What do you do in the real world?

[Ron Garret]

Last night I flew from SJC to VNY. To my astonishment I was cleared
vectors to SNS, then direct VNY (despite having filed a more standard
routing) at 9000 feet. I knew perfectly well that the routing was going
to change because I've done that route a zillion times, and indeed, near
Bakersfield they switched me over to the standard LHS, LYNXX8 arrival,
followed by vectors to the ILS RWY 16R.

My question is: what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost comm
before they changed my routing? By the book I should have continued to
fly my clearance, which would have run me into a mountain around GMN, so
that's probably not the right answer. Viable possibilities seem to
include:

1. Divert (or climb) just enough to avoid the terrain around GMN, fly
to VNY, and commence an approach from there.

2. As above, but vector myself for the ILS before reaching VNY.

3&4 - as above but fly to LHS and the LYNXX8 arrival.

5. Divert to the nearest airport with an IAP.

My aircraft is /G so I know pretty much exactly where I am at all times.

rg

References:

LYNXX8 arrival:
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0702/00067LYNXX.PD
F

ILS RWY 16R approach:
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0702/00552I16R.PDF

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:03:57 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>Last night I flew from SJC to VNY. To my astonishment I was cleared
>vectors to SNS, then direct VNY (despite having filed a more standard
>routing) at 9000 feet. I knew perfectly well that the routing was going
>to change because I've done that route a zillion times, and indeed, near
>Bakersfield they switched me over to the standard LHS, LYNXX8 arrival,
>followed by vectors to the ILS RWY 16R.
>
>My question is: what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost comm
>before they changed my routing? By the book I should have continued to
>fly my clearance, which would have run me into a mountain around GMN, so
>that's probably not the right answer. Viable possibilities seem to
>include:

There's only one. You fly it as last cleared.
You arrive at the expected time as the expected place.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mxsmanic]

Roger writes:

> There's only one. You fly it as last cleared.
> You arrive at the expected time as the expected place.

Even if the expected place is a mountainside? He mentioned that his last
clearance would have sent him into a mountain eventually. What do you do
then? I'm curious, too.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:03:57 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>Last night I flew from SJC to VNY. To my astonishment I was cleared
>vectors to SNS, then direct VNY (despite having filed a more standard
>routing) at 9000 feet. I knew perfectly well that the routing was going
>to change because I've done that route a zillion times, and indeed, near
>Bakersfield they switched me over to the standard LHS, LYNXX8 arrival,
>followed by vectors to the ILS RWY 16R.
>
>My question is: what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost comm
>before they changed my routing? By the book I should have continued to
>fly my clearance, which would have run me into a mountain around GMN, so
>that's probably not the right answer. Viable possibilities seem to
>include:
>
>1. Divert (or climb) just enough to avoid the terrain around GMN, fly
>to VNY, and commence an approach from there.
>
>2. As above, but vector myself for the ILS before reaching VNY.
>
>3&4 - as above but fly to LHS and the LYNXX8 arrival.
>
>5. Divert to the nearest airport with an IAP.
>
>My aircraft is /G so I know pretty much exactly where I am at all times.
>
>rg
>

"By the book", the route you fly should be the last clearance.

I don't understand, however, why you would run into a mountain if you are
following the altitude rules of the "lost-comm" regulations. Is your
aircraft not able to climb to the minimum IFR altitude for your route? If
that is the case, you have an emergency situation and can do whatever you
need to do.

Real world: I'm not familiar with your area. I would squawk 7600 and,
depending on my location, probably fly that "usual" clearance. Once ATC
notes that you have lost comm, they'll try to figure out what you're doing
and should be protecting all the approaches at VNY.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[ArtP]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:08:26 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:


>Even if the expected place is a mountainside? He mentioned that his last
>clearance would have sent him into a mountain eventually. What do you do
>then? I'm curious, too.

You still fly the assigned route at the highest of the last assigned
altitude (or any expected altitude at the expected time) or the
minimum altitude for the route.

[ArtP]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:51:48 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

> Is your
>aircraft not able to climb to the minimum IFR altitude for your route? If
>that is the case, you have an emergency situation and can do whatever you
>need to do.

You might have to explain why you accepted the route if you knew you
could not fly it.

[Mxsmanic]

ArtP writes:

> You might have to explain why you accepted the route if you knew you
> could not fly it.

Many routes will eventually intersect terrain if there are mountains nearby.
Nevertheless, you might well accept the route if you expect to be given a new
heading or altitude before you get near terrain. If your radio fails,
however, the situation changes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> ArtP writes:
>
>> You might have to explain why you accepted the route if you knew you
>> could not fly it.
>
> Many routes will eventually intersect terrain if there are mountains
> nearby.
> Nevertheless, you might well accept the route if you expect to be given a
> new
> heading or altitude before you get near terrain. If your radio fails,
> however, the situation changes.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You can't file or accept a route you can't fly just because you're sure of a
re-route. You have to assume that you will lose comm shortly after takeoff
and fly the whole thing, as filed, minimim altitudes included.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Robert Chambers]

Travis Marlatte wrote:
>
> You can't file or accept a route you can't fly just because you're sure of a
> re-route. You have to assume that you will lose comm shortly after takeoff
> and fly the whole thing, as filed, minimim altitudes included.
>

You're arguing IFR with someone who never leaves his bedroom.

[Mxsmanic]

Travis Marlatte writes:

> You can't file or accept a route you can't fly just because you're sure of a
> re-route.

Sure you can. Aircraft do it all the time. For example, you can be assigned
a route and altitude from the West Coast (of the U.S.) that will take you
right into the side of a mountain if you continue on it long enough; but you
accept it anyway because you know that ATC will change your heading and
altitude long before that happens.

> You have to assume that you will lose comm shortly after takeoff
> and fly the whole thing, as filed, minimim altitudes included.

But what if you are given vectors and altitude well after take-off, and these
will _eventually_ lead you into a mountain, and you lose communications before
ATC can change them? Do you return to your original flight plan, no matter
what kind of altitude or course changes are required? Do you fly the last
vectors you were given, and veer away from them only when it becomes unsafe to
fly them (and which way do you go?)? What do you do?

If you receive vectors very different from your filed route in crowded
airspace and you then lose your radio, trying to return to your originally
filed route might be dangerous. At the same time, you can't indefinitely
follow vectors that will take you into terrain. If you follow the latter
vectors, at some point you must deviate from them to avoid terrain--which way
do you go then?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ArtP writes:
>
>> You might have to explain why you accepted the route if you knew you
>> could not fly it.
>
> Many routes will eventually intersect terrain if there are mountains nearby.
> Nevertheless, you might well accept the route if you expect to be given a new
> heading or altitude before you get near terrain. If your radio fails,
> however, the situation changes.
>

Radio failure has nothing to do with what the OP asked. He
asked about the routing should he have been IMC. ArtP's inference still
stands. If you are IMC and accepted a route that you may not have been
able to fly, you will have some explaining to do about why you accepted
a route that could put you into that mountainside.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF8wBbyBkZmuMZ8L8RAqG9AJ4s7drKopSl/OCrtklhDShTHFPchgCgjLJF
hvMYao1VsmmZOcehYYgeE8g=
=B3vt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:03:57 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >Last night I flew from SJC to VNY. To my astonishment I was cleared
> >vectors to SNS, then direct VNY (despite having filed a more standard
> >routing) at 9000 feet. I knew perfectly well that the routing was going
> >to change because I've done that route a zillion times, and indeed, near
> >Bakersfield they switched me over to the standard LHS, LYNXX8 arrival,
> >followed by vectors to the ILS RWY 16R.
> >
> >My question is: what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost comm
> >before they changed my routing? By the book I should have continued to
> >fly my clearance, which would have run me into a mountain around GMN, so
> >that's probably not the right answer. Viable possibilities seem to
> >include:
> >
> >1. Divert (or climb) just enough to avoid the terrain around GMN, fly
> >to VNY, and commence an approach from there.
> >
> >2. As above, but vector myself for the ILS before reaching VNY.
> >
> >3&4 - as above but fly to LHS and the LYNXX8 arrival.
> >
> >5. Divert to the nearest airport with an IAP.
> >
> >My aircraft is /G so I know pretty much exactly where I am at all times.
> >
> >rg
> >
>
> "By the book", the route you fly should be the last clearance.

Yes, I know that. That is why the subject of this post is "What do you
do in the real world?"

> I don't understand, however, why you would run into a mountain if you are
> following the altitude rules of the "lost-comm" regulations. Is your
> aircraft not able to climb to the minimum IFR altitude for your route?

The assigned route was not on an airway, and so there is no minimum IFR
altitude on the route. The first 250 miles or so are over pretty flat
terrain. It is only shortly before you get to the destination that the
mountains begin.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
ArtP > wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:51:48 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> > wrote:
>
> > Is your
> >aircraft not able to climb to the minimum IFR altitude for your route? If
> >that is the case, you have an emergency situation and can do whatever you
> >need to do.
>
> You might have to explain why you accepted the route if you knew you
> could not fly it.

Of course I could fly it, just not at the initially assigned altitude.
That is why my option #1 was to climb.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> The assigned route was not on an airway, and so there is no minimum IFR
> altitude on the route.

Correction (because I know the FAR mavens are going to be all over me
for that one): I should have said, "The minimum IFR altitude is not
easily determined." By the book it's either 1000 or 2000 feet about the
highest obstacle within 4 nautical miles depending on whether or not the
area is designated mountainous. Taking that rule and actually figuring
out where you are supposed to begin to climb and how high (and, more to
the point, where you are supposed to begin to descend, because your
destination is just on the other side of the mountains in this case) is
not such an easy thing to do in flight.

rg

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Ron Garret wrote:

> The assigned route was not on an airway, and so there is no minimum IFR
> altitude on the route.

Not so. If you're off an airway, then the off-route obstacle
clearance altitude (OROCA) applies, and is printed on the LO charts.

> The first 250 miles or so are over pretty flat terrain. It is only
> shortly before you get to the destination that the mountains begin.

Lost comm minimum altitudes apply per segment, not per leg. So in
this case, you would need to climb when you enter the grid square
containing tall rocks.

- FChE

[John R. Copeland]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
>> The assigned route was not on an airway, and so there is no minimum IFR
>> altitude on the route.
>
> Correction (because I know the FAR mavens are going to be all over me
> for that one): I should have said, "The minimum IFR altitude is not
> easily determined." By the book it's either 1000 or 2000 feet about the
> highest obstacle within 4 nautical miles depending on whether or not the
> area is designated mountainous. Taking that rule and actually figuring
> out where you are supposed to begin to climb and how high (and, more to
> the point, where you are supposed to begin to descend, because your
> destination is just on the other side of the mountains in this case) is
> not such an easy thing to do in flight.
>

Aren't the Grid MORAs shown on your enroute charts?
You said you are /G equipped, and thus know where you are.

[ArtP]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:38:27 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:


>Of course I could fly it, just not at the initially assigned altitude.
>That is why my option #1 was to climb.

All I said was that it was not an option (assuming no emergency)
because you are expected to fly at or above the MEA for the route even
if it is higher than the initially assigned altitude.

[Newps]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> Radio failure has nothing to do with what the OP asked. He
> asked about the routing should he have been IMC. ArtP's inference still
> stands. If you are IMC and accepted a route that you may not have been
> able to fly,

He could fly it just fine, it was a vector. ATC does it all the time
and in reality isn't a route at all as there is no non radar component
to it.


you will have some explaining to do about why you accepted
> a route that could put you into that mountainside.

Hogwash. ATC would never vector an airplane if every aircraft refused
because at some point you would hit something. The answer to the
question is if you lose comm you take care of yourself. It is an
emergency situation if terrain is a factor. You do what ever you have
to to avoid terrain/obstructions.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Newps > wrote:
>
>
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
>> Radio failure has nothing to do with what the OP asked. He
>> asked about the routing should he have been IMC. ArtP's inference still
>> stands. If you are IMC and accepted a route that you may not have been
>> able to fly,
>
> He could fly it just fine, it was a vector. ATC does it all the time
> and in reality isn't a route at all as there is no non radar component
> to it.

If it was a vector, that changes the whole story. If it was a
clearance that he wasn't going to be able to accept, then there would
be some questions.

> you will have some explaining to do about why you accepted
>> a route that could put you into that mountainside.
>
> Hogwash. ATC would never vector an airplane if every aircraft refused
> because at some point you would hit something. The answer to the
> question is if you lose comm you take care of yourself. It is an
> emergency situation if terrain is a factor. You do what ever you have
> to to avoid terrain/obstructions.

Oh, I agree. ATC would never vector a plane like that, don't
get me wrong. But as the OP had mentioned, if he accepted a routing
that he believed he couldn't fly and the weather was IMC, the question
would have to be asked on why he accepted that routing in the first
place.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF80oHyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkfRAKDzFEOSiRcQm15A1HjHPo YsysLEWACgil9H
TCKtdW0HAN+xSn/DofOI5Mk=
=25D3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"John R. Copeland" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Ron Garret > wrote:
> >
> >> The assigned route was not on an airway, and so there is no minimum IFR
> >> altitude on the route.
> >
> > Correction (because I know the FAR mavens are going to be all over me
> > for that one): I should have said, "The minimum IFR altitude is not
> > easily determined." By the book it's either 1000 or 2000 feet about the
> > highest obstacle within 4 nautical miles depending on whether or not the
> > area is designated mountainous. Taking that rule and actually figuring
> > out where you are supposed to begin to climb and how high (and, more to
> > the point, where you are supposed to begin to descend, because your
> > destination is just on the other side of the mountains in this case) is
> > not such an easy thing to do in flight.
> >
>
> Aren't the Grid MORAs shown on your enroute charts?
> You said you are /G equipped, and thus know where you are.

Heh, you know, I had forgotten all about those. I've never had occasion
to use them until now.

rg

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:31:00 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>The assigned route was not on an airway, and so there is no minimum IFR
>altitude on the route. The first 250 miles or so are over pretty flat
>terrain. It is only shortly before you get to the destination that the
>mountains begin.

Of course there is.

And you can obtain it from a sectional, an enroute chart, or (at least in
my case) from my GPS.

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

[Tim]

Ron Garret wrote:
> Last night I flew from SJC to VNY. To my astonishment I was cleared
> vectors to SNS, then direct VNY (despite having filed a more standard
> routing) at 9000 feet. I knew perfectly well that the routing was going
> to change because I've done that route a zillion times, and indeed, near
> Bakersfield they switched me over to the standard LHS, LYNXX8 arrival,
> followed by vectors to the ILS RWY 16R.
>
> My question is: what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost comm
> before they changed my routing? By the book I should have continued to
> fly my clearance, which would have run me into a mountain around GMN, so
> that's probably not the right answer. Viable possibilities seem to
> include:
>
> 1. Divert (or climb) just enough to avoid the terrain around GMN, fly
> to VNY, and commence an approach from there.
>
> 2. As above, but vector myself for the ILS before reaching VNY.
>
> 3&4 - as above but fly to LHS and the LYNXX8 arrival.
>
> 5. Divert to the nearest airport with an IAP.
>
> My aircraft is /G so I know pretty much exactly where I am at all times.
>
> rg
>
> References:
>
> LYNXX8 arrival:
> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0702/00067LYNXX.PD
> F
>
> ILS RWY 16R approach:
> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0702/00552I16R.PDF

If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
someone (including yourself killed.)

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Travis Marlatte writes:
>
>
>>You can't file or accept a route you can't fly just because you're sure of a
>>re-route.
>
>
> Sure you can. Aircraft do it all the time. For example, you can be assigned
> a route and altitude from the West Coast (of the U.S.) that will take you
> right into the side of a mountain if you continue on it long enough; but you
> accept it anyway because you know that ATC will change your heading and
> altitude long before that happens.
>
>
>>You have to assume that you will lose comm shortly after takeoff
>>and fly the whole thing, as filed, minimim altitudes included.
>
>
> But what if you are given vectors and altitude well after take-off, and these
> will _eventually_ lead you into a mountain, and you lose communications before
> ATC can change them? Do you return to your original flight plan, no matter
> what kind of altitude or course changes are required? Do you fly the last
> vectors you were given, and veer away from them only when it becomes unsafe to
> fly them (and which way do you go?)? What do you do?
>
> If you receive vectors very different from your filed route in crowded
> airspace and you then lose your radio, trying to return to your originally
> filed route might be dangerous. At the same time, you can't indefinitely
> follow vectors that will take you into terrain. If you follow the latter
> vectors, at some point you must deviate from them to avoid terrain--which way
> do you go then?
>

Don't worry about it. Keep playing the msfs game. It is beyond you.
However, if you feel like you really need to know you can pick up the
FARs and the AIM and read it. It is in plain English.

[Newps]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

>
> If it was a vector, that changes the whole story.

That is the story, the original basis for the question...what do you do
if while on a vector you go Nordo.



>
> Oh, I agree. ATC would never vector a plane like that, don't
> get me wrong.



ATC vectors like that everyday. You can't get into Denver, Salt Lake,
Boise, Kalispell, Butte, Missoula and a lot of other places efficiently
without being vectored. And if you go Nordo you better realize it
because you are well below the terrain within 20 miles of you.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> If it was a vector, that changes the whole story.

It was indeed a vector from the beginning, so the story hasn't changed at all.

> If it was a
> clearance that he wasn't going to be able to accept, then there would
> be some questions.

I don't recall any mention of a clearance.

> Oh, I agree. ATC would never vector a plane like that, don't
> get me wrong. But as the OP had mentioned, if he accepted a routing
> that he believed he couldn't fly and the weather was IMC, the question
> would have to be asked on why he accepted that routing in the first
> place.

Since this was not the hypothetical situation, the way it would be handled is
moot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
> someone (including yourself killed.)

If you know, you should explain the answer here. If you don't, why bother
with the melodramatic lecture?

I'll assume that you don't know, and apparently nobody else here knows and
nobody can be bothered to look it up.

This situation is explicitly covered by FAR 91.185 in the United States, which
reads as follows:

==
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B--Flight Rules
Instrument Flight Rules

Sec. 91.185

IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way
radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the
rules of this section.

(b) VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR
conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the
flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.

(c) IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if paragraph
(b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the
flight according to the following:

(1) Route.
(i) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(ii) If being radar vectored, by the direct route from the point of
radio failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector
clearance;
(iii) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has
advised may be expected in a further clearance; or
(iv) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has
advised may be expected in a further clearance, by the route filed
in the flight plan.

(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels
for the route segment being flown:
(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance
received;
(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight
level as prescribed in Sec. 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or
(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in
a further clearance.

(3) Leave clearance limit.
(i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins,
commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to
the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or
if one has not been received, as close as possible to the estimated
time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC)
estimated time en route.
(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins,
leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if
one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival
over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach
begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as
possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the
filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
==

So the (partial) answer is: Continue with the assigned heading, and maintain
altitude as in (c)(2) above. Part (c)(2)(ii) should keep you above terrain
(FAR 91.177). This still leaves some unanswered questions, though. If you
are given a heading without a fix, and the heading does not intercept your
flight plan or any approach or any expected routing, where do you go? In VMC
you are clearly expected to go VFR and land. In IMC, what do you do?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
> >
> > If it was a vector, that changes the whole story.
>
> That is the story, the original basis for the question...what do you do
> if while on a vector you go Nordo.

Actually, it wasn't a vector, it was an off-airway direct clearance.
Similar to a vector in some respects, but not the same thing.

rg

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:41:34 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > If it was a vector, that changes the whole story.
>>
>> That is the story, the original basis for the question...what do you do
>> if while on a vector you go Nordo.
>
>Actually, it wasn't a vector, it was an off-airway direct clearance.
>Similar to a vector in some respects, but not the same thing.

It's still a clearance. You fly as cleared be it direct, vector, or
airway. Think of it this way. You have told they what your plan on
doing (fligth plan) If they amend it then you fly the amended
clearance be it a segment or one that takes you to your destination.
So if you were them they expect you to be where you told them you
would be when you told them you would be unless they have changed part
or all of it. So even without radio you are supposed to be where they
expect you to be. UNLESS you encounter VFR conditions. Then you are
expected to head for a nearby airport, and call. If the transponder is
still working follow lost com procedure.

>
>rg
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
>>someone (including yourself killed.)
>
>
> If you know, you should explain the answer here. If you don't, why bother
> with the melodramatic lecture?
>
> I'll assume that you don't know, and apparently nobody else here knows and
> nobody can be bothered to look it up.
>
> This situation is explicitly covered by FAR 91.185 in the United States, which
> reads as follows:
>
<snip>

I know the answer. My point is that a pilot should not get anywhere
near an IFR flight plan if he/she doesn't know the answer to that
question. I am not being melodramatic. It can get you killed. You
NEED to know that stuff.


The fact that the person did not even look it up and instead came to a
newsgroup for an answer is also a problem.

Your assumption tht those who don't post the answer don't know the
answer is ridiculous.

Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
disaster.

In your little world of games, icing, lost comms, etc don't happen, and
when they do no one dies. In the real world pilots like these can kill
themselves and others. I don't want them flying around when I am up
there flying around.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> I know the answer. My point is that a pilot should not get anywhere
> near an IFR flight plan if he/she doesn't know the answer to that
> question. I am not being melodramatic. It can get you killed. You
> NEED to know that stuff.

So what is the answer?

> The fact that the person did not even look it up and instead came to a
> newsgroup for an answer is also a problem.

Where would he look it up?

> Your assumption tht those who don't post the answer don't know the
> answer is ridiculous.

It's actually very logical. People who have the answer are usually more than
willing to give it. Those who don't are usually eager to find a way to
distract attention from their failure to provide an answer. And, of course,
some people just make things up.

> Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
> disaster.

So when I don't look something up, it's bad; and when I do look something up,
it's bad. Do you see a problem here?

> In your little world of games, icing, lost comms, etc don't happen, and
> when they do no one dies. In the real world pilots like these can kill
> themselves and others. I don't want them flying around when I am up
> there flying around.

Since you don't know what to do in this situation, I suppose yours would be
the first NTSB report.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>I know the answer. My point is that a pilot should not get anywhere
>>near an IFR flight plan if he/she doesn't know the answer to that
>>question. I am not being melodramatic. It can get you killed. You
>>NEED to know that stuff.
>
>
> So what is the answer?

I believe your question was: "This still leaves some unanswered
questions, though. If you are given a heading without a fix, and the
heading does not intercept your flight plan or any approach or any
expected routing, where do you go? In VMC you are clearly expected to
go VFR and land. In IMC, what do you do?"

If you don't know the regulation and the controller makes a mistake
(they do) and does not give you the fix/reason you are being vectored,
then it is ambiguous. You always need to know why you are being
vectored and what you are being vectored to. So if you get vectors and
are not told anything else other than you are being vectored you need to
ask them why/where to, etc. They are required to give that information
to you.

>
>
>>The fact that the person did not even look it up and instead came to a
>>newsgroup for an answer is also a problem.
>
>
> Where would he look it up?
>
>
>>Your assumption tht those who don't post the answer don't know the
>>answer is ridiculous.
>
>
> It's actually very logical. People who have the answer are usually more than
> willing to give it. Those who don't are usually eager to find a way to
> distract attention from their failure to provide an answer. And, of course,
> some people just make things up.

Your logic is flawed. Not all people are like you and want to show off
how much they (think they) know.

>
>
>>Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
>>disaster.
>
>
> So when I don't look something up, it's bad; and when I do look something up,
> it's bad. Do you see a problem here?

I didn't say that. Not looking it up or knowing where to look it up is
a problem. It is one thing if it is a vfr pilot asking - or someone
curious about it. But if the pilot is instrument rated and files IFR
for flights he/she should know it. That person probably then has other
gaps in their training and is a danger to himself and others.

>
>
>>In your little world of games, icing, lost comms, etc don't happen, and
>>when they do no one dies. In the real world pilots like these can kill
>>themselves and others. I don't want them flying around when I am up
>>there flying around.
>
>
> Since you don't know what to do in this situation, I suppose yours would be
> the first NTSB report.
>

<explitive deleted> you.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Tim > wrote:

> >>If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
> >>someone (including yourself killed.)
....
> I know the answer.

Then what is it? And please note that the question is not what do you
do by the book. The question is what do you do in the real world.

(Actually it turns out that there are some interesting subtleties
involved in figuring out what to do in this case even by the book.)

> Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
> disaster.

I would think that allowing ignorant pilots to remain ignorant would be
a much surer route to disaster.

For the record, the weather was VFR the whole way (and I knew it) so I
was a good deal more casual about it than I would have been if it had
been IMC the whole way. (I also strongly suspect that if it had been
IMC the whole way I would not have received a direct clearance. I've
flown that route a zillion times and it's never happened before.)

rg

[Tim]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> Tim > wrote:
>
>
>>>>If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
>>>>someone (including yourself killed.)
>
> ...
>
>>I know the answer.
>
>
> Then what is it? And please note that the question is not what do you
> do by the book. The question is what do you do in the real world.
>
> (Actually it turns out that there are some interesting subtleties
> involved in figuring out what to do in this case even by the book.)
>
>
>>Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
>>disaster.
>
>
> I would think that allowing ignorant pilots to remain ignorant would be
> a much surer route to disaster.
>
> For the record, the weather was VFR the whole way (and I knew it) so I
> was a good deal more casual about it than I would have been if it had
> been IMC the whole way. (I also strongly suspect that if it had been
> IMC the whole way I would not have received a direct clearance. I've
> flown that route a zillion times and it's never happened before.)
>
> rg

I am not sure how to answer this if you don't want to believe that you
are expected to do what it says in part 91. If you want to make up your
own stuff or do things other people do in the "real world" then go ahead.

As an aside - the whole atc "you are x miles from x, maintain x thousand
feet until established - cleared ILS x at x." was put into place because
in the "real world" people (including atp pilots) were not flying "by
the book" but flying in "the real world." You can find that crash that
killed lots of people if you like. Flying in the real world can kill
you. Go ahead and ignore the regs. I just hope the next time I am IFR
in IMC and some cowboy who lost comms does not come flying into me
because he decided to "vector himself" to an approach when he should
have been following the rules.

Most likely ATC is going to shut down a bunch of airspace if they lose
comms with someone. Unfortunately they appear to be justified in doing
that because of the ignorance and insistence of the stuff in this thread.

I don't make stuff up when I fly an IFR plan. It doesn't lend itself to
staying alive.

[Tim]

Ron Garret wrote:
<snip>

>
>
> First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
> put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
> rise to.

How is this an emergency?

>
> Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
> GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
> less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are. Just because they were written
before GPS does not mean they are no longer valid. RNAV was around
long before GPSs.

>
> Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
> classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
> the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
> spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
> again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
> approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
> the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
> approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
> conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
> know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
> violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here? Can you get that
information from the controllers in writing?

While your specific example may work for you in this case, applying that
logic in other places will get you killed. If you follow the regs the
way they are written you will be fine and you won't get in trouble. If
you have an emergency (and I don;t think a non-op comms radio qualifies)
then you certainly can do whatever you need to do to make a safe ending
to the flight.


How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?

Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.

>
> And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
> regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
> which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
> published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
> IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
> that point.
>

So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
difference I think.

VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
published approach rather than your own vectors?

VTU is an NOPT to the LDA.
So is FIM

If you want to use your GPS you can use that for the GPS approaches.
You have your pick of the approaches and the IAFs.

> rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Tim > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Tim > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get
> >>>>someone (including yourself killed.)
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>I know the answer.
> >
> >
> > Then what is it? And please note that the question is not what do you
> > do by the book. The question is what do you do in the real world.
> >
> > (Actually it turns out that there are some interesting subtleties
> > involved in figuring out what to do in this case even by the book.)
> >
> >
> >>Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to
> >>disaster.
> >
> >
> > I would think that allowing ignorant pilots to remain ignorant would be
> > a much surer route to disaster.
> >
> > For the record, the weather was VFR the whole way (and I knew it) so I
> > was a good deal more casual about it than I would have been if it had
> > been IMC the whole way. (I also strongly suspect that if it had been
> > IMC the whole way I would not have received a direct clearance. I've
> > flown that route a zillion times and it's never happened before.)
> >
> > rg
>
> I am not sure how to answer this if you don't want to believe that you
> are expected to do what it says in part 91. If you want to make up your
> own stuff or do things other people do in the "real world" then go ahead.

First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
rise to.

Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> I believe your question was: "This still leaves some unanswered
> questions, though. If you are given a heading without a fix, and the
> heading does not intercept your flight plan or any approach or any
> expected routing, where do you go? In VMC you are clearly expected to
> go VFR and land. In IMC, what do you do?"

Right. What's the answer?

> If you don't know the regulation and the controller makes a mistake
> (they do) and does not give you the fix/reason you are being vectored,
> then it is ambiguous. You always need to know why you are being
> vectored and what you are being vectored to. So if you get vectors and
> are not told anything else other than you are being vectored you need to
> ask them why/where to, etc. They are required to give that information
> to you.

Maybe, but it's extraordinarily common to just hear "turn left heading 045"
without any further explanation, particularly during an approach.

What do you do then?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> For the record, the weather was VFR the whole way (and I knew it) so I
> was a good deal more casual about it than I would have been if it had
> been IMC the whole way.

If visual conditions prevailed, the regulations say you should fly as if you
were under VFR. Which is all well and good, I suppose, but it doesn't provide
much guidance. The real question is: What should you do such that ATC will be
able to understand and anticipate your actions, so that they can continue to
provide separation? Just flying as if you were VFR doesn't answer that
question, because even VFR you'd normally be in communication with ATC in
controlled airspace, and in this case you've lost that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> I don't make stuff up when I fly an IFR plan. It doesn't lend itself to
> staying alive.

So exactly how do you handle the situation under discussion? You still
haven't answered that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>I believe your question was: "This still leaves some unanswered
>>questions, though. If you are given a heading without a fix, and the
>>heading does not intercept your flight plan or any approach or any
>>expected routing, where do you go? In VMC you are clearly expected to
>>go VFR and land. In IMC, what do you do?"
>
>
> Right. What's the answer?
>
>
>>If you don't know the regulation and the controller makes a mistake
>>(they do) and does not give you the fix/reason you are being vectored,
>>then it is ambiguous. You always need to know why you are being
>>vectored and what you are being vectored to. So if you get vectors and
>>are not told anything else other than you are being vectored you need to
>>ask them why/where to, etc. They are required to give that information
>>to you.
>
>
> Maybe, but it's extraordinarily common to just hear "turn left heading 045"
> without any further explanation, particularly during an approach.
>
> What do you do then?
>


Are you purposely being dense? I just explained what you do/the
requirements from controllers when issuing vectors to/for something.
When you are getting vectors - you hear that initially/once. They don't
say it every time they give you a new vector. They are required to tell
you where/why you are being vectored. So, your question is moot. The
FARs (that you quoted) allow and require this. If you accept vectors
and do not know what they are for it is your responsibility to correct
that situation.

Do you always argue with people when they give you answers after you
have insulted them, told them don;t know the answer and then actually
get a correct response?

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> How is this an emergency?

It endangers the flight and other flights around it. Losing all communication
in crowded, controlled airspace is clearly an emergency.

> If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
> controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?

If you already know the answer, why have you still not provided it?

> While your specific example may work for you in this case, applying that
> logic in other places will get you killed. If you follow the regs the
> way they are written you will be fine and you won't get in trouble.

So what's the answer?

> If you have an emergency (and I don;t think a non-op comms radio qualifies)
> then you certainly can do whatever you need to do to make a safe ending
> to the flight.

Why doesn't an inoperative radio qualify? You're in airspace that requires
two-way radio communication.

> So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
> reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

So enlighten everyone by explaining exactly what he should do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mark Hansen]

On 03/11/07 11:41, Ron Garret wrote:

[ snip ]

>
> First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
> put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
> rise to.

Well, *anything* can lead to an emergency situation. However, there are
regulations written specifically for the case of lost communications.
If you deem that lost communications is an emergency, and use that to
justify doing whatever you want, you're in violation of the regs.

>
> Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
> GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
> less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.
>
> Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
> classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
> the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
> spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
> again.

I haven't looked at this particular approach, but I'll assume you're
referring to the fact that your clearance limit is the airport, and
that the regs require you to go to the clearance limit first?

First of all, this is what the regulations tell you to do, and this is
what you must do. Period. The fact that some controllers tell you that
they would rather you do something different is irrelevant. They will
not be defending you in a certificate action case.

Incidentally, when I file an IFR flight plan, I select a fix which I can
use to initiate my approach, and put a note in the remarks section which
states:

"In the event of lost communications, XYZ shall be treated as my
clearance limit."

This way, I don't have to do the back and forth - and it's legal (and
expected by ATC).

> This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
> approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
> the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
> approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
> conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
> know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
> violates the regs.
>
> And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
> regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
> which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
> published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
> IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
> that point.

Not really. According to the regs, you go to your clearance limit, then to
a point where you can begin your approach. Once you're on a published leg
of the approach, you fly it's altitudes. This means you can begin your
descent once you're on the IAP. If you need to hold at the fix to lose
altitude, you do that.

>
> rg



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

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>How is this an emergency?
>
>
> It endangers the flight and other flights around it. Losing all communication
> in crowded, controlled airspace is clearly an emergency.

Bull****. The radio has no bearing on the safety of flight. The flight
controls all work fine. That is why you file an ifr flight plan. You
state on it your airspeed. If not under radar, you make position
reports. If under radar no need to. This is why the regulations (you
already quoted) require different procedures in VFR.

>
>
>>If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
>>controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?
>
>
> If you already know the answer, why have you still not provided it?

Many other have also discussed it and you already posted the relevant
FAR section. The OP claims he got instructions from the local
controllers. So, if that is the case, he should just follow those
instructions. (Or perhaps they are not regulatory)

>
>
>>While your specific example may work for you in this case, applying that
>>logic in other places will get you killed. If you follow the regs the
>>way they are written you will be fine and you won't get in trouble.
>
>
> So what's the answer?

See the FARs you already posted.

>
>
>>If you have an emergency (and I don;t think a non-op comms radio qualifies)
>>then you certainly can do whatever you need to do to make a safe ending
>>to the flight.
>
>
> Why doesn't an inoperative radio qualify? You're in airspace that requires
> two-way radio communication.

If you are saying that an inop radio is an emergency then I would
question your judgment as a pilot. If the pilot thinks it is an
emergency, then by all means, "declare" one and treat it as such.

Are you saying that piper cubs are always flying around in states of
emergency? (they have no electrical system and no radios) - unless
modified to have them.

>
>
>>So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
>>reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?
>
>
> So enlighten everyone by explaining exactly what he should do.
>

I thought the regs were clear. Others have also offered it up here.

[Tobias Schnell]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:25:54 -0400, Tim >
wrote:

>> First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
>> put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
>> rise to.
>How is this an emergency?

While losing comm in IMC alone might not qualify as an emergency, more
likely than not it is caused by a more serious malfunction (alternator
failure or even an electrical fire). As without comms the controller
has no way of knowing if that is the case, he is going to vector
everybody out of your area anyway.

Every controller I have discussed this situation with (OK, I'm talking
about Germany here, but the regulations in this case are essentially
the same) told me that the best course of action would be to land
asap.

Imagine losing comm five minutes after takeoff for a three hour flight
in the soup, at night, over mountains. Would you really continue or
simply land at the airport you have just departed from? My certificate
would be the least of my worries, but then you could still quite
easily make an argument for emergency authority, IMHO.

Tobias

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Tim >
wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
> > put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
> > rise to.
>
> How is this an emergency?

I didn't say it was an emergency. I said it could easily give rise to
one.

> > Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
> > GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
> > less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.
>
> I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
> example) you don't know where you are.

I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
much larger.

> Just because they were written before GPS does not mean they are no
> longer valid.

I didn't say that they weren't valid. I said that procedures designed
for VORs make less sense when MMGPS is available.

> > Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
> > classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
> > the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
> > spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
> > again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
> > approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
> > the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
> > approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
> > conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
> > know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
> > violates the regs.
>
> If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
> controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?

That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

> How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
> approach and IAF?

It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

> Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
> that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.

Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

> > And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
> > regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
> > which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
> > published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
> > IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
> > that point.
> >
>
> So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
> reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?
>
> Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
> controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
> difference I think.

The exact wording of my clearance was "Cleared to the Van Nuys airport
via left turn to heading 140 vectors to Salinas VOR then direct."

I've never heard a clearance that ended with anything other than an
unqualified "direct" or "then as filed".

> VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
> published approach rather than your own vectors?

Because I've flown into LA from the north dozens if not hundreds of
times. Invariably my initial clearance ends with a direct leg to KVNY
which is unflyable at 9000 feet (which is the altitude I always file
for). Invariably my clearance is amended once I reach LA Center's
airspace to direct LHS, LYNXXN arrival, and then amended further to be
vectors for the ILS. This is more direct and therefore safer than any
"by the book" route.

But next time I'll try getting that route from the outset and see what
happens.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mark Hansen > wrote:

> I haven't looked at this particular approach, but I'll assume you're
> referring to the fact that your clearance limit is the airport, and
> that the regs require you to go to the clearance limit first?

Correct.

> First of all, this is what the regulations tell you to do, and this is
> what you must do. Period.

I'm not asking what is the required course of action. I am asking what
is the wisest course of action.

> The fact that some controllers tell you that
> they would rather you do something different is irrelevant. They will
> not be defending you in a certificate action case.

Quite so, but keeping my ticket is not my only consideration. There is
also the safety of the flight to consider. Following the regs requires
more time in the air, more maneuvering, more fuel consumption, and
unnecessary traversal of extremely crowded airspace in IMC. All this
entails additional risk. If I'm faced with a choice of risking my
ticket or risking my safety I'll take the former.

> Incidentally, when I file an IFR flight plan, I select a fix which I can
> use to initiate my approach, and put a note in the remarks section which
> states:
>
> "In the event of lost communications, XYZ shall be treated as my
> clearance limit."
>
> This way, I don't have to do the back and forth - and it's legal (and
> expected by ATC).

That seems like a sensible idea. I think I'll try that.

> > This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
> > approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
> > the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
> > approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
> > conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
> > know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
> > violates the regs.
> >
> > And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
> > regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
> > which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
> > published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
> > IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
> > that point.
>
> Not really. According to the regs, you go to your clearance limit, then to
> a point where you can begin your approach. Once you're on a published leg
> of the approach, you fly it's altitudes. This means you can begin your
> descent once you're on the IAP. If you need to hold at the fix to lose
> altitude, you do that.

And what if there is no published hold (as is the case in the current
situation)?

rg

[Robert Chambers]

Tim wrote:

>
> If you are saying that an inop radio is an emergency then I would
> question your judgment as a pilot. If the pilot thinks it is an
> emergency, then by all means, "declare" one and treat it as such.

He's not a farkin pilot, he's not even close.

[Tim]

>
>>>Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
>>>GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
>>>less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.
>>
>>I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
>>example) you don't know where you are.
>
>
> I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
> where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
> cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
> much larger.
>

Why is that relevant?

>
>>Just because they were written before GPS does not mean they are no
>>longer valid.
>
>
> I didn't say that they weren't valid. I said that procedures designed
> for VORs make less sense when MMGPS is available.

You imply that you can do something better than what the regs say and
your justification seemed to be that it is because the regs were written
before gps. I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning.

>
>
>>>Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
>>>classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
>>>the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
>>>spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
>>>again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
>>>approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
>>>the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
>>>approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
>>>conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
>>>know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
>>>violates the regs.
>>
>>If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
>>controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?
>
>
> That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

Again, I misunderstood then. I only quoted you and responded based on
what you wrote.

>
>
>>How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
>>approach and IAF?
>
>
> It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
> a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

How is that a tangent? You can choose any IAF and any approach that
you are able to do when the clearance ends in "direct" - and the airport
is the clearance limit.

>
>
>>Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
>>that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.
>
>
> Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
> you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport. Direct means you
go to an IAF then get to the airport. How are you supposed to land?
You can;t just go to the airport and circle down to land - that is the
whole reason for having defined instrument approaches.

>
>
>>>And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
>>>regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
>>>which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
>>>published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
>>>IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
>>>that point.
>>>
>>
>>So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
>>reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?
>>
>>Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
>>controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
>>difference I think.
>
>
> The exact wording of my clearance was "Cleared to the Van Nuys airport
> via left turn to heading 140 vectors to Salinas VOR then direct."
>
> I've never heard a clearance that ended with anything other than an
> unqualified "direct" or "then as filed".

Right. See above regarding what that last "direct" means. It does not
mean go froom the penultimate fix to the airport. It means go to an
IAF then fly the approach.

>
>
>>VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
>>published approach rather than your own vectors?
>
>
> Because I've flown into LA from the north dozens if not hundreds of
> times. Invariably my initial clearance ends with a direct leg to KVNY
> which is unflyable at 9000 feet (which is the altitude I always file
> for). Invariably my clearance is amended once I reach LA Center's
> airspace to direct LHS, LYNXXN arrival, and then amended further to be
> vectors for the ILS. This is more direct and therefore safer than any
> "by the book" route.
>
> But next time I'll try getting that route from the outset and see what
> happens.
>
> rg

My initial (and I guess overzealous) reaction to your post was that it
seemed like you just didn;t care what "the book" said or what you are
supposed to do based on part 91 regs for ifr flight. That is scary to me.

I'll just drop it here.

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Tim >
wrote:

> >
> >>>Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
> >>>GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
> >>>less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.
> >>
> >>I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
> >>example) you don't know where you are.
> >
> >
> > I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
> > where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
> > cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
> > much larger.
> >
>
> Why is that relevant?

Because the standard procedures involve compromises to compensate for
the delays and errors inherent in VOR navigation. When those delays and
errors do not exist the compromises can make the flight less safe than
it would have been under different procedures.

> >>>Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
> >>>classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
> >>>the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
> >>>spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
> >>>again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
> >>>approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
> >>>the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
> >>>approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
> >>>conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
> >>>know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
> >>>violates the regs.
> >>
> >>If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
> >>controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?
> >
> >
> > That was for a completely different set of circumstances.
>
> Again, I misunderstood then. I only quoted you and responded based on
> what you wrote.

You must not be reading very carefully. I say right there in the part
you quoted that I was talking about a different trip (AVX->FUL).


> >>How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
> >>approach and IAF?
> >
> >
> > It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
> > a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.
>
> How is that a tangent?

Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY. I
only brought up FUL because it's a data point where I've had occasion to
ask controllers for their input, and they unequivocally told me NOT to
follow the regs. (Yes, I know that what controllers say doesn't matter.
Nonetheless, it's a data point.)

> You can choose any IAF and any approach that
> you are able to do when the clearance ends in "direct" - and the airport
> is the clearance limit.

Yes, but by the book you have to fly to the clearance limit first.
91.181(b) is quite clear about this.

> >>Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
> >>that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.
> >
> >
> > Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
> > you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.
>
> Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.

That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?

> Direct means you
> go to an IAF then get to the airport. How are you supposed to land?

My reading of 91.185(c)(3)(ii) seems to imply that you have to fly to
the airport first, then to an IAF.

> You can;t just go to the airport and circle down to land - that is the
> whole reason for having defined instrument approaches.

If you're saying that it's stupid to fly to the airport first, I agree
with you. Hence my question.

> Right. See above regarding what that last "direct" means. It does not
> mean go froom the penultimate fix to the airport. It means go to an
> IAF then fly the approach.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

> My initial (and I guess overzealous) reaction to your post was that it
> seemed like you just didn;t care what "the book" said or what you are
> supposed to do based on part 91 regs for ifr flight. That is scary to me.

Of course I care. But that doesn't mean that I blindly follow the rules
without thinking.

rg

[Tim]

Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>>Again, I misunderstood then. I only quoted you and responded based on
>>what you wrote.
>
>
> You must not be reading very carefully. I say right there in the part
> you quoted that I was talking about a different trip (AVX->FUL).

I was trying to just use your examples.

>
>
>
>>>>How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
>>>>approach and IAF?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
>>>a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.
>>
>>How is that a tangent?
>
>
> Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
> one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY. I
> only brought up FUL because it's a data point where I've had occasion to
> ask controllers for their input, and they unequivocally told me NOT to
> follow the regs. (Yes, I know that what controllers say doesn't matter.
> Nonetheless, it's a data point.)

So you are saying that one has to change operating rules based on the
route of the flight. That is exactly why we are having difficulty
understanding each other. The rules are in place to define what to do
under all circumstances. Saying that something applies in one instance
and not another is bad. What are the criteria then for defining which
set of our own rules that deviate from the FARs is necessary? The ONLY
one i am aware of the the one regarding emergencies.

>
>
>>You can choose any IAF and any approach that
>>you are able to do when the clearance ends in "direct" - and the airport
>>is the clearance limit.
>
>
> Yes, but by the book you have to fly to the clearance limit first.
> 91.181(b) is quite clear about this.
>

It is your clearance limit because that is where you filed to and where
you want to land. You cannot commence your approach until your
clearance limit time/time on your flight plan.

>
>>>>Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
>>>>that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
>>>you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.
>>
>>Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.
>
>
> That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?
>

When you don't lose comms and you file and fly to an airport and do not
get vectors, where do you go to? You go to an IAF, right? Or do you
always go to the airport, then to a navaid that defines an IAF?

>
>>Direct means you
>>go to an IAF then get to the airport. How are you supposed to land?
>
>
> My reading of 91.185(c)(3)(ii) seems to imply that you have to fly to
> the airport first, then to an IAF.
>
>
>>You can;t just go to the airport and circle down to land - that is the
>>whole reason for having defined instrument approaches.
>
>
> If you're saying that it's stupid to fly to the airport first, I agree
> with you. Hence my question.
>
>
>>Right. See above regarding what that last "direct" means. It does not
>>mean go froom the penultimate fix to the airport. It means go to an
>>IAF then fly the approach.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.
>
>
>>My initial (and I guess overzealous) reaction to your post was that it
>>seemed like you just didn;t care what "the book" said or what you are
>>supposed to do based on part 91 regs for ifr flight. That is scary to me.
>
>
> Of course I care. But that doesn't mean that I blindly follow the rules
> without thinking.

I misunderstood your initial question and I apologize for any demeaning
statements. It appeared to me that you were not aware of what the FARs
stated. Again, my apologies.

>
> rg

[Tim]

<snip>
>
> And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
> regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
> which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
> published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
> IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
> that point.

If you don't believe that if your clearance limit is the airport and
that you can pick any approach and IAF and execute it when lost coms,
then you can try this:

from "Instrument Flying Handbook"
FAA H 8083 15
page 10-11

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-15-2.pdf

"Holding Instructions
If you arrive at your clearance limit before receiving clearance
beyond the fix, ATC expects you to maintain the last assigned
altitude and begin holding in accordance with the depicted
holding pattern. If no holding pattern is depicted, you are
expected to begin holding in a standard holding pattern on
the course upon which you approached the fix. You should
immediately request further clearance."

[Newps]

Tim wrote:

>
> "Holding Instructions
> If you arrive at your clearance limit before receiving clearance
> beyond the fix, ATC expects you to maintain the last assigned
> altitude and begin holding in accordance with the depicted
> holding pattern. If no holding pattern is depicted, you are
> expected to begin holding in a standard holding pattern on
> the course upon which you approached the fix. You should
> immediately request further clearance."


You should immediately pick an approach and land so you stop gumming up
the works.

[Tim]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Tim wrote:
>
>>
>> "Holding Instructions
>> If you arrive at your clearance limit before receiving clearance
>> beyond the fix, ATC expects you to maintain the last assigned
>> altitude and begin holding in accordance with the depicted
>> holding pattern. If no holding pattern is depicted, you are
>> expected to begin holding in a standard holding pattern on
>> the course upon which you approached the fix. You should
>> immediately request further clearance."
>
>
>
> You should immediately pick an approach and land so you stop gumming up
> the works.


I agree - but the OP thinks that since his clearance limit is an airport
that he is to fly to that airport, THEN navigate to an IAF to do an
approach. He wanted to know what to do when arriving at a clearance
limit when there are no published holds at that point. I could not
believe someone flying IFR routinely does not know what to do. That is
why I posted it.

I hope you are not saying to do this at any airport.

[Tim]

>
>
> This is not a matter of opinion. My clearance limit was an airport
> (KVNY to be precise).

So, if your clearance limit is the airport, then why do you go to the
airport then the IAF? You should go to an IAF, then land at your
clearance limit - which is the airport.

Here is another question - how would you navigate to the airport, unless
on an IAP? When would you ever use the airport as a fix and not the
destination?

>
>
>>that he is to fly to that airport, THEN navigate to an IAF to do an
>>approach.
>
>
> That is what the regs say to do.

So how in the world would I navigate to the airport using just a VOR?
The only way to do it is to use an IAP. Thus, I fly the IAP to my
clearance limit -0 which is the aiport I filed to.

>
>
>>He wanted to know what to do when arriving at a clearance
>>limit when there are no published holds at that point. I could not
>>believe someone flying IFR routinely does not know what to do.
>
>
> Believe it. I fly IFR routinely. (But I don't lose comm routinely.)
>

Right, but you were also unaware of what to do when reaching a clearance
limit with no more instructions and no published hold.

> rg

[Tim]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> Tim > wrote:
>
>
>>So you are saying that one has to change operating rules based on the
>>route of the flight.
>
>
> No, I am not saying that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
>

I don't have to - they are right here:
"Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY."

If you did not mean that, then please explain to my why you have two
different examples and two different scenarios? I would imagine that
the regulations provide a good description of what has to happen for all
circumstances.

All I tried to point out was the fallacy of your suggestions in your
examples.

>
>>It is your clearance limit because that is where you filed to and where
>>you want to land.
>
>
> No, it was my clearance limit because that is where I was cleared to.
>

Yes, I understand that. And they gave you that clearance limit because
that is what you requested from them - when you filed. That is the end
of your flight and they gave you a clearance to there. It is not a
clearance to hold there is it? Because what you are arguing is that you
really only have a clearance to circle the airport every time you get
a clearance that starts with "cleared to xxx airport" and ends in
"...direct." You are expecting that every time you fly to an airport
you are going to fly to the airport, but somewhere along the line a
controller is going to lead you to an IAF, the final approach course, or
some other way get you to land.

If your clearance limit is an airport, what makes you think you can't
execute an IAP and land? Why would you think that the clearance limit
for your airport is at some altitude other than 0 AGL?

> I am beginning to suspect that MX is right and you don't actually have a
> clue.

That is fine with me.

>
>
>>>>Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?
>>>
>>
>>When you don't lose comms and you file and fly to an airport and do not
>>get vectors, where do you go to? You go to an IAF, right?
>
>
> Not usually. Usually I get vectors to the FAF. I fly in pretty
> congested airspace where full approaches are quite rare.
>
>
>>I misunderstood your initial question and I apologize for any demeaning
>>statements. It appeared to me that you were not aware of what the FARs
>>stated. Again, my apologies.
>
>
> Well, it's possible I'm missing something. We seem to have a difference
> of opinion about what a direct clearance means. I'm still waiting for a
> citation to support your position.
>
> rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Tim >
wrote:

> Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> > Tim wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Holding Instructions
> >> If you arrive at your clearance limit before receiving clearance
> >> beyond the fix, ATC expects you to maintain the last assigned
> >> altitude and begin holding in accordance with the depicted
> >> holding pattern. If no holding pattern is depicted, you are
> >> expected to begin holding in a standard holding pattern on
> >> the course upon which you approached the fix. You should
> >> immediately request further clearance."
> >
> >
> >
> > You should immediately pick an approach and land so you stop gumming up
> > the works.
>
>
> I agree - but the OP thinks that since his clearance limit is an airport

This is not a matter of opinion. My clearance limit was an airport
(KVNY to be precise).

> that he is to fly to that airport, THEN navigate to an IAF to do an
> approach.

That is what the regs say to do.

> He wanted to know what to do when arriving at a clearance
> limit when there are no published holds at that point. I could not
> believe someone flying IFR routinely does not know what to do.

Believe it. I fly IFR routinely. (But I don't lose comm routinely.)

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Tim > wrote:

> So you are saying that one has to change operating rules based on the
> route of the flight.

No, I am not saying that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

> It is your clearance limit because that is where you filed to and where
> you want to land.

No, it was my clearance limit because that is where I was cleared to.

I am beginning to suspect that MX is right and you don't actually have a
clue.

> >>Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.
> >
> >
> > That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?
> >
>
> When you don't lose comms and you file and fly to an airport and do not
> get vectors, where do you go to? You go to an IAF, right?

Not usually. Usually I get vectors to the FAF. I fly in pretty
congested airspace where full approaches are quite rare.

> I misunderstood your initial question and I apologize for any demeaning
> statements. It appeared to me that you were not aware of what the FARs
> stated. Again, my apologies.

Well, it's possible I'm missing something. We seem to have a difference
of opinion about what a direct clearance means. I'm still waiting for a
citation to support your position.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hansen writes:

> If you deem that lost communications is an emergency, and use that to
> justify doing whatever you want, you're in violation of the regs.

You're never in violation of regulations if you deem a situation to be an
emergency. As the pilot in command, your decision on whether or not a
situation is an emergency is final (FAR 91.3).

Two-way communication by radio is required in controlled airspaces because it
is dangerous to have aircraft flying around in them without it. Therefore a
loss of radio communication is a potentially dangerous situation, and a pilot
may well condider it an emergency. The AIM makes this clear (6-4-1(b)). The
determination is made by the pilot alone. Pilots with emergencies are still
expected to adhere to the standard IFR lost-communications procedures to the
extent possible given the nature of their emergencies.

The AIM goes into more detail than the regulations from which it is derived,
but it still does not cover every situation, and explicitly says so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> Quite so, but keeping my ticket is not my only consideration. There is
> also the safety of the flight to consider. Following the regs requires
> more time in the air, more maneuvering, more fuel consumption, and
> unnecessary traversal of extremely crowded airspace in IMC. All this
> entails additional risk. If I'm faced with a choice of risking my
> ticket or risking my safety I'll take the former.

If you declare an emergency, there is no regulatory problem with this. You
don't put your license at risk simply because you do something that you deem
essential for the safety of your flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> If you don't believe that if your clearance limit is the airport and
> that you can pick any approach and IAF and execute it when lost coms,
> then you can try this:
>
> from "Instrument Flying Handbook"
> FAA H 8083 15
> page 10-11
>
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-15-2.pdf
>
> "Holding Instructions
> If you arrive at your clearance limit before receiving clearance
> beyond the fix, ATC expects you to maintain the last assigned
> altitude and begin holding in accordance with the depicted
> holding pattern. If no holding pattern is depicted, you are
> expected to begin holding in a standard holding pattern on
> the course upon which you approached the fix. You should
> immediately request further clearance."

That last part might be difficult without a radio.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Tim wrote:

> > This is not a matter of opinion. My clearance limit was an airport
> > (KVNY to be precise).
>
> So, if your clearance limit is the airport, then why do you go to the
> airport then the IAF? You should go to an IAF, then land at your
> clearance limit - which is the airport.

Indeed, there is confusion about a clearance limit and the route
involved in getting there.

> Here is another question - how would you navigate to the airport,
> unless on an IAP? When would you ever use the airport as a fix and
> not the destination?

When one files flight plans lazily. Our ex-ATC friend at avweb
complains about this regularly. One is supposed to include an
approach facility at the end of the route.

- FChE

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>
>>If you don't believe that if your clearance limit is the airport and
>>that you can pick any approach and IAF and execute it when lost coms,
>>then you can try this:
>>
>>from "Instrument Flying Handbook"
>>FAA H 8083 15
>>page 10-11
>>
>>http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-15-2.pdf
>>
>>"Holding Instructions
>>If you arrive at your clearance limit before receiving clearance
>>beyond the fix, ATC expects you to maintain the last assigned
>>altitude and begin holding in accordance with the depicted
>>holding pattern. If no holding pattern is depicted, you are
>>expected to begin holding in a standard holding pattern on
>>the course upon which you approached the fix. You should
>>immediately request further clearance."
>
>
> That last part might be difficult without a radio.
>


Huh?
The OP was confused about what to do at a clearance limit - regardless
of radio contact. He asserted that at that point he would have to
improvise. That is not the case. Why did you even bother to reply to this?

[Tim]

>>
>>Yes, I understand that. And they gave you that clearance limit because
>>that is what you requested from them - when you filed. That is the end
>>of your flight and they gave you a clearance to there. It is not a
>>clearance to hold there is it? Because what you are arguing is that you
>> really only have a clearance to circle the airport every time you get
>>a clearance that starts with "cleared to xxx airport" and ends in
>>"...direct."
>
>
> No, that is not what I am arguing. I have never said any such thing
> (because that's clearly ridiculous).

You are. You state that you are going to your clearance limit - which
is the airport, THEN, you have to go somewhere else then back to the
airport which was your clearance limit.

>
> I am beginning to lose my patience with you.
>

The feeling is mutual, believe me.

>
>>You are expecting that every time you fly to an airport
>>you are going to fly to the airport, but somewhere along the line a
>>controller is going to lead you to an IAF, the final approach course, or
>>some other way get you to land.
>
>
> No. In fact, the only reason I'm asking the question is because I'm NOT
> expecting what you say I am expecting.

You have stated this many times - you usually get vectors, etc. And
this is the reason you are confused. You also stated that you rarely do
a full approach.

>
>
>>If your clearance limit is an airport, what makes you think you can't
>>execute an IAP and land?
>
>
> Probably the same thing that makes you think that the moon is made of
> green cheese. (You don't think the moon is made of green cheese? That
> would be my point.)


Same thing that happens with a cruise clearance. You are cleared to the
airport and can fly any of the approaches you like.

Losing comms in some ways makes it easier. Fewer things to do. Just
fly the last clearance you were given and land. No need to make things up.

[Tim]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> Tim > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>This is not a matter of opinion. My clearance limit was an airport
>>>(KVNY to be precise).
>>
>>So, if your clearance limit is the airport, then why do you go to the
>>airport then the IAF?
>
>
> Because that's what the regs say. You are the one saying I should be
> following the regs.

I give up.

>
>
>>You should go to an IAF, then land at your
>>clearance limit - which is the airport.
>
>
> An odd bit of advice from someone who believes that one should follow
> the regs and not improvise.
>
>
>>Here is another question - how would you navigate to the airport, unless
>>on an IAP?
>
>
> I enter the airport's identifier into my GPS and hit the "direct" button.
>

And those of us without that magical device? The way to navigate to the
clearance limit - the airport, is to use the IAP. In these cases, any
one that you choose. So, once again, you do NOT go to the airport and
circle around it and hang out. You go to an IAF, then to your clearance
limit and land. What good does it do to be at your destination which is
your clearance limit at 10000 ft?

>
>>When would you ever use the airport as a fix and not the destination?
>
>
> When it is my clearance limit. Are we done with the pop quiz now?

Ugh. we are going round and round...

>
>
>>>>that he is to fly to that airport, THEN navigate to an IAF to do an
>>>>approach.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is what the regs say to do.
>>
>>So how in the world would I navigate to the airport using just a VOR?
>
>
> Non-sequitur. I filed /G. But let me ask you: how would YOU fly direct
> from SNS to an IAP for KVNY using just a VOR?
>
>
>>The only way to do it is to use an IAP.
>
>
> Wow, you really are clueless, aren't you. Are you not aware of the
> existence of IFR-certified GPS? (Are you even a pilot?)
>
I am not the clueless one, Mr Pot. Shall I reintroduce your suggestion
of making **** up when reaching a clearance limit and not having any
further instructions?

My plane does not have a GPS. the regs have to work for me too.

Yes, I am a pilot.

>
>>Right, but you were also unaware of what to do when reaching a clearance
>>limit with no more instructions and no published hold.
>
>
> You should look up the aphorism about people who live in glass houses.

Yes, Mr. Pot.

>
> rg

[Newps]

Tim wrote:

>
>
> I agree - but the OP thinks that since his clearance limit is an airport
> that he is to fly to that airport, THEN navigate to an IAF to do an
> approach. He wanted to know what to do when arriving at a clearance
> limit when there are no published holds at that point. I could not
> believe someone flying IFR routinely does not know what to do. That is
> why I posted it.
>
> I hope you are not saying to do this at any airport.

As a controller at a class C I want you down. We will be watching you
on radar. ATC has no idea what your estrimated time is to any fix in a
radar environment. Don't sit anywhere and hold. If it's VFR pick an
airplane to follow and land, just like your NORDO in the pattern. If
your IMC pick an approach and land.

[Tim]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >, Tim >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The OP was confused about what to do at a clearance limit - regardless
>>of radio contact.
>
>
> Not so. My original question was: "what should I have done if I'd been
> in IMC and lost comm before they changed my routing?
>
> This is the fourth or fifth time you've incorrectly put words in my
> mouth. What is your problem?
>
> rg
Are you ****ing kidding me?

Did you NOT say this?
"And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point."

I am not putting words in your mouth. It is clearly there for all to
see. Your actions in that case are specified regardless of whether you
lost comms or not. That is why I had to post to msmaniac.

You did not know what to do at a clearance limit if there was no
published hold. Or are you going to refute that?

[Tim]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Tim wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I agree - but the OP thinks that since his clearance limit is an
>> airport that he is to fly to that airport, THEN navigate to an IAF to
>> do an approach. He wanted to know what to do when arriving at a
>> clearance limit when there are no published holds at that point. I
>> could not believe someone flying IFR routinely does not know what to
>> do. That is why I posted it.
>>
>> I hope you are not saying to do this at any airport.
>
>
> As a controller at a class C I want you down. We will be watching you
> on radar. ATC has no idea what your estrimated time is to any fix in a
> radar environment. Don't sit anywhere and hold. If it's VFR pick an
> airplane to follow and land, just like your NORDO in the pattern. If
> your IMC pick an approach and land.


That sounds good to me. I was not advocating holding - I was pointing
out that making stuff up was not correct - the situation is addressed
and there is no need to improvise as the OP stated. My point was that
this is the procedure one is supposed to follow nordo or not when you
reach a clearance limit with no other instructions and no published hold
at that limit.

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Tim >
wrote:

> The OP was confused about what to do at a clearance limit - regardless
> of radio contact.

Not so. My original question was: "what should I have done if I'd been
in IMC and lost comm before they changed my routing?

This is the fourth or fifth time you've incorrectly put words in my
mouth. What is your problem?

rg

[Tim]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >, Tim >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Tim >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The OP was confused about what to do at a clearance limit - regardless
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>>of radio contact.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>
>>>Not so. My original question was: "what should I have done if I'd been
>>>in IMC and lost comm before they changed my routing?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>This is the fourth or fifth time you've incorrectly put words in my
>>>mouth. What is your problem?
>>>
>>>rg
>>
>>Are you ****ing kidding me?
>
>
> No. Please re-read the exchange and pay particular attention to the
> highlighted passages.
>
> rg


There is no difference on what one should do at a clearance limit and no
published hold whether or not you are nordo - you do the same thing.
Hold on the course you were flying to the fix.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Tim > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Tim > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So you are saying that one has to change operating rules based on the
> >>route of the flight.
> >
> >
> > No, I am not saying that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
> >
>
> I don't have to - they are right here:
> "Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
> one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY."

Do you speak English as your native language? Do not you understand the
difference between "one HAS TO change the [general] operating rules"
and "[the specifics of] what one does MAY OR MAY NOT
apply "?

> If you did not mean that, then please explain to my why you have two
> different examples and two different scenarios?

The first scenario is the one I am interested in. I raised the second
merely to point out that there is not a universal consensus that blindly
following the rules is always the right thing to do.
[i][i]
> >>It is your clearance limit because that is where you filed to and where
> >>you want to land.
> >
> >
> > No, it was my clearance limit because that is where I was cleared to.
> >
>
> Yes, I understand that. And they gave you that clearance limit because
> that is what you requested from them - when you filed. That is the end
> of your flight and they gave you a clearance to there. It is not a
> clearance to hold there is it? Because what you are arguing is that you
> really only have a clearance to circle the airport every time you get
> a clearance that starts with "cleared to xxx airport" and ends in
> "...direct."

No, that is not what I am arguing. I have never said any such thing
(because that's clearly ridiculous).

I am beginning to lose my patience with you.

> You are expecting that every time you fly to an airport
> you are going to fly to the airport, but somewhere along the line a
> controller is going to lead you to an IAF, the final approach course, or
> some other way get you to land.

No. In fact, the only reason I'm asking the question is because I'm NOT
expecting what you say I am expecting.

> If your clearance limit is an airport, what makes you think you can't
> execute an IAP and land?

Probably the same thing that makes you think that the moon is made of
green cheese. (You don't think the moon is made of green cheese? That
would be my point.)

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Tim > wrote:

> >
> >
> > This is not a matter of opinion. My clearance limit was an airport
> > (KVNY to be precise).
>
> So, if your clearance limit is the airport, then why do you go to the
> airport then the IAF?

Because that's what the regs say. You are the one saying I should be
following the regs.

> You should go to an IAF, then land at your
> clearance limit - which is the airport.

An odd bit of advice from someone who believes that one should follow
the regs and not improvise.

> Here is another question - how would you navigate to the airport, unless
> on an IAP?

I enter the airport's identifier into my GPS and hit the "direct" button.

> When would you ever use the airport as a fix and not the destination?

When it is my clearance limit. Are we done with the pop quiz now?

> >>that he is to fly to that airport, THEN navigate to an IAF to do an
> >>approach.
> >
> >
> > That is what the regs say to do.
>
> So how in the world would I navigate to the airport using just a VOR?

Non-sequitur. I filed /G. But let me ask you: how would YOU fly direct
from SNS to an IAP for KVNY using just a VOR?

> The only way to do it is to use an IAP.

Wow, you really are clueless, aren't you. Are you not aware of the
existence of IFR-certified GPS? (Are you even a pilot?)

> Right, but you were also unaware of what to do when reaching a clearance
> limit with no more instructions and no published hold.

You should look up the aphorism about people who live in glass houses.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
(Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:

> > Here is another question - how would you navigate to the airport,
> > unless on an IAP? When would you ever use the airport as a fix and
> > not the destination?
>
> When one files flight plans lazily.

For the record, I filed ROM-AVE-LHS-direct. (In my entire IFR career I
have only once received a clearance that was simply "as filed" so I
often wonder why I bother.)

> Our ex-ATC friend at avweb
> complains about this regularly. One is supposed to include an
> approach facility at the end of the route.

Huh? Are you sure you meant "approach facility"?

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Tim >
wrote:

> And those of us without that magical device?

You would not have been able to navigate direct from SNS to KVNY (or any
of its IAFs) so this whole discussion would have been moot.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Tim >
wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >, Tim >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The OP was confused about what to do at a clearance limit - regardless
^^^^^^^^^
> >>of radio contact.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
> > Not so. My original question was: "what should I have done if I'd been
> > in IMC and lost comm before they changed my routing?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > This is the fourth or fifth time you've incorrectly put words in my
> > mouth. What is your problem?
> >
> > rg
> Are you ****ing kidding me?

No. Please re-read the exchange and pay particular attention to the
highlighted passages.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >, Tim >
wrote:

> >>
> >>Yes, I understand that. And they gave you that clearance limit because
> >>that is what you requested from them - when you filed. That is the end
> >>of your flight and they gave you a clearance to there. It is not a
> >>clearance to hold there is it? Because what you are arguing is that you
> >> really only have a clearance to circle the airport every time you get
> >>a clearance that starts with "cleared to xxx airport" and ends in
> >>"...direct."
> >
> >
> > No, that is not what I am arguing. I have never said any such thing
> > (because that's clearly ridiculous).
>
> You are. You state that you are going to your clearance limit - which
> is the airport, THEN, you have to go somewhere else then back to the
> airport which was your clearance limit.

That is not the same thing as circling the airport, which is what you
said.

I draw your attention to FAR 91.181(b) and 91.185(c)(3)(ii) which seem
to me to support my position that if your clearance is direct to an
airport and you lose comm in IMC you are supposed to fly to (i.e. over)
the airport first, THEN to an IAF, then land.

We both seem to agree that this would be a stupid thing to do. So could
you please either 1) cite the reg that says that a direct clearance to
an airport is in fact a direct clearance to some unspecified IAF for
that airport or 2) admit that the procedure that we both agree would be
the prudent course of action in fact violates the regs?

rg

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost comm
> before they changed my routing?
>

Never, ever accept a vector without a reason for it. If they don't give
it (which ATC should, per the regs), ask. It can be "for the ILS", "for
traffic", "for spacing", whatever.

In any case, since you know the reason, in case of lost comm, work
around that reason back to your original clearance.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tim,

> Do you always argue with people when they give you answers after you
> have insulted them, told them don;t know the answer and then actually
> get a correct response?
>

Uhm, that's his SOP. It's pretty much all he does here.

But you knew that going in ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> "The minimum IFR altitude is not
> easily determined."
>

Yes, but don't the regs elsewhere say that on off-airway routings, the
pilot is responsible for it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tim,

> If you are saying that an inop radio is an emergency then I would
> question your judgment as a pilot. If the pilot thinks it is an
> emergency, then by all means, "declare" one and treat it as such.
>

And if it were an emergency, why are there different transponder codes
for emergency and lost comm.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ray Andraka]

Roger wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:03:57 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Last night I flew from SJC to VNY. To my astonishment I was cleared
>>vectors to SNS, then direct VNY (despite having filed a more standard
>>routing) at 9000 feet. I knew perfectly well that the routing was going
>>to change because I've done that route a zillion times, and indeed, near
>>Bakersfield they switched me over to the standard LHS, LYNXX8 arrival,
>>followed by vectors to the ILS RWY 16R.
>>
>>My question is: what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost comm
>>before they changed my routing? By the book I should have continued to
>>fly my clearance, which would have run me into a mountain around GMN, so
>>that's probably not the right answer. Viable possibilities seem to
>>include:
>
>
> There's only one. You fly it as last cleared.
> You arrive at the expected time as the expected place.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Radio failure is an emergency. You fly where ever you need to in order
to safely get on the ground. ATC will sort it out and keep other
aircraft out of your way.

[Tim]

Ray Andraka wrote:
> Roger wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:03:57 -0800, Ron Garret >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Last night I flew from SJC to VNY. To my astonishment I was cleared
>>> vectors to SNS, then direct VNY (despite having filed a more standard
>>> routing) at 9000 feet. I knew perfectly well that the routing was
>>> going to change because I've done that route a zillion times, and
>>> indeed, near Bakersfield they switched me over to the standard LHS,
>>> LYNXX8 arrival, followed by vectors to the ILS RWY 16R.
>>>
>>> My question is: what should I have done if I'd been in IMC and lost
>>> comm before they changed my routing? By the book I should have
>>> continued to fly my clearance, which would have run me into a
>>> mountain around GMN, so that's probably not the right answer. Viable
>>> possibilities seem to include:
>>
>>
>>
>> There's only one. You fly it as last cleared.
>> You arrive at the expected time as the expected place.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
> Radio failure is an emergency. You fly where ever you need to in order
> to safely get on the ground. ATC will sort it out and keep other
> aircraft out of your way.


So any time a piper cub flies it is an emergency?

So you can fly anywhere you want and atc is supposed to guess where you
are going or magically know whom to keep away from your unknown
position? They cancel and stop all flights while you fly wherever you want?

Does not sound good to me.

[Dave Butler]

> So any time a piper cub flies it is an emergency?

This is rec.aviation.ifr

> So you can fly anywhere you want and atc is supposed to guess where you

He didn't say "anywhere you want".

> are going or magically know whom to keep away from your unknown
> position? They cancel and stop all flights while you fly wherever you
> want?

Neither guessing nor magic is required. Your position is not unknown.
Flights are neither cancelled nor stopped.

>
> Does not sound good to me.

Get your hearing checked.

[Tim]

Dave Butler wrote:
>> So any time a piper cub flies it is an emergency?
>
>
> This is rec.aviation.ifr

Fair enough.

>
>> So you can fly anywhere you want and atc is supposed to guess where you
>
>
> He didn't say "anywhere you want".

"Radio failure is an emergency. You fly where ever you need to in order
to safely get on the ground. That sounds like anywhere you want to
me. My point is that how the hell is atc supposed to figure out where
you are going to go if you don't follow any procedures? I am not saying
that the procedures are perfect, but guess work is not a good idea.
Putting in your expected nordo procedure (if it deviates from FARs) int
he comments section is a good idea.

>
>> are going or magically know whom to keep away from your unknown
>> position? They cancel and stop all flights while you fly wherever you
>> want?
>
>
> Neither guessing nor magic is required. Your position is not unknown.
> Flights are neither cancelled nor stopped.

Um, if you are going to make up some route or your own clearance that is
not what it says int he FARs, then how is ATC going to "keep other
aircraft out of your way?" The answer is - they are going to impose a
far greater delay and re-reouting than if the nordo pilot followed the
right procedures. Are you saying radar covers all of the CONUS? I
didn't know that was the case.




>
>>
>> Does not sound good to me.
>
>
> Get your hearing checked.

I still don't like what I am hearing. There are a lot of advocates for
just making stuff up.

[Dave Butler]

Tim wrote:

> I still don't like what I am hearing. There are a lot of advocates for
> just making stuff up.

As you wish. Similar discussions on the topic are well documented in the
archives. I'm not interested in rehashing it all again. Enjoy.

[Ray Andraka]

Tim wrote:
> Ray Andraka wrote:

>>
>> Radio failure is an emergency. You fly where ever you need to in
>> order to safely get on the ground. ATC will sort it out and keep
>> other aircraft out of your way.
>
>
>
> So any time a piper cub flies it is an emergency?
>
> So you can fly anywhere you want and atc is supposed to guess where you
> are going or magically know whom to keep away from your unknown
> position? They cancel and stop all flights while you fly wherever you
> want?
>
> Does not sound good to me.
>


For starters, I won't be in the IFR system, nor will I be IMC in a piper
cub. That's a different duck altogether. If I am IFR, I am in the
system. ATC would rather have me out of the system as soon as practical
rather than spend the next several hours tracking me and anticipating
all possible moves on my part, clearing traffic out of the way. Yes,
the FARs say fly your flight plan, however, every FAA safety seminar
I've been to where this comes up, the FAA and ATC folks unequivocally
have said, lost comm in IMC is an emergency, ATC treats it as such
whether you declare it or not, and they'd rather have you get out of the
system as soon as practical over flying the rest of your flight plan and
having to get everyone out of your way.

Might be a little different in a non-radar environment, but here in the
NE pretty much everything is in radar coverage, so they know where you
are, which direction you are flying and your groud speed.