Hold "as published"?

[John Clonts]

Flying to Burnet, Texas (BMQ) the other day:

"Houston Center, 7nz request vectors-to-final Burnet GPS-01, or else request
direct JIBAJ for the GPS-19"

"7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect further clearance
2125"
....
I didn't understand what he was telling me to do once I got there.
....
About 5 miles from Burnet:

"Center, 7nz, unclear my instructions when I get to Burnet"

"7nz, fly the hold as published"

I read that back, but then looked on my enroute, and there was no hold. I
looked on my approach plates (GPS-1 and GPS-19) and there was no hold there.
By this time I'm just about to crossing KBMQ.

"Center, 7nz, sorry I see no published hold"

"7nz, <sigh> then fly heading 270, vectors to Burnet"

I then eventually flew one missed approach (GPS-19) then a successful
approach (GPS-1).

Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking about
was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The NDB is on the
field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't have ADF in this
plane.

So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
hold "as published"?

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Newps]

John Clonts wrote:

> So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
> hold "as published"?

It's legal but confusing. If it ain't on the enroute chart or the chart
of the approach you are going to be doing it makes no sense to pull a
holding pattern out of your ass from some other approach.

[Bob Gardner]

I would apply the "when in doubt" rule and enter a standard pattern, holding
at the fix inbound on the course on which you approach the fix, and then
argue it out with the controller. Seems pretty clear that he did not want
you to proceed beyond the fix.

Bob Gardner

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
> Flying to Burnet, Texas (BMQ) the other day:
>
> "Houston Center, 7nz request vectors-to-final Burnet GPS-01, or else
request
> direct JIBAJ for the GPS-19"
>
> "7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect further clearance
> 2125"
> ...
> I didn't understand what he was telling me to do once I got there.
> ...
> About 5 miles from Burnet:
>
> "Center, 7nz, unclear my instructions when I get to Burnet"
>
> "7nz, fly the hold as published"
>
> I read that back, but then looked on my enroute, and there was no hold. I
> looked on my approach plates (GPS-1 and GPS-19) and there was no hold
there.
> By this time I'm just about to crossing KBMQ.
>
> "Center, 7nz, sorry I see no published hold"
>
> "7nz, <sigh> then fly heading 270, vectors to Burnet"
>
> I then eventually flew one missed approach (GPS-19) then a successful
> approach (GPS-1).
>
> Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking
about
> was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The NDB is on the
> field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't have ADF in this
> plane.
>
> So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
> hold "as published"?
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>
>

[JerryK]

Sounds like you did the correct thing. It is going to ATC awhile to adopt a
GPS mindset.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> Flying to Burnet, Texas (BMQ) the other day:
>
> "Houston Center, 7nz request vectors-to-final Burnet GPS-01, or else
> request direct JIBAJ for the GPS-19"
>
> "7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect further clearance
> 2125"
> ...
> I didn't understand what he was telling me to do once I got there.
> ...
> About 5 miles from Burnet:
>
> "Center, 7nz, unclear my instructions when I get to Burnet"
>
> "7nz, fly the hold as published"
>
> I read that back, but then looked on my enroute, and there was no hold. I
> looked on my approach plates (GPS-1 and GPS-19) and there was no hold
> there. By this time I'm just about to crossing KBMQ.
>
> "Center, 7nz, sorry I see no published hold"
>
> "7nz, <sigh> then fly heading 270, vectors to Burnet"
>
> I then eventually flew one missed approach (GPS-19) then a successful
> approach (GPS-1).
>
> Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking
> about was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The
> NDB is on the field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't
> have ADF in this plane.
>
> So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
> hold "as published"?
>

When the pattern is charted, all holding instructions may be omitted except
the charted holding direction and the statement "as published". He should
have said "hold southwest as published", not "fly the hold as published".
It would probably have also helped if he had previously said "cleared direct
Burnet NDB", and not just "cleared direct Burnet".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:ky6ab.488979$Ho3.82818@sccrnsc03...
>
> I would apply the "when in doubt" rule and enter a standard pattern,
> holding at the fix inbound on the course on which you approach the fix,
and then
> argue it out with the controller. Seems pretty clear that he did not want
> you to proceed beyond the fix.
>

I like to apply the "when in doubt, clarify" rule as my standard.

[Robert Henry]

Actually, I think they have the mindset, but don't understand the ergonomic
factors that can be encountered trying to use it.

For example, I've twice been cleared to random 5-letter fixes which do not
appear on enroute charts that turn out to be IF's for ILS approaches. These
clearances were issued en route, 60-100 miles away from the airport, well
before an expected approach had been specified. Actually, both approaches
ended up being visuals. I don't know every 5 character permutation of
"wip-pee" intersection and which one applies - running through the guesses
takes some serious knob time. Yet there's always a certain irritation
(noted by the poster as well) in the response to the request for
clarification, the spelling in my example.

Maybe a screenshot of a Garmin 430 with intersections and data fields
represented on the 100nm scale will help to convey the problem.

--

Bob
PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI

"JerryK" > wrote in message
news:_Y6ab.487139$YN5.330405@sccrnsc01...
> Sounds like you did the correct thing. It is going to ATC awhile to adopt
a
> GPS mindset.

[John R. Copeland]

Heh!
I was once cleared to a lat/lon point 300 miles away from my St. Louis =
departure!

Turned out to be a VORTAC location that I'd actually filed to.
Somebody was foolin' with me.
I told clearance delivery I'd read back the clearance, soon as I found =
that lat/lon point.
---JRC---

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message =
news:9s7ab.18898$pe.10355@lakeread06...
> Actually, I think they have the mindset, but don't understand the =
ergonomic
> factors that can be encountered trying to use it.
>=20
> For example, I've twice been cleared to random 5-letter fixes which do =
not
> appear on enroute charts that turn out to be IF's for ILS approaches. =
These
> clearances were issued en route, 60-100 miles away from the airport, =
well
> before an expected approach had been specified. Actually, both =
approaches
> ended up being visuals. I don't know every 5 character permutation of
> "wip-pee" intersection and which one applies - running through the =
guesses
> takes some serious knob time. Yet there's always a certain irritation
> (noted by the poster as well) in the response to the request for
> clarification, the spelling in my example.
>=20
> Maybe a screenshot of a Garmin 430 with intersections and data fields
> represented on the 100nm scale will help to convey the problem.
>=20
> --
>=20
> Bob
> PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI
>=20
> "JerryK" > wrote in message
> news:_Y6ab.487139$YN5.330405@sccrnsc01...
> > Sounds like you did the correct thing. It is going to ATC awhile to =
adopt
> a
> > GPS mindset.
>=20
>

[Bob Gardner]

That's what he tried to do, as I understand it, but he was right on top of
the fix at the time. Gotta do something while seeking clarification.

Bob Gardner

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:ky6ab.488979$Ho3.82818@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > I would apply the "when in doubt" rule and enter a standard pattern,
> > holding at the fix inbound on the course on which you approach the fix,
> and then
> > argue it out with the controller. Seems pretty clear that he did not
want
> > you to proceed beyond the fix.
> >
>
> I like to apply the "when in doubt, clarify" rule as my standard.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:k98ab.487586$YN5.331114@sccrnsc01...
>
> That's what he tried to do, as I understand it, but he was right on top of
> the fix at the time. Gotta do something while seeking clarification.
>

After being told, "7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect
further clearance
2125", he said he didn't understand what he was supposed to do once he got
there. That was well before he reached the NDB.

[Dan Luke]

"Robert Henry" wrote:
> For example, I've twice been cleared to random 5-letter fixes which
> do not appear on enroute charts that turn out to be IF's for ILS
> approaches. These clearances were issued en route, 60-100 miles
> away from the airport, well before an expected approach had been
> specified. Actually, both approaches ended up being visuals. I
> don't know every 5 character permutation of "wip-pee" intersection
> and which one applies - running through the guesses takes some
> serious knob time.

Hah! I hear ya. Try finding TIFTO on your GPS in south Georgia.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Gardner]

I get your point...I don't have the plates to refer to. Guess he had time to
get it straightened out before it became critical.

Bob Gardner

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:k98ab.487586$YN5.331114@sccrnsc01...
> >
> > That's what he tried to do, as I understand it, but he was right on top
of
> > the fix at the time. Gotta do something while seeking clarification.
> >
>
> After being told, "7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect
> further clearance
> 2125", he said he didn't understand what he was supposed to do once he got
> there. That was well before he reached the NDB.
>
>

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> It would probably have also helped if he had previously said "cleared direct
> Burnet NDB", and not just "cleared direct Burnet".

What does "cleared direct Burnet" mean? To the airport? ARP? A navaid
on the field?

Ari.

[Craig Prouse]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote:

> What does "cleared direct Burnet" mean? To the airport? ARP? A navaid
> on the field?

If I were to receive that clearance in that context, I would assume that
Burnet is some sort of navaid or named fix in the vicinity of the airport.
I would exclude the possibility that Burnet is the airport itself. After
all, who ever heard of a hold (published or otherwise) at an airport
reference point? This is my intuition; I'd be happy if someone could help
me formalize this.

I would probably know from my preflight preparation that there is an NDB by
that name on the field, and that's what I would add to my GPS flight plan.
Admittedly, I would probably not have the NDB approach plate handy unless it
just happened to be on the reverse side of one of the GPS approaches, so I'd
possibly have no clue as to the orientation of the published hold. I'd
probably have to ask for that.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
John Clonts > wrote:
>
>Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking about
>was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The NDB is on the
>field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't have ADF in this
>plane.

I don't think that's legitimate. A given navaid can have different holds
for different procedures. The AST VOR Rwy 8 (Astoria, OR) missed approach
terminates in a hold on the 115 radial of AST, left turns. The AST ILS
Rwy 26 missed approach ends in a hold on the 075 radial of AST, right
turns. I guess all the published holds have sufficient protected airspace
(in this case, mostly the Pacific ocean), but there is no hold depicted
on the enroute chart, so I don't know what the controller would expect
if they just said "hold at AST as published".

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

Craig Prouse > writes:

> "K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote:
>
> > What does "cleared direct Burnet" mean? To the airport? ARP? A navaid
> > on the field?
>
> If I were to receive that clearance in that context, I would assume that
> Burnet is some sort of navaid or named fix in the vicinity of the airport.
> I would exclude the possibility that Burnet is the airport itself. After
> all, who ever heard of a hold (published or otherwise) at an airport
> reference point?

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?

Ari.

[Craig Prouse]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote:

> I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
> context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
> you cleared to?

If you're 40 NM out and you have the airport in sight, you can navigate
directly to "the airport" by visual reference. Any number of lat/long
points would be satisfactory navigationally. If the air isn't so clear, I
happen to use the airport reference point in the GPS database.

In the case in question, the pilot was cleared to his destination airport,
and then his clearance was amended. His new clearance limit was an NDB with
the same name as the airport. The navaid happens to be on the field, so
even if he didn't pick up on the change, the problem was conceptual rather
than navigational. Conceptually, if he had made the connection, it might
have helped him better understand what was expected by ATC, and maybe even
got him pointed in the direction of the NDB approach plate which depicts the
hold.

Someplace like Sacramento, where the distance between the airport and its
homonymic* VORTAC is five miles, there's actually a navigational necessity
to get it right.

* I'll probably never get to use that word in a sentence again in my life,
so I take the opportunity now.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:34:36 -0500, "John Clonts"
> wrote:

>Flying to Burnet, Texas (BMQ) the other day:
>
>"Houston Center, 7nz request vectors-to-final Burnet GPS-01, or else request
>direct JIBAJ for the GPS-19"
>
>"7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect further clearance
>2125"
>...
>I didn't understand what he was telling me to do once I got there.
>...

It sounds as if he probably expected you to hold at the BMQ NDB but did not
give you proper instructions per the AIM (or the 7110.65). As a minimum,
he should have given you the charted holding direction and the phrase "as
published" unless he also informed you to "expect no delay".

>About 5 miles from Burnet:
>
>"Center, 7nz, unclear my instructions when I get to Burnet"
>
>"7nz, fly the hold as published"
>
>I read that back, but then looked on my enroute, and there was no hold. I
>looked on my approach plates (GPS-1 and GPS-19) and there was no hold there.
>By this time I'm just about to crossing KBMQ.
>
>"Center, 7nz, sorry I see no published hold"
>
>"7nz, <sigh> then fly heading 270, vectors to Burnet"
>
>I then eventually flew one missed approach (GPS-19) then a successful
>approach (GPS-1).
>
>Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking about
>was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The NDB is on the
>field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't have ADF in this
>plane.
>
>So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
>hold "as published"?

Well, he didn't do it correctly. And I've seen them do that using other
than holds that are published only on approach charts (which may or may not
be the chart you're looking at).

However, ATC is also supposed to issue complete holding instructions when
requested to do so by the pilot. So in your situation, I would have asked
for that, and early on.


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

[Michael]

"John Clonts" > wrote
> Flying to Burnet, Texas (BMQ) the other day:
>
> "Houston Center, 7nz request vectors-to-final Burnet GPS-01, or else request
> direct JIBAJ for the GPS-19"
>
> "7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect further clearance
> 2125"
> ...
> I didn't understand what he was telling me to do once I got there.

Unsurprising - he didn't tell you what to do. That was improper. The
only question in my mind is this - why didn't you immediately ask for
a clarification? Why wait until you're 5 miles out?

> About 5 miles from Burnet:
>
> "Center, 7nz, unclear my instructions when I get to Burnet"
>
> "7nz, fly the hold as published"
>
> I read that back, but then looked on my enroute, and there was no hold. I
> looked on my approach plates (GPS-1 and GPS-19) and there was no hold there.
> By this time I'm just about to crossing KBMQ.
>
> "Center, 7nz, sorry I see no published hold"
>
> "7nz, <sigh> then fly heading 270, vectors to Burnet"
>
> I then eventually flew one missed approach (GPS-19) then a successful
> approach (GPS-1).
>
> Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking about
> was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The NDB is on the
> field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't have ADF in this
> plane.
>
> So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
> hold "as published"?

The clearance was proper. Your GPS substitutes for an ADF in all
situations other than an NDB approach with no GPS overlay.

The WAY the clearance was issued (phraseology) was confusing at best.
The controller used nonstandard phraseology. The correct clearance
would have read:

"7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet NDB, hold South as
published, expect further clearance 2125"

Hopefully that would have tipped you that the hold was depicted on the
NDB approach chart, and all would have been well.

Michael

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
>
> What does "cleared direct Burnet" mean? To the airport? ARP? A navaid
> on the field?
>

The initial clearance limit at the point of departure was most probably the
airport. It may have been stated as "Burnet Municipal Airport", "Kate
Craddock Field", "Burnet Airport", "Bravo Mike Quebec Airport", or just
"Burnet", but in the US aircraft at departure are most often cleared to an
airport. When a hold became necessary the clearance limit changed, albeit
ever so slightly. The NDB is on the field and has the same name and same
identifier. Had the controller said "cleared to Burnet NDB via direct"
instead of "cleared direct Burnet", it may have prompted Mr. Clonts to
examine the NDB RWY 1 approach plate a bit earlier than he did, avoiding the
confusion about the hold entirely. It may also have prompted Mr. Clonts to
advise the controller that while he could hold at the NDB, he'd be unable to
execute the NDB approach as he had no ADF.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
> context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
> you cleared to?
>

The airport. While it looks like a very large "point" when you're standing
on it, it appears as a much smaller "point" on a radar scope. It's not
going to make a bit of difference while you're enroute if you're aimed at
the ARP, one of the runway thresholds, an on-field navaid, etc., etc., etc.

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael" > wrote in message om...

> The clearance was proper. Your GPS substitutes for an ADF in all
> situations other than an NDB approach with no GPS overlay.

Correct, and the hold issued is only published on the NDB approach that
has no overlay. The two GPS approaches are distinct from the NDB 1.

> Hopefully that would have tipped you that the hold was depicted on the
> NDB approach chart, and all would have been well.

Why would he look at the NDB chart when he was:

1. Not equipped to fly it.
2. Cleared for the GPS approach he was equipped to fly?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Why would he look at the NDB chart when he was:
>
> 1. Not equipped to fly it.
> 2. Cleared for the GPS approach he was equipped to fly?
>

At the time he hadn't been cleared for a GPS approach.

[John Harper]

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

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

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

John

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
> > context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
> > you cleared to?
> >
>
> The airport. While it looks like a very large "point" when you're
standing
> on it, it appears as a much smaller "point" on a radar scope. It's not
> going to make a bit of difference while you're enroute if you're aimed at
> the ARP, one of the runway thresholds, an on-field navaid, etc., etc.,
etc.
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

It's a local knowledge thing, Ben, but you know and I know that there is no
conflicting airspace in the vicinity of Astoria that would obviate holding
on the course on which you approach the holding fix. From what I have seen
and experienced, holding pattern airspace placement is designed to keep two
or more "reserved for holding or other ATC purposes" blocks of airspace from
overlapping.

Bob Gardner

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:%Nbab.376350$Oz4.157019@rwcrnsc54...
> In article >,
> John Clonts > wrote:
> >
> >Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking
about
> >was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The NDB is on the
> >field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't have ADF in this
> >plane.
>
> I don't think that's legitimate. A given navaid can have different holds
> for different procedures. The AST VOR Rwy 8 (Astoria, OR) missed approach
> terminates in a hold on the 115 radial of AST, left turns. The AST ILS
> Rwy 26 missed approach ends in a hold on the 075 radial of AST, right
> turns. I guess all the published holds have sufficient protected airspace
> (in this case, mostly the Pacific ocean), but there is no hold depicted
> on the enroute chart, so I don't know what the controller would expect
> if they just said "hold at AST as published".
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
> > context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
> > you cleared to?
> >
>
> The airport. While it looks like a very large "point" when you're standing
> on it, it appears as a much smaller "point" on a radar scope. It's not
> going to make a bit of difference while you're enroute if you're aimed at
> the ARP, one of the runway thresholds, an on-field navaid, etc., etc., etc.

While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
runway thresholds?

Ari.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
>
> While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
> reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
> reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
> runway thresholds?
>

I assume the conditions are IMC. I'm not going to hold anywhere. I'm going
to say to myself, "I have an in-flight emergency requiring immediate
action," and then fly the most advantageous approach and land.

[David Megginson]

(K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:

> I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
> context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
> you cleared to?

As far as I understand, you have no clearance limit. If you lose
comms and cannot go VFR, then you just fly to your destination and
shoot an approach, no holds required.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

(K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:

> While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
> reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
> reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
> runway thresholds?

The IAF for your approach, I guess. In real life, do controllers
really want a 7600 holding for 15 minutes because it's ahead of its
ETA, or do they just want it safely on the ground as soon as possible
so that it stops messing up their airspace?


All the best,


David

[Richard Thomas]

Hi Steven,

> > While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
> > reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
> > reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
> > runway thresholds?
>
> I assume the conditions are IMC. I'm not going to hold anywhere. I'm
going
> to say to myself, "I have an in-flight emergency requiring immediate
> action," and then fly the most advantageous approach and land.

I wouldn't like to be on your aeroplane if you're not going to hold anywhere
if you're 30 minutes early arriving at your destination with lost comms
etc... :-)

If you are in IMC and loose communication then one should start any
available instrument approach into the destination airport at the ETA within
the filed flight plan (ETD + Time Enroute). If you're early and its solid
IMC you hold. Simple as that.

The reason for this is Air Traffic is expecting you to arrive at the airport
at that ETA so they will have cleared the airspace in its entirity,
expecting you to start any published instrument approach into the airport.
This is particularly relevant if your transponder has also failed... how
are Air Traffic supposed to know where you are?

If you arrive, lets say 30 minutes ahead of schedule, you have no comms and
as its your very unlucky day your transponder has decided to go
unservicable. ATC have no idea where you are but as they will be following
the FARs they'll be clearing the area for your planned ETA. If you are now
30 minutes ahead of schedule (great tailwind) then they may still be
clearing the approaches... if you then start an ILS approach in solid IMC,
there could be a possibility of ploughing straight into another aircraft
that they are getting onto the ground in anticipation of your arrival 30
minutes later...

Of course if you are in VMC conditions then you'd stay in VMC and land as
soon as practicable. After landing informing Air Traffic by telephone so
they aren't any more incovenienced than they need to be.

Just my two pennies worth (I'm a Brit' so pennies instead of cents!).

Best wishes,

Richard Thomas
FAA CP-ASEL IA

[Newps]

David Megginson wrote:
> (K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:
>
>
>>I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
>>context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
>>you cleared to?
>
>
> As far as I understand, you have no clearance limit.

Sure you do, the airport. Just like when you are sitting on the ground
and get your clearance, you are cleared to the airport.


If you lose comms and cannot go VFR, then you just fly to your
destination and
> shoot an approach, no holds required.

Just like normal.

[Newps]

David Megginson wrote:

> (K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:
>
>
>>While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
>>reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
>>reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
>>runway thresholds?
>
>
> The IAF for your approach, I guess. In real life, do controllers
> really want a 7600 holding for 15 minutes because it's ahead of its
> ETA, or do they just want it safely on the ground as soon as possible
> so that it stops messing up their airspace?

Land the plane.

[Newps]

Richard Thomas wrote:


>
> The reason for this is Air Traffic is expecting you to arrive at the airport
> at that ETA so they will have cleared the airspace in its entirity,

Not in its entirety, but we will make room for you.


> expecting you to start any published instrument approach into the airport.
> This is particularly relevant if your transponder has also failed... how
> are Air Traffic supposed to know where you are?

Radar.

> Of course if you are in VMC conditions then you'd stay in VMC and land as
> soon as practicable. After landing informing Air Traffic by telephone so
> they aren't any more incovenienced than they need to be.

Call me when you figure out you are NORDO and we can dispense with all
this mumbo jumbo.

[Roy Smith]

"Richard Thomas" > wrote:
> If you are now
> 30 minutes ahead of schedule (great tailwind) then they may still be
> clearing the approaches... if you then start an ILS approach in solid IMC,
> there could be a possibility of ploughing straight into another aircraft
> that they are getting onto the ground in anticipation of your arrival 30
> minutes later...

How does holding at the Final Approach Fix for 30 minutes make the
situation any better?

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

David Megginson > writes:

> (K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:
>
> > While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
> > reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
> > reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
> > runway thresholds?
>
> The IAF for your approach, I guess.

Which one? You were never cleared for an approach, you didn't hear
"expect". There may be multiple published approaches with different
IAFs.

> In real life, do controllers really want a 7600 holding for 15
> minutes because it's ahead of its ETA, or do they just want it
> safely on the ground as soon as possible so that it stops messing up
> their airspace?

How would they know what that "as soon as possible" happens? Will they
effectively close the airport waiting for you to arrive? There might
be traffic waiting to get in or out, and nobody wants 7600's flying
into any of those. Would you hold all departures and divert all
arrivals waiting for the 7600 to make her approach "as soon as
possible"?

Ari.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
>
> As far as I understand, you have no clearance limit. If you lose
> comms and cannot go VFR, then you just fly to your destination and
> shoot an approach, no holds required.
>

A proper IFR clearance always has a clearance limit.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
>
> The IAF for your approach, I guess. In real life, do controllers
> really want a 7600 holding for 15 minutes because it's ahead of its
> ETA, or do they just want it safely on the ground as soon as possible
> so that it stops messing up their airspace?
>

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which one?
>

Whichever one your little heart desires.


>
> How would they know what that "as soon as possible" happens? Will they
> effectively close the airport waiting for you to arrive? There might
> be traffic waiting to get in or out, and nobody wants 7600's flying
> into any of those. Would you hold all departures and divert all
> arrivals waiting for the 7600 to make her approach "as soon as
> possible"?
>

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Thomas" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hi Steven,
>

Howzit goin'?


>
> I wouldn't like to be on your aeroplane if you're not going to hold
anywhere
> if you're 30 minutes early arriving at your destination with lost comms
> etc... :-)
>

Why not?


>
> If you are in IMC and loose communication then one should start any
> available instrument approach into the destination airport at the ETA
within
> the filed flight plan (ETD + Time Enroute). If you're early and its solid
> IMC you hold. Simple as that.
>
> The reason for this is Air Traffic is expecting you to arrive at the
airport
> at that ETA so they will have cleared the airspace in its entirity,
> expecting you to start any published instrument approach into the airport.
> This is particularly relevant if your transponder has also failed... how
> are Air Traffic supposed to know where you are?
>

I see a couple of problems with that. First, it's unlikely ATC has your
ETA. They'd only have it if you were cleared as filed and there had been no
route amendments since you departed. That's rarely the case.

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


>
> If you arrive, lets say 30 minutes ahead of schedule, you have no comms
and
> as its your very unlucky day your transponder has decided to go
> unservicable. ATC have no idea where you are but as they will be
following
> the FARs they'll be clearing the area for your planned ETA. If you are
now
> 30 minutes ahead of schedule (great tailwind) then they may still be
> clearing the approaches... if you then start an ILS approach in solid
IMC,
> there could be a possibility of ploughing straight into another aircraft
> that they are getting onto the ground in anticipation of your arrival 30
> minutes later...
>

So if I arrive 30 minutes early I should hold while arrival and departure
traffic fly through my holding pattern?

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

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> Whichever one your little heart desires.

And here I was, thinking I had people convinced I had a large heart. I
hate it when people call my bluff.

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

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

Ari.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you are NORDO, your mode C might not work either... How would ATC
> know who's below it?
>

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

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ari.

[Richard Thomas]

Hi Steven,

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,

Richard Thomas.
EGFF / BT12

[Craig Prouse]

"Richard Thomas" wrote:

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

Is that really what we're taught?

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

[Ray Andraka]

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If you are NORDO, your mode C might not work either... How would ATC
> > know who's below it?
> >
>
> Whoa there, big hearted fellow. If you're now gonna say the comm failure
> might spread to your transponder and encoder leaving you nonradar as well as
> NORDO, then I'm gonna say it can spread to your nav radios as well, leaving
> you unable to hold anywhere. All the more reason to put it on the ground as
> soon as possible.

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

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

[David Megginson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

"Richard Thomas" > writes:

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

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


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

(K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:

>> If you've still got a radar target you can still separate from a NORDO
>> aircraft. If you've got no radar then everything beneath the NORDO is
>> effectively shut down until it's known to be on the ground.
>
> If you are NORDO, your mode C might not work either... How would ATC
> know who's below it?

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

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


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

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

You don't want to NORDO to squawk 7600?


All the best,


David

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1063899550.668753@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
> I've been chewed out by Bay (now Norcal) when told "cross
> San Jose at xxx" - there was a solid undercast so I just aimed
> for the VOR. At some point he said "I told you cross San Jose
> at xxx" and gave me a vector which was in fact mid-field. This
> was the same controller who a few minutes earlier had given
> me a vector which would take me straight into the side of a
> mountain in a small number of minutes (it was fortunately VMC above
> the overcast), one of two times I've said "unable".
>
> Otoh when cleared "direct Palo Alto" there's little ambiguity.
>
> I guess I would always assume the navaid unless there was some
> good reason not to, reading it back (now!) as "96S, direct Sacramento
> VOR" for example.
>

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
>
> My 196 has a redundant power supply?
>

Beats the hell outta me. Read the manual.


>
> Besides, you might not be fully
> confident of the continued flawless operation of your other avionics,
> but they're the best you've got.
>

That lack of confidence is the reason it's better to land than to hold.


>
> Have you ever dealt with IFR NORDOs?
>

Many times.


>
> I'm curious, you're saying everything is shut down until the NORDO
> lands.
>

Oh, I don't think I said that.


>
> Is there a good reason pilots are taught one set of procedures,
> while ATC follow another?
>

No.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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

If it is nonradar, yes.


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

I think it's just for the sake of tradition.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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

Where are those rights found?


>
> How good a job can primary surveillance radar do on picking out a
> target's altitude?
>

It can't do that job at all.

[David Megginson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

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

Emergency authority of the pilot (sorry, I left out the adjective
"severe" before "turbulence"). If I'm flying in IMC and go NORDO,
then hit icing or severe turbulence, I'm not going to worry about
sticking with my flight-plan altitude.

I don't claim that it would be OK for the pilot to change altitude
just to avoid light or moderate chop.


All the best,


David

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't want to NORDO to squawk 7600?
>

Certainly not continuously, it sets off a very annoying alarm in terminal
facilities. I'd squawk 7600 for about a minute and then go back to my
assigned discrete code. It avoids that nasty alarm and aids tracking in
enroute facilities. One minute is plenty of time to make ATC aware that
you're NORDO, if they didn't know already, and they're going to consider you
NORDO until they hear from you.

[David Megginson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

>> You don't want to NORDO to squawk 7600?
>
> Certainly not continuously, it sets off a very annoying alarm in terminal
> facilities. I'd squawk 7600 for about a minute and then go back to my
> assigned discrete code. It avoids that nasty alarm and aids tracking in
> enroute facilities. One minute is plenty of time to make ATC aware that
> you're NORDO, if they didn't know already, and they're going to consider you
> NORDO until they hear from you.

That's interesting. What do the other controllers in the group think?


All the best,


David

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > My 196 has a redundant power supply?
> >
>
> Beats the hell outta me. Read the manual.

That wasn't really a question. The question mark referred to it being
one possible answer to your "what bizarre failure". Prepend "how
about" to make it grammatical.

Garmin 196 is powered by 4 AA batteries and will provide ~4 hours of
guidance after the cigarette lighter adapter goes dead. So I could
have no comms, no mode c and no electrical, and still know with some
confidence where I am.

I admit that this is an unlikely set of circumstances as I also carry
a handheld transceiver. OTOH, it never occurred to me to carry a
handheld transponder :=)

Ari.

[John Harper]

Well yes, but it's a big field! The VOR is on the far NW corner
of the field (actually just off the field, I drive past it when I go to
my avionics shop). It's probably about 1.5 miles from the center
of the field. Not a huge deal but if what they really want is to take
you over the center of the runway then I guess it matters.

John

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1063899550.668753@sj-nntpcache-5...
> >
> > I've been chewed out by Bay (now Norcal) when told "cross
> > San Jose at xxx" - there was a solid undercast so I just aimed
> > for the VOR. At some point he said "I told you cross San Jose
> > at xxx" and gave me a vector which was in fact mid-field. This
> > was the same controller who a few minutes earlier had given
> > me a vector which would take me straight into the side of a
> > mountain in a small number of minutes (it was fortunately VMC above
> > the overcast), one of two times I've said "unable".
> >
> > Otoh when cleared "direct Palo Alto" there's little ambiguity.
> >
> > I guess I would always assume the navaid unless there was some
> > good reason not to, reading it back (now!) as "96S, direct Sacramento
> > VOR" for example.
> >
>
> When told to cross somewhere I would always assume a navaid versus an
> airport. But where's the ambiguity with San Jose? The airport diagram
> shows the VOR/DME to be on the field.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1063989042.182645@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> Well yes, but it's a big field! The VOR is on the far NW corner
> of the field (actually just off the field, I drive past it when I go to
> my avionics shop). It's probably about 1.5 miles from the center
> of the field. Not a huge deal but if what they really want is to take
> you over the center of the runway then I guess it matters.
>

If you were told to "cross San Jose" and you took it to mean the VOR, then
you did nothing wrong.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
>
> That wasn't really a question. The question mark referred to it being
> one possible answer to your "what bizarre failure". Prepend "how
> about" to make it grammatical.
>
> Garmin 196 is powered by 4 AA batteries and will provide ~4 hours of
> guidance after the cigarette lighter adapter goes dead. So I could
> have no comms, no mode c and no electrical, and still know with some
> confidence where I am.
>
> I admit that this is an unlikely set of circumstances as I also carry
> a handheld transceiver. OTOH, it never occurred to me to carry a
> handheld transponder :=)
>

I see. After a failure that causes you to lose both of your completely
independent transceivers, and your transponder, you're confident of the
continued flawless operation of your other avionics because your other
avionics consist solely of a battery operated Garmin 196.

[Chip Jones]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
> >> You don't want to NORDO to squawk 7600?
> >
> > Certainly not continuously, it sets off a very annoying alarm in
terminal
> > facilities. I'd squawk 7600 for about a minute and then go back to my
> > assigned discrete code. It avoids that nasty alarm and aids tracking in
> > enroute facilities. One minute is plenty of time to make ATC aware that
> > you're NORDO, if they didn't know already, and they're going to consider
you
> > NORDO until they hear from you.
>
> That's interesting. What do the other controllers in the group think?
>

From and enroute perspective, I agree with Steven. A 7600 code doesn't set
off an annoying alarm in the ARTCC, but it does flash and brighten the
tarfegt to get the Center controller's visual attention. As a non-discrete
code, over a long haul flight it becomes more labor intensive to track you
on 7600. Sure, we can do it (and do) but it would be easier IMO if you
returned to your discrete code after squawking 7600 for a minute or two.

Chip, ZTL

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...

> I see. After a failure that causes you to lose both of your completely
> independent transceivers, and your transponder, you're confident of the
> continued flawless operation of your other avionics because your other
> avionics consist solely of a battery operated Garmin 196.

Sure. There's still a single point of failure on most singles. You may
have multiple radios, transponders, etc... but their all fed from the same
single electrical bus. A battery operated handheld (GPS or COM) has a
good chance of working, especially if you have spare batteries.

Back when I was using the hillbilly mechanics I had numerous failures of
the electrical system (due to their ineptitude at replacing the regulator/OVP
unit).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Sure. There's still a single point of failure on most singles. You may
> have multiple radios, transponders, etc... but their all fed from the same
> single electrical bus. A battery operated handheld (GPS or COM) has a
> good chance of working, especially if you have spare batteries.
>
> Back when I was using the hillbilly mechanics I had numerous failures of
> the electrical system (due to their ineptitude at replacing the
regulator/OVP
> unit).
>

Well, that's where I was going when I asked "what bizarre failure causes me
to lose both of my completely independent transceivers, and my transponder,
but leaves me fully confident
of the continued flawless operation of my other avionics?" An electrical
failure will affect all of your installed avionics, not just the
transceivers and transponder.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
>

>
> Well, that's where I was going when I asked "what bizarre failure causes me
> to lose both of my completely independent transceivers, and my transponder,
> but leaves me fully confident
> of the continued flawless operation of my other avionics?" An electrical
> failure will affect all of your installed avionics, not just the
> transceivers and transponder.
>
What additional installed avionics do most of us have? Other than the audio panel,
everything connected to my electrical system is a light (well except for pitot heat).

[Peter R.]

Steven P. McNicoll ) wrote:

> Well, that's where I was going when I asked "what bizarre failure causes me
> to lose both of my completely independent transceivers, and my transponder,
> but leaves me fully confident
> of the continued flawless operation of my other avionics?"

How about opening a sport bottle at 9,000 feet and having it spray water
over a portion of the panel, temporarily shorting out the freshly bathed
avionics?

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> What additional installed avionics do most of us have? Other than the
audio panel,
> everything connected to my electrical system is a light (well except for
pitot heat).
>

Some airplanes have navigation radios installed.

[Ray Andraka]

I think he was asking what would kill your comm and transponder but not your nav.
likelihood is that it would be a whole electrical system failure, in which case you'd
have to depend on your handheld electronics. You do have spare batteries for them
when you fly, don't you?

If I did for some reason run short on spare batteries, I can tell you that the GPS
would take priority over the handheld comm. Besides, my GPS only uses 4 AA's
where my handheld comm uses 10.

Ron Natalie wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
>
> >
> > Well, that's where I was going when I asked "what bizarre failure causes me
> > to lose both of my completely independent transceivers, and my transponder,
> > but leaves me fully confident
> > of the continued flawless operation of my other avionics?" An electrical
> > failure will affect all of your installed avionics, not just the
> > transceivers and transponder.
> >
> What additional installed avionics do most of us have? Other than the audio panel,
> everything connected to my electrical system is a light (well except for pitot heat).

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

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

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > What additional installed avionics do most of us have? Other than the
> audio panel,
> > everything connected to my electrical system is a light (well except for
> pitot heat).
> >
>
> Some airplanes have navigation radios installed.
>
Mine are integegral to the comm.

[Ron Natalie]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message ...
> I think he was asking what would kill your comm and transponder but not your nav.
> likelihood is that it would be a whole electrical system failure, in which case you'd
> have to depend on your handheld electronics. You do have spare batteries for them
> when you fly, don't you?

Yep, I carry a whole brick of AA's. Use them for everything from the ANR headsets
to the flashlights.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Mine are integegral to the comm.
>

Not all of them are.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Mine are integegral to the comm.
> >
>
> Not all of them are.
>

Nobody said it had to be universal. You asked "what bizarre failure causes
you to lose comm and transponder and still leaves you confident that your
other avionics (presumably navigational gear) active?" And the answer is
that most of us carry a GPS that is entirely independent of the aircraft
electrical system. I've been twice in two different aircraft that have had the electrical
systems go dead (and in the case of mine, we had several failures in a row).
One was even IFR. In one case I had a GPS (and no backup comm) in the
other case I had backup COMM (without NAV).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Nobody said it had to be universal. You asked "what bizarre failure
causes
> you to lose comm and transponder and still leaves you confident that your
> other avionics (presumably navigational gear) active?" And the answer is
> that most of us carry a GPS that is entirely independent of the aircraft
> electrical system. I've been twice in two different aircraft that have
had the electrical
> systems go dead (and in the case of mine, we had several failures in a
row).
> One was even IFR. In one case I had a GPS (and no backup comm) in the
> other case I had backup COMM (without NAV).
>

Follow the damn thread. The question was directed at someone who
hypothesized losing comm radios and transponder but did not lose the nav
radios.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...

> Follow the damn thread. The question was directed at someone who
> hypothesized losing comm radios and transponder but did not lose the nav
> radios.
>
I am following the damn thread. Mr. Thomas was arguing that he would hold
until the ETA in a lost comm situation. I agree with you that it doesn't make
sense, but you then asked what sort of bizarre failure would (presumably,
I'm interpretting here because you were terse as usual as to what you were
specifically asking) let you navigate the hold once you've lost comm AND
transponder. As several pointed out, lots of us have handheld GPS's
either already out for situational awareness even if they don't use them for
primary nav, or onboard for backup (or other VFR use). It's also not unheard
of two lose complete electrical. It's happened to me in two different aircraft
(one an alternator mechanical failure, and the other an electrical circuitry failure).

So while it might make no operational sense to fly around in holds in a lost comm/transponder
situation, it's quite possible in a existant part of the GA fleet to do so.

[Ray Andraka]

Regardless, a failed electrical system constitutes an emergency in my book. If that happens, I want to be on the ground ASAP,
and certainly before my handheld's batteries die. Last thing I want to be doing is changing batteries while hand flying
(electrical system is gone, which also means no autopilot) in the clag. Using the emergency authority, I'm going to do whatever
it takes to get me on the ground asap without taking undue risks. I'd rather fill out the paperwork than have to have my hiers
fill it out.

Ron Natalie wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> > Follow the damn thread. The question was directed at someone who
> > hypothesized losing comm radios and transponder but did not lose the nav
> > radios.
> >
> I am following the damn thread. Mr. Thomas was arguing that he would hold
> until the ETA in a lost comm situation. I agree with you that it doesn't make
> sense, but you then asked what sort of bizarre failure would (presumably,
> I'm interpretting here because you were terse as usual as to what you were
> specifically asking) let you navigate the hold once you've lost comm AND
> transponder. As several pointed out, lots of us have handheld GPS's
> either already out for situational awareness even if they don't use them for
> primary nav, or onboard for backup (or other VFR use). It's also not unheard
> of two lose complete electrical. It's happened to me in two different aircraft
> (one an alternator mechanical failure, and the other an electrical circuitry failure).
>
> So while it might make no operational sense to fly around in holds in a lost comm/transponder
> situation, it's quite possible in a existant part of the GA fleet to do so.

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

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I am following the damn thread. Mr. Thomas was arguing that he would hold
> until the ETA in a lost comm situation. I agree with you that it doesn't
> make sense, but you then asked what sort of bizarre failure would
(presumably,
> I'm interpretting here because you were terse as usual as to what you were
> specifically asking) let you navigate the hold once you've lost comm AND
> transponder.
>

Here's the part of Mr. Thomas' message that you missed:


If you are in IMC and loose communication then one should start any
available instrument approach into the destination airport at the ETA within
the filed flight plan (ETD + Time Enroute). If you're early and its solid
IMC you hold. Simple as that.

The reason for this is Air Traffic is expecting you to arrive at the airport
at that ETA so they will have cleared the airspace in its entirity,
expecting you to start any published instrument approach into the airport.
This is particularly relevant if your transponder has also failed... how
are Air Traffic supposed to know where you are?



>
> As several pointed out, lots of us have handheld GPS's
> either already out for situational awareness even if they don't use them
> for primary nav, or onboard for backup (or other VFR use). It's also not
> unheard of two lose complete electrical. It's happened to me in two
different
> aircraft (one an alternator mechanical failure, and the other an
electrical
> circuitry failure).
>

Only a complete idiot would choose to hold until the ETA with a handheld GPS
after an electrical failure.

[Mark Kolber]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:22:36 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>If it ain't on the enroute chart or the chart
>of the approach you are going to be doing it makes no sense to pull a
>holding pattern out of your ass from some other approach.

C'mon. Don't hold back. How do you really feel about this? :)

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

Ray Andraka > writes:

> Regardless, a failed electrical system constitutes an emergency in my book. If that happens, I want to be on the ground ASAP,
> and certainly before my handheld's batteries die. Last thing I want to be doing is changing batteries while hand flying
> (electrical system is gone, which also means no autopilot) in the clag. Using the emergency authority, I'm going to do whatever
> it takes to get me on the ground asap without taking undue risks. I'd rather fill out the paperwork than have to have my hiers
> fill it out.

No one is questioning your legal authority to do whatever. The
discussion has been about what action is less likely to have your
heirs fiilin out the paperwork.

Ari.

[John R. Copeland]

So shouldn't we try to help the complete idiot?
Or are you trying to improve the gene pool?
---JRC---

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message =
ink.net...
>=20
>=20
> Only a complete idiot would choose to hold until the ETA with a =
handheld GPS
> after an electrical failure.
>=20
>

[Roy Smith]

(K. Ari Krupnikov) wrote:
> No one is questioning your legal authority to do whatever. The
> discussion has been about what action is less likely to have your
> heirs fiilin out the paperwork.

I figure there's two possible scenarios:

1) ATC knows where I am because my xponder is still working, or they are
tracking me with primary radar. In that case, they'll watch what I'm
doing and get everybody out of my way. Landing ASAP wins here.

2) ATC has lost track of where I am. In that case, there are two more
scenarios:

2A) They'll keep everybody the hell away from my destination airport
until I show up. Again, landing ASAP makes sense.

2B) They'll try to keep operating the airport as best as possible until
my ETA. In which case, my holding someplace in the vicinity is just
going to increase the time I'm in IMC with no separation. Once again,
landing ASAP seems to make sense.

All of this is really completely moot. All of this "holding until your
ETA" stuff assumes that somehow you'll get to your destination early.
Who are we kidding? When was the last time you ever got someplace ahead
of your ETA?

PS -- I've done scenario #1. I lost the ability to transmit, but could
still receive. As soon as I turned off my cleared route of flight and
started heading over to the ILS, ATC said, "You appear to be flying the
ILS-16, cleared ILS-16 approach, cleared to land".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> So shouldn't we try to help the complete idiot?
>

By doing what?

[David Brooks]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> >
> > >> You don't want to NORDO to squawk 7600?
> > >
> > > Certainly not continuously, it sets off a very annoying alarm in
> terminal
> > > facilities. I'd squawk 7600 for about a minute and then go back to my
> > > assigned discrete code. It avoids that nasty alarm and aids tracking
in
> > > enroute facilities. One minute is plenty of time to make ATC aware
that
> > > you're NORDO, if they didn't know already, and they're going to
consider
> you
> > > NORDO until they hear from you.
> >
> > That's interesting. What do the other controllers in the group think?
> >
>
> From and enroute perspective, I agree with Steven. A 7600 code doesn't
set
> off an annoying alarm in the ARTCC, but it does flash and brighten the
> tarfegt to get the Center controller's visual attention. As a
non-discrete
> code, over a long haul flight it becomes more labor intensive to track you
> on 7600. Sure, we can do it (and do) but it would be easier IMO if you
> returned to your discrete code after squawking 7600 for a minute or two.
>
> Chip, ZTL

Makes sense, but who's going to modify AIM 6-4-2 on behalf of the many
pilots who can't get a controller perspective?

-- David Brooks

[Chip Jones]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
[snipped]
> >
> > From and enroute perspective, I agree with Steven. A 7600 code doesn't
> set
> > off an annoying alarm in the ARTCC, but it does flash and brighten the
> > tarfegt to get the Center controller's visual attention. As a
> non-discrete
> > code, over a long haul flight it becomes more labor intensive to track
you
> > on 7600. Sure, we can do it (and do) but it would be easier IMO if you
> > returned to your discrete code after squawking 7600 for a minute or two.
> >
> > Chip, ZTL
>
> Makes sense, but who's going to modify AIM 6-4-2 on behalf of the many
> pilots who can't get a controller perspective?
>

Don Brown? :-)

Chip, ZTL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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

If you have a handheld comm you're not NORDO.

[John T]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net
>
> If you have a handheld comm you're not NORDO.

You may as well be if the handheld doesn't have the power to reach ATC. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________