Strange lost-comm situation

[Roy Smith]

I had an interesting little experience last night.

We were inbound to MMK (Meriden CT) for a practice GPS-36, talking to
Bradley Approach. MMK is right on the edge between Bradley and NY
Approach's airspace, and radio coverage tends to be spotty there.

Conditions were night, IFR, but VMC with good visibility.

Anyway, we were on a 190 vector (i.e. on downwind, away from the
airport, and away from Bradley's airspace) when we lost contact with
Bradley. A Delta flight relayed a frequency change to us, but there was
no joy on that frequency either. We could just barely hear Bradley, but
not enough to make out what they were saying.

Anyway, GPS is wonderful. We just punched in "Nearest ARTCC", and tried
Boston Center on the frequency that popped up. Nothing we couldn't have
done by flipping through charts and the AFD, but so much easier! They
heard us loud and clear, and when we explained what happened, the
controller quickly got us a frequency for NY Approach which worked just
fine.

The odd thing is that NY Approach then continued to handle us on the
approach. The NY controller vectored us back on to the FAC, told us to
report the FAF to him, and told us to contact Bradley (on the original
frequency) on the missed (the missed takes you deeper into Bradley
airspace, with better radio coverage). I can only assume that since the
NY controller knew the details of the approach and was able to give us
vectors to it, this sort of stuff must have happened before.

We flew the approach, went missed, and got back in touch with Bradley.
The Bradley controller acted like nothing strange had happened at all.

Nothing too exciting, but a good learning experience for the two
students I had with me.

[Everett M. Greene]

Roy Smith > writes:
> I had an interesting little experience last night.
>
> We were inbound to MMK (Meriden CT) for a practice GPS-36, talking to
> Bradley Approach. MMK is right on the edge between Bradley and NY
> Approach's airspace, and radio coverage tends to be spotty there.
>
> Conditions were night, IFR, but VMC with good visibility.
>
> Anyway, we were on a 190 vector (i.e. on downwind, away from the
> airport, and away from Bradley's airspace) when we lost contact with
> Bradley. A Delta flight relayed a frequency change to us, but there was
> no joy on that frequency either. We could just barely hear Bradley, but
> not enough to make out what they were saying.
>
> Anyway, GPS is wonderful. We just punched in "Nearest ARTCC", and tried
> Boston Center on the frequency that popped up. Nothing we couldn't have
> done by flipping through charts and the AFD, but so much easier! They
> heard us loud and clear, and when we explained what happened, the
> controller quickly got us a frequency for NY Approach which worked just
> fine.
>
> The odd thing is that NY Approach then continued to handle us on the
> approach. The NY controller vectored us back on to the FAC, told us to
> report the FAF to him, and told us to contact Bradley (on the original
> frequency) on the missed (the missed takes you deeper into Bradley
> airspace, with better radio coverage). I can only assume that since the
> NY controller knew the details of the approach and was able to give us
> vectors to it, this sort of stuff must have happened before.
>
> We flew the approach, went missed, and got back in touch with Bradley.
> The Bradley controller acted like nothing strange had happened at all.
>
> Nothing too exciting, but a good learning experience for the two
> students I had with me.

Sounds like a good enough experience to make it part of
the syllabus if you can rely on the unreliability.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
>
> Anyway, GPS is wonderful. We just punched in "Nearest ARTCC", and tried
> Boston Center on the frequency that popped up. Nothing we couldn't have
> done by flipping through charts and the AFD, but so much easier! They
> heard us loud and clear, and when we explained what happened, the
> controller quickly got us a frequency for NY Approach which worked just
> fine.

Once someone figures out how to use all that invaluable data, it becomes
more than just a great navigation device. I am sure you will place emphasis
on all those NRST goodies to your students.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, wrote:
> Once someone figures out how to use all that invaluable data, it becomes
> more than just a great navigation device. I am sure you will place emphasis
> on all those NRST goodies to your students.

It's interesting that you say that. My experience teaching the box is
still pretty limited, but so far it's clear that the transition from
students wanting to dial in frequencies manually to preferring to look
them up in the database is a watershed event in their getting
comfortable with the technology.

At this point, I must have 30-odd hours using the CNX-80 and I'm still
learning stuff. Learning events seem to happen in one of two ways. One
way is I go to demonstrate something cool to a student and end up AFU
(the high-tech version of "watch this!"). The other way is a student
surprises me with a different way to do something that I only knew one
way of doing.

I've already added "OK, can you give us an initial vector while we get
the box set up?" to my ATC vocabulary :-)

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> I've already added "OK, can you give us an initial vector while we get
> the box set up?" to my ATC vocabulary :-)

The devices work better on a trip than in a local training environment where you
are trying to do multiple approaches. On a trip, you usually have a routing, then
are given an IAP, and that transition is fairly simple once the particular device
is mastered; especially a well designed device such as the CNX-80 or the Garmin
530. Trouble comes, though, when trying to be adept at both such devices.

[airbourne56]

Another possibility for the lost comm is 120.65, which is Bradley
Clearance. The RCO is right on the field at Meriden (as I recall
having gotten IFR clearances on the ground there). They might have at
least been able to pass on the NY approach frequency for you.

If you ever get IFR clearances out of Meriden and are heading
southeast, you can expect your clearance to intially send you off
toward Groton. I guess in addition to the bad radio coverage the radar
coverage is also lousy at low altitudes around Meriden because ATC
seems to want you heading east, away from NY airspace, and clearly in
radar contact before they will amend the clearance and vector you
southeast.


Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> I had an interesting little experience last night.
>
> We were inbound to MMK (Meriden CT) for a practice GPS-36, talking to
> Bradley Approach. MMK is right on the edge between Bradley and NY
> Approach's airspace, and radio coverage tends to be spotty there.
>
> Conditions were night, IFR, but VMC with good visibility.
>
> Anyway, we were on a 190 vector (i.e. on downwind, away from the
> airport, and away from Bradley's airspace) when we lost contact with
> Bradley. A Delta flight relayed a frequency change to us, but there was
> no joy on that frequency either. We could just barely hear Bradley, but
> not enough to make out what they were saying.
>
> Anyway, GPS is wonderful. We just punched in "Nearest ARTCC", and tried
> Boston Center on the frequency that popped up. Nothing we couldn't have
> done by flipping through charts and the AFD, but so much easier! They
> heard us loud and clear, and when we explained what happened, the
> controller quickly got us a frequency for NY Approach which worked just
> fine.
>
> The odd thing is that NY Approach then continued to handle us on the
> approach. The NY controller vectored us back on to the FAC, told us to
> report the FAF to him, and told us to contact Bradley (on the original
> frequency) on the missed (the missed takes you deeper into Bradley
> airspace, with better radio coverage). I can only assume that since the
> NY controller knew the details of the approach and was able to give us
> vectors to it, this sort of stuff must have happened before.
>
> We flew the approach, went missed, and got back in touch with Bradley.
> The Bradley controller acted like nothing strange had happened at all.
>
> Nothing too exciting, but a good learning experience for the two
> students I had with me.

[Roy Smith]

(airbourne56) wrote:
> Another possibility for the lost comm is 120.65, which is Bradley
> Clearance.

Interesting. That's the frequency Delta relayed to us, but we were
unable to make contact there.

> The RCO is right on the field at Meriden (as I recall
> having gotten IFR clearances on the ground there). They might have at
> least been able to pass on the NY approach frequency for you.

My guess is an RCO is a very low-power transmitter, and that may be why
we were unable to raise Bradley on that freq?