

Jim

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> My mind isn't working too well today. You and I both know that when you do
> fuel planning for a jet flight you base the pph on flying at altitude, and
> if for some reason such as 91.185 you descend to the MEA for a flight
> segment, your fuel planning would go out the window.
>
> Bob
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bob....Your first paragraph is maybe not puerile, but certainly
>> nonsensical. If the controllers at these annual meetings are unanimous,
>> which I think is hyperbole merely to make your point, then how could Don
>> disagree since, as you say, he is attending as a controller? You say his
>> opinions are not shared by all his compatriots, but some do?
>> Hmmmmm...where's the unanimity in that? I'm merely poking at you here
>> Bob, no offense. I agree it's important to have a NORDO aircraft on the
>> ground as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean at any cost. I
>> contend, the entire DoD flying community contends, and the official
>> guidance of the FAA contends that ASAP doesn't mean at any cost
>> disregarding established procedure. I don't see how a responsible pilot
>> can ignore procedure when there is no emergency. It's bad judgment.
>>
>> I find your second paragraph about not all of his compatriots sharing
>> Don's "by the book" approach to be disheartening and dangerous. It
>> dismays me that we stress, as instructors, procedure tempered with
>> judgment to our students as the way to safely fly aircraft and yet
>> there's outright advocacy for disregarding procedure by some pilots and
>> controllers when there's no emergency. To disregard procedure with no
>> "good" reason to do so other than convenience is, to me, bad judgment on
>> the pilots part because it endangers others lives. If your point about
>> sterilized airspace is correct and there's no danger, fine, but then what
>> do you teach pilots about other procedures? If a group of pilots and
>> controllers, but not all of us, agree a procedure can be safely ignored,
>> it's bogus, then those pilots can pick and choose when to ignore it based
>> on their reading of the non-emergency scenario? If these controllers
>> and pilots are so sure that this situation can be handled in another way,
>> safely, then why don't some of them try to get things changed to reflect
>> their vision of reality and practicality? Change the procedure. I
>> support that.
>>
>> I have to disagree with your changing procedure because you're flying in
>> the flight levels. I've flown up there since 1973 and I've always had
>> the fuel to fly the planned route to my destination. None of the jets I
>> flew had an air-ground phone (B-52, B-1B and B-727).
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I attend the controller's "Communicating for Safety" conference each
>>>year, so I talk to a lot of controllers from around the country. They are
>>>unanimous in saying that their primary interest is in getting the NORDO
>>>aircraft on the ground as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> I see Don Brown at these meetings, as well, and we have some interesting
>>> conversations. Don is not a pilot, as most of us know, and his "by the
>>> book" approach is not shared by all of his compatriots.
>>>
>>> If I were to lose comms in IFR I would fly airways to my destination,
>>> using MEAs all the way, and shoot an approach at the other end (that's a
>>> good argument for filing airways and then asking for "direct" on first
>>> contact with Center). Having flown jets in the flight levels, I would
>>> not follow the same procedure because of fuel considerations...I would
>>> stay high until a moderate descent rate would get me to an IAF at the
>>> appropriate altitude. However, every jet I have ever been in has had an
>>> air-ground telephone and I suspect it would be used if VHF comms were
>>> lost.
>>>
>>> Your contention that ATC might somehow forget to sterilize the airspace
>>> is puerile. If they don't apply the sterilization until after they have
>>> confirmed that comms have been lost, how could they forget?
>>>
>>> Bob Gardner
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by your comments Bob. Do you mean that they
>>>> said fly to your destination "AS PLANNED", what Brown says in his
>>>> articles, or fly to the destination that you're enroute to and let down
>>>> enroute and land? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you mean that
>>>> the controllers were urging the later. I sure diagree with following
>>>> that advice. Of course we're talking about NORDO in IMC, an extremely
>>>> unlikely event, but worth, of course, the discussion. How any pilot
>>>> could follow that advice is beyond me. Who here is willing to bet that
>>>> the controller(s) is/are sterilizing the airspace and not expecting you
>>>> to follow procedure? Who here is willing to bet they won't hit another
>>>> aircraft? Who here is willing to bet that a supervisor or a grouchy
>>>> controller isn't going to file against them for violating the regs? At
>>>> the hearing, who here thinks all those controllers that we hear about
>>>> urging us to violate the regs in this unlikely occurrence are going to
>>>> show up in defense of the pilot who violated a regulation and put an
>>>> airliner at risk, at least in somebodys mind?
>>>>
>>>> In answer to Dave, in a general sense not using an IAP for any
>>>> particular airport, I'd rely on the weather forcast I got on departure,
>>>> updated weather if I had it, and pick an approach for the appropriate
>>>> runway. If there's a holding pattern depicted for the rwy IAP, enter
>>>> at the altitude you've chosen consistent with NORDO procedures and
>>>> descend in that holding pattern to make good the time described for
>>>> NORDO procedures in the AIM. (Pretty general here since I don't have an
>>>> AIM in front of me). If there's no holding pattern depicted, I'd fly to
>>>> the IAF at the altitude I had picked (see above) and set up a standard
>>>> holding pattern and descent in that pattern to make good the time at
>>>> the airport or the IAF. Will this inconveniece people? Maybe. But
>>>> the alternative, again in this unlikely scenario, is potentially so
>>>> unsafe that I wonder why anyone would even consider it.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Conventional wisdom, according to every controller I have ever
>>>>> discussed this with, is to forget about the regs, fly to the
>>>>> destination as planned and shoot an approach. Their reasoning is that
>>>>> once you are identified as NORDO, either by transponder or by failing
>>>>> to communicate, they will sterilize the airspace around the
>>>>> destination until you are on the ground. They do not want to keep
>>>>> other planes hanging while you comply with the regs.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will not find this in writing in any official pub.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Gardner
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was just reading Don Brown's latest (6/22) on avweb:
>>>>>> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189944-1.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This column is about NORDO IFR procedures. I like Don's columns and
>>>>>> find their nitpickiness to be consistent with safe flying, if a
>>>>>> little
>>>>>> bit annoying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in this column, two things stuck out at me as odd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flight plan was: HKY..BZM.V20.SUG.V185.SOT.V136.VXV..TYS
>>>>>> VXV is an IAF for TYS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
>>>>>> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
>>>>>> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport
>>>>>> (?!),
>>>>>> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Descent. We all know the rules about staying at the highest of our
>>>>>> last clearance, the MEA, or an altitude given in an EFC. If we filed
>>>>>> for 15000 and the airport is at, say, sea level, there's a lot of
>>>>>> altitude to lose. When and where is the right time to do this? I'm
>>>>>> embarassed to say I never really thought about it much before.
>>>>>> Usually,
>>>>>> controllers descend us gradually. Or if we're VFR we descend
>>>>>> ourselves
>>>>>> gradually. But the rules make it clear you're to keep the altitude up
>>>>>> until ... when? When you start the approach? Come down in a hold?
>>>>>> where?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He bring's this up also questioning this, and mentioning the AIM
>>>>>> paragraph that says these proecedures don't always fit; use your own
>>>>>> judgement, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I'd like to know what I was going to do in this situation.
>>>>>> What
>>>>>> would you do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- dave j
>>>>>> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jose]

> Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
> certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
> fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
> That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
> fly back to VXV, then do full approach.
>
> It seems a tad ridiculous, no?

The way I see it, if you are cleared to the airport (TYS), that
clearance would include the approach needed to get there, or at least to
within the DH or DA. Getting to the airport involves doing the approach
(beforehand). So, if the altitudes were appropriate, I'd start the
approach from the IAF (VXV) without overflying the airport.

In this case, it means arriving at VXV at our 6000 foot altitude, and
turning outbound to make the procedure turn, descending outbound to the
procedure altitude. I see no reason to head for the airport before
heading for the airport.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[G. Sylvester]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Mary Yodice, writing a legal column in either the AOPA Pilot or Flight
> Training, I can't remember which, warned pilots that relying on the
> non-regulatory status of the AIM was a mistake. An NTSB administrative law
> judge gets to decide if a particular action or fail to act constitutes
> "careless and reckless," and failing to use the guidance in the AIM puts you
> right in their crosshairs.
> Bob Gardner


Bob, thanks for the reference. It took a little while but here's the
link.

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=4421

So basically the AIM is non-regulatory but following those
'mere suggestions' is a good idea as they might come back
to haunt you in the worst of times.

thanks.

Gerald Sylvester

[[email protected]]

Thanks to everyone who replied. I had no idea I would touch off so much
passionate conversation, without a whole lot of consenus. I think I
know what I would do in the situation in the article, but I'll keep it
to myself. I'll just say that the exercise of good judgement is the
essence of piloting. ;)

I did want to comment on the possibility of radio failure in a light
aircraft while everything else navigational continued to work. I think
it's very possible. COM antennas snapping off with ice on them, and
stuck ptt's, broken headset cords (combined with missing hand
microphones and/or broken overhead speakers) come to mind as just a
few.

My opinion on whether being NORDO in IMC is an emergency or not is
simply that if you feel like you're in over your head, then that's an
emergency. Later, when you're on the ground, you can further consider
the point.

-- dave j

[Jim Baker]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Thanks to everyone who replied. I had no idea I would touch off so much
> passionate conversation, without a whole lot of consenus. I think I
> know what I would do in the situation in the article, but I'll keep it
> to myself. I'll just say that the exercise of good judgement is the
> essence of piloting. ;)
>
> I did want to comment on the possibility of radio failure in a light
> aircraft while everything else navigational continued to work. I think
> it's very possible. COM antennas snapping off with ice on them, and
> stuck ptt's, broken headset cords (combined with missing hand
> microphones and/or broken overhead speakers) come to mind as just a
> few.




The below paragraph is the essence of pilot judgment IMO Dave. The more one
flies, the more comfortable you can become with different situations,
including this one. Pilots flying frequently in IMC need to play stump the
dummy with their other pilot friends and read read read the CFRs and AIM to
know what they're gonna do when stuff like this happens. Good thread.

Jim

> My opinion on whether being NORDO in IMC is an emergency or not is
> simply that if you feel like you're in over your head, then that's an
> emergency. Later, when you're on the ground, you can further consider
> the point.
>
> -- dave j
>