Holding Pattern Question

[Dennis Johnson]

I'm probably over-thinking holding patterns and have become confused.

When given instructions to hold at a non-published holding pattern, ATC will
specify:

1. The direction from the fix, such as north, north-east, etc.
2. The name of the holding fix.
3. The radial, course, or airway on which the aircraft is to hold.
4. The leg length and direction of turns if they are not standard.
5. The expect further clearance time.

Here's my question: If I'm told to hold on a radial (as opposed to a
course), does that mean that I'm flying away from the station when I'm "on
course" in the holding pattern?

For example, I'm given the instruction, "Hold south of the VOR on the 180°
radial, expect further clearance in 15 minutes." Once I get established in
the holding pattern, do I track inbound to the station on the 180° radial or
do I track outbound on the 180° radial?

How would that be different if I were given the same instructions, except
hold on the 180° course (instead of the 180° radial)?

Thanks,
Dennis

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dennis Johnson" wrote:

> Here's my question: If I'm told to hold on a radial (as opposed to a
> course), does that mean that I'm flying away from the station when I'm "on
> course" in the holding pattern?

No. It means that you fly to the fix *on* the radial. IOW you are to be on
the radial when inbound to the fix.

> For example, I'm given the instruction, "Hold south of the VOR on the 180°
> radial, expect further clearance in 15 minutes." Once I get established in
> the holding pattern, do I track inbound to the station on the 180° radial
> or do I track outbound on the 180° radial?

Inbound.

> How would that be different if I were given the same instructions, except
> hold on the 180° course (instead of the 180° radial)?

You won't be given that instruction, at least not by a controller who knows
what he's doing.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Dennis Johnson wrote:
>
>
> For example, I'm given the instruction, "Hold south of the VOR on the 180°
> radial, expect further clearance in 15 minutes." Once I get established in
> the holding pattern, do I track inbound to the station on the 180° radial or
> do I track outbound on the 180° radial?

Inbound. The fix and radial define the inbound side of a hold.

[Dave Butler]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Dennis Johnson" wrote:

>> How would that be different if I were given the same instructions, except
>> hold on the 180° course (instead of the 180° radial)?
>
> You won't be given that instruction, at least not by a controller who knows
> what he's doing.

The only context in which "course" might be used, that I can think of,
is where you might be cleared to hold on a "final approach course".

DB

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/24/07 10:42, Dennis Johnson wrote:
> I'm probably over-thinking holding patterns and have become confused.
>
> When given instructions to hold at a non-published holding pattern, ATC will
> specify:
>
> 1. The direction from the fix, such as north, north-east, etc.
> 2. The name of the holding fix.
> 3. The radial, course, or airway on which the aircraft is to hold.
> 4. The leg length and direction of turns if they are not standard.
> 5. The expect further clearance time.
>
> Here's my question: If I'm told to hold on a radial (as opposed to a
> course), does that mean that I'm flying away from the station when I'm "on
> course" in the holding pattern?

You always hold at the fix. You are on the holding course when flying to
the fix.

>
> For example, I'm given the instruction, "Hold south of the VOR on the 180�
> radial, expect further clearance in 15 minutes." Once I get established in
> the holding pattern, do I track inbound to the station on the 180� radial or
> do I track outbound on the 180� radial?

You fly toward the fix (the VOR in this case) on the holding radial (180
in this case). If you remember that you always fly to the fix, you won't
be able to mix these up.

>
> How would that be different if I were given the same instructions, except
> hold on the 180� course (instead of the 180� radial)?

I would ask the controller for a clarification. Have a look at the 7110.65
to see what they will do for holding instructions.

>
> Thanks,
> Dennis
>
>
>



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

[Bob Gardner]

You have received excellent answers, but that won't keep me from piling
on....when inbound to the fix, you have navigational guidance; on the
outbound leg you are using dead reckoning. You never fly outbound with
navigational guidance.

Bob Gardner

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm probably over-thinking holding patterns and have become confused.
>
> When given instructions to hold at a non-published holding pattern, ATC
> will specify:
>
> 1. The direction from the fix, such as north, north-east, etc.
> 2. The name of the holding fix.
> 3. The radial, course, or airway on which the aircraft is to hold.
> 4. The leg length and direction of turns if they are not standard.
> 5. The expect further clearance time.
>
> Here's my question: If I'm told to hold on a radial (as opposed to a
> course), does that mean that I'm flying away from the station when I'm "on
> course" in the holding pattern?
>
> For example, I'm given the instruction, "Hold south of the VOR on the 180°
> radial, expect further clearance in 15 minutes." Once I get established
> in the holding pattern, do I track inbound to the station on the 180°
> radial or do I track outbound on the 180° radial?
>
> How would that be different if I were given the same instructions, except
> hold on the 180° course (instead of the 180° radial)?
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis
>
>
>

[Dennis Johnson]

Thanks so much for the speedy and excellent answers to my question about
holding! I have returned to flying after a decades-long absence and am
going to start flying with an instructor tomorrow to prep for the IPC. It's
amazing how much I've forgotten. At least this is one mistake I won't make.

Thanks,
Dennis

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I'm probably over-thinking holding patterns and have become confused.
>
> When given instructions to hold at a non-published holding pattern, ATC
> will specify:
>
> 1. The direction from the fix, such as north, north-east, etc.
> 2. The name of the holding fix.
> 3. The radial, course, or airway on which the aircraft is to hold.
> 4. The leg length and direction of turns if they are not standard.
> 5. The expect further clearance time.
>

An EFC is not issued if no delay is expected.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I'm probably over-thinking holding patterns and have become confused.
>>
>> When given instructions to hold at a non-published holding pattern, ATC
>> will specify:
>>
>> 1. The direction from the fix, such as north, north-east, etc.
>> 2. The name of the holding fix.
>> 3. The radial, course, or airway on which the aircraft is to hold.
>> 4. The leg length and direction of turns if they are not standard.
>> 5. The expect further clearance time.
>>
>
> An EFC is not issued if no delay is expected.
>
>

If no delay is expected, why issue a hold?

Matt

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:32:00 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
>
>If no delay is expected, why issue a hold?
>

Because people who write written exams need a reason to ask a
question? <G>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> If no delay is expected, why issue a hold?
>

For a variety of reasons. Let's say your destination is an uncontrolled
field and there's traffic ahead of you for that field. The controller can't
clear you for the approach because the preceding aircraft hasn't cancelled,
but he expects it to cancel before you'd experience any delay.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If no delay is expected, why issue a hold?
>>
>
> For a variety of reasons. Let's say your destination is an uncontrolled
> field and there's traffic ahead of you for that field. The controller can't
> clear you for the approach because the preceding aircraft hasn't cancelled,
> but he expects it to cancel before you'd experience any delay.
>
>

In that case, you better ask for an EFC if you haven't received further
clearance prior to arrival at the holding fix.

Matt

[Dennis Johnson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If no delay is expected, why issue a hold?
>>
>
> For a variety of reasons. Let's say your destination is an uncontrolled
> field and there's traffic ahead of you for that field. The controller
> can't clear you for the approach because the preceding aircraft hasn't
> cancelled, but he expects it to cancel before you'd experience any delay.
>

I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to hold?
Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding before
proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,

Dennis

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> In that case, you better ask for an EFC if you haven't received further
> clearance prior to arrival at the holding fix.
>

Yes, but in that case the controller expects to issue an approach clearance
before you arrive at the holding fix. That's why no delay is expected.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
> hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to
> hold? Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding
> before proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,
>

Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0406.html#4-6-1

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In that case, you better ask for an EFC if you haven't received further
>> clearance prior to arrival at the holding fix.
>>
>
> Yes, but in that case the controller expects to issue an approach clearance
> before you arrive at the holding fix. That's why no delay is expected.

It just seems odd that they would issue the hold then. I guess it saves
a little time if you do actually have to hold, but it also seems like it
would be easy to also forget to issue the EFC.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
>> hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to
>> hold? Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding
>> before proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,
>>
>
> Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0406.html#4-6-1
>
>
>

Probably because com radios require a functioning microphone, PTT and
speakers or earphones. More parts to fail and thus more likelihood of
failure. Most pilots carry enough spares, but even so there is more
likelihood of a comm failure than a nav failure.

Matt

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/24/07 17:54, Dennis Johnson wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> If no delay is expected, why issue a hold?
>>>
>>
>> For a variety of reasons. Let's say your destination is an uncontrolled
>> field and there's traffic ahead of you for that field. The controller
>> can't clear you for the approach because the preceding aircraft hasn't
>> cancelled, but he expects it to cancel before you'd experience any delay.
>>
>
> I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
> hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to hold?
> Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding before
> proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,
>
> Dennis
>
>

The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon reaching
the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.


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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> It just seems odd that they would issue the hold then. I guess it saves a
> little time if you do actually have to hold, but it also seems like it
> would be easy to also forget to issue the EFC.
>

Well, if things don't go as expected, what do you think can cause the
greater problem, not issuing the EFC, or not issuing the hold?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Dennis Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > I thought you had to get an expect further clearance time as part of the
> > hold instructions in case your radio failed shortly after directed to
> > hold? Otherwise, how would you know how many turns to make in holding
> > before proceeding on course? I'm not arguing, just asking,
> >
>
> Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?

I've had several lost-comms. I seem to remember:

1) Fried xmit relay in the audio panel

2) Defective headset jacks

3) Broken wire in my headset cable

None of these affected the nav radios.

[BillJ]

Dennis Johnson wrote:
> I'm probably over-thinking holding patterns and have become confused.
>
> When given instructions to hold at a non-published holding pattern, ATC will
> specify:
>
> 1. The direction from the fix, such as north, north-east, etc.
> 2. The name of the holding fix.
> 3. The radial, course, or airway on which the aircraft is to hold.
> 4. The leg length and direction of turns if they are not standard.
> 5. The expect further clearance time.
>
> Here's my question: If I'm told to hold on a radial (as opposed to a
> course), does that mean that I'm flying away from the station when I'm "on
> course" in the holding pattern?
>
> For example, I'm given the instruction, "Hold south of the VOR on the 180°
> radial, expect further clearance in 15 minutes." Once I get established in
> the holding pattern, do I track inbound to the station on the 180° radial or
> do I track outbound on the 180° radial?
>
> How would that be different if I were given the same instructions, except
> hold on the 180° course (instead of the 180° radial)?
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis
>
>
>
Remember on the outbound leg you are correcting for the wind with double
or triple the crab angle used inbound. So you will not be tracking
parallel to any radial if there is a wind.

[Kobra]

> You have received excellent answers, but that won't keep me from piling
> on....

Dennis,

I will pile on too. I think the confusion can set in when we are told to
hold south on the 180 radial, we are inbound on that radial, but our DG
needs to say 360 and our OBS does not have 180 on the top of the dial. It
has it's inverse.

I hope I'm correct on this...it not I will bow my head out of this
conversation.

Kobra

[Dennis Johnson]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
> that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
> reaching
> the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.

Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
to the ETA..."

Thanks,
Dennis

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/24/07 20:14, Dennis Johnson wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
>> that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
>> reaching
>> the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.
>
> Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
> AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):
>
> "...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
> has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
> to the ETA..."

Yes, and that is the answer you want to give on the exams, but in real
life, you'll find that the controllers want you out of the air as soon
as possible. They're expecting you to get on the ground asap. I wouldn't
plan on waiting for your ETA once you get to the fix...


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

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It just seems odd that they would issue the hold then. I guess it saves a
>> little time if you do actually have to hold, but it also seems like it
>> would be easy to also forget to issue the EFC.
>>
>
> Well, if things don't go as expected, what do you think can cause the
> greater problem, not issuing the EFC, or not issuing the hold?
>
>

Depends on the situation. I can see both being bad in their own way.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 09/24/07 20:14, Dennis Johnson wrote:
>> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
>>> that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
>>> reaching
>>> the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.
>> Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
>> AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):
>>
>> "...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
>> has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
>> to the ETA..."
>
> Yes, and that is the answer you want to give on the exams, but in real
> life, you'll find that the controllers want you out of the air as soon
> as possible. They're expecting you to get on the ground asap. I wouldn't
> plan on waiting for your ETA once you get to the fix...
>
>

If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.

Matt

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> It just seems odd that they would issue the hold then. I guess it saves
> a little time if you do actually have to hold, but it also seems like it
> would be easy to also forget to issue the EFC.


If the controller tells you no delay expected and does not give an EFC,
if you lose radios you do not hold, you procede to an approach or
straight to the airport if an approach is not needed. All this assuming
you are close to your proposed enroute time. ATC has no idea when this
is but you should be close to it if ATC loses separation and there's an
investigation all your ducks will be in a row.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Depends on the situation. I can see both being bad in their own way.
>

Please explain.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.
>

Why?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Depends on the situation. I can see both being bad in their own way.
>>
>
> Please explain.
>
>

If the hold isn't issued and things don't go as expected and comm is
lost, then you have an airplane coming in the airspace unwanted, but at
a known and predictable time since you are tracking it on radar.

If the hold is issued with no EFC and comm is lost during the hold, then
you have an airplane which will enter the airspace at an unknown time.
Hopefully, the pilot knows enough to wait until the ETA, but what if he
doesn't? Or what if his watch is 5 minutes off?

Sometimes knowing what is about to happen is preferable to having a
somewhat unpredictable situation.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.
>>
>
> Why?
>
>
Why not?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why not?
>

Waiting for the ETA ties up airspace and delays other aircraft.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:19 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>
>Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?

Receivers are simpler than transmitters?

[Ray Andraka]

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:02:19 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>
>>Why is it that comm radios fail but nav radios do not?
>
>
> Receivers are simpler than transmitters?


Nav radios fail too! Transmitters are usually less complex than the
matching receiver, but they also handle much more power. More power
means more stress on the components, which in turn leads to a higher
failure rate.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the hold isn't issued and things don't go as expected and comm is lost,
> then you have an airplane coming in the airspace unwanted, but at a known
> and predictable time since you are tracking it on radar.
>

Not issuing the hold was not part of any scenario.


>
> If the hold is issued with no EFC and comm is lost during the hold, then
> you have an airplane which will enter the airspace at an unknown time.
>

Say what? If your comm was still operating prior to reaching your clearance
limit without an EFC why didn't you query the controller?


>
> Hopefully, the pilot knows enough to wait until the ETA, but what if he
> doesn't? Or what if his watch is 5 minutes off?
>

Hopefully the pilot will know the controller is unlikely to have his ETA and
will just fly the approach without holding at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" > wrote in message
...
>
> Receivers are simpler than transmitters?
>

If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure.

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/26/07 12:02, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Receivers are simpler than transmitters?
>>
>
> If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
> two-way radio communications failure.
>
>

Say What? ;-)

If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
according to 91.185.



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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Say What? ;-)
>

If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time?


>
> If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
> Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
> according to 91.185.
>

If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
transmitter and receiver.

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/26/07 13:39, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Say What? ;-)
>>
>
> If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
> two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time?
>
>
>>
>> If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
>> Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should operate
>> according to 91.185.
>>
>
> If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
> one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
> transmitter and receiver.
>
>

That's ridiculous.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:02:10 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Receivers are simpler than transmitters?
>>
>
>If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
>two-way radio communications failure.

It's a one-way comm failure!

But if the transponder is still replying... <G>

[Kobra]

>> If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
>> Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should
>> operate
>> according to 91.185.
>>
>
> If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
> one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
> transmitter and receiver.

This argument reminds me of the debate of which is the inner or outer knob
on our GPSs.

Kobra

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If the hold isn't issued and things don't go as expected and comm is lost,
>> then you have an airplane coming in the airspace unwanted, but at a known
>> and predictable time since you are tracking it on radar.
>>
>
> Not issuing the hold was not part of any scenario.

It was exactly the scenario YOU posted and I replied to. Nice of you to
trim the posts so as to lose the context. As a reminder, here is what
you posted on 9/24/2007 at 9:22 PM:

"Well, if things don't go as expected, what do you think can cause the
greater problem, not issuing the EFC, or not issuing the hold? "

What part of "or not issuing the hold?" didn't you understand when you
wrote it?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Say What? ;-)
>>
>
> If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
> two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time?
>
>
>>
>> If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
>> Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should
>> operate
>> according to 91.185.
>>
>
> If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
> one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
> transmitter and receiver.
>

Steve, quit being so argumentative and think for a change. Two-way
communication means the radio (hence operator) can send (1 way) and receive
(1 way). If you lose the transmitter or the receiver you are no longer in
two-way communication, although you may in fact still be in one-way
communication. How much simpler can that be?

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[B[_2_]]

Jim Carter wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Say What? ;-)
>>>
>>
>>If it's just your transmitter that has failed you have not experienced a
>>two-way radio communications failure. Better the second time?
>>
>>
>>
>>>If you lose either TX or RX, then you don't have two-way communications.
>>>Therefore you have two-way radio communications failure and should
>>>operate
>>>according to 91.185.
>>>
>>
>>If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still communicate
>>one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss of both
>>transmitter and receiver.
>>
>
>
> Steve, quit being so argumentative and think for a change. Two-way
> communication means the radio (hence operator) can send (1 way) and receive
> (1 way). If you lose the transmitter or the receiver you are no longer in
> two-way communication, although you may in fact still be in one-way
> communication. How much simpler can that be?
>
If you still have a transponder and a receiver you still have two-way.

Or perhaps a transponder and VOR voice.

[rip]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.
>>
>
> Why?
>
>
Because you own the block of airspace assigned to you. Someone else owns
the block of airspace ahead of and behind you. You wait until your EFC
time so that you don't blunder into the guy ahead in IFR conditions.

Rip

[rip]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Why not?
>>
>
> Waiting for the ETA ties up airspace and delays other aircraft.
>
>
ATC won't clear anyone into your block of airspace until after your EFC
time to prevent two aircraft in IMC from using the same space.

Rip

[Dave Butler]

rip wrote:

> Because you own the block of airspace assigned to you. Someone else owns
> the block of airspace ahead of and behind you. You wait until your EFC
> time so that you don't blunder into the guy ahead in IFR conditions.

When you go NORDO ATC is going to clear everyone else out of your way.
Just get on the ground and relieve ATC of their misery.

DGB

[Dave Butler]

rip wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Waiting for the ETA ties up airspace and delays other aircraft.
>>
> ATC won't clear anyone into your block of airspace until after your EFC
> time to prevent two aircraft in IMC from using the same space.

The discussion is about ETA, not EFC.

[John Godwin[_2_]]

Mark Hansen > wrote in
:

>> If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still
>> communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss
>> of both transmitter and receiver.
>>
>>
>
> That's ridiculous.

"Bugsmasher 34 Romeo, if you read, squawk 4221"

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/27/07 11:44, John Godwin wrote:
> Mark Hansen > wrote in
> :
>
>>> If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still
>>> communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss
>>> of both transmitter and receiver.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's ridiculous.
>
> "Bugsmasher 34 Romeo, if you read, squawk 4221"

Yes, you could also use smoke signals, rock your wings, etc. - However,
if you think that losing your transmitter during an IFR flight is not
considered a "two way radio communications failure" as used in 91.185
you're fooling yourself.

[Newps]

rip wrote:

>>
> ATC won't clear anyone into your block of airspace until after your EFC
> time to prevent two aircraft in IMC from using the same space.


Non radar only.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
rip > wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Why not?
> >>
> >
> > Waiting for the ETA ties up airspace and delays other aircraft.
> >
> >
> ATC won't clear anyone into your block of airspace until after your EFC
> time to prevent two aircraft in IMC from using the same space.
>
> Rip

Sure they will. You land, find a phone, call 1-800-WX-BRIEF and say, "This
is N12345, on the ground at KXYZ, cancel IFR".

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
John Godwin > wrote:

> Mark Hansen > wrote in
> :
>
> >> If you lose just transmitter or just receiver you can still
> >> communicate one-way. Two-way radio communications failure means loss
> >> of both transmitter and receiver.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's ridiculous.
>
> "Bugsmasher 34 Romeo, if you read, squawk 4221"

In my case, it was, "N17AV, if you read this transmission, turn left 30
degrees and ident", which was soon followed by, "Radar contact, continue
along previously cleared route". Or words to that effect.

Our route was POU V157 HAARP HPN. Once you get to the bend in V157, you're
very close to the ILS-16 localizer. We decided to just go for the
localizer as soon as we got there. The moment we left the airway, we
heard, "N17AV, you appear to be flying the ILS-16, cleared approach".

We flew the approach. We didn't see any light signals from the tower, nor
did we waste any effort looking for them. We landed, and taxied off the
runway. Our handheld VHF, which didn't work for **** in the air, was able
to talk to ground. We taxied back to the ramp with them and that was the
end of that.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Dave Butler > writes:

> When you go NORDO ATC is going to clear everyone else out of your
> way. Just get on the ground and relieve ATC of their misery.

Sounds plausible for a bugsmasher, maybe. But, imagine how ATC (and
NORAD for that matter) might respond to a bigger plane that goes NORDO
and instead of following the proper procedures, starts improvising.

- FChE

[Jim Macklin]

Since 9/11, I would expect a NORDO big iron to be
intercepted by an F16.


"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
|
| Dave Butler > writes:
|
| > When you go NORDO ATC is going to clear everyone else
out of your
| > way. Just get on the ground and relieve ATC of their
misery.
|
| Sounds plausible for a bugsmasher, maybe. But, imagine
how ATC (and
| NORAD for that matter) might respond to a bigger plane
that goes NORDO
| and instead of following the proper procedures, starts
improvising.
|
| - FChE

[Newps]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Dave Butler > writes:
>
>
>>When you go NORDO ATC is going to clear everyone else out of your
>>way. Just get on the ground and relieve ATC of their misery.
>
>
> Sounds plausible for a bugsmasher, maybe. But, imagine how ATC (and
> NORAD for that matter) might respond to a bigger plane that goes NORDO
> and instead of following the proper procedures, starts improvising.


Happens many times everyday. Some airliner misses his radio call and
flies out of range of the sector he was talking to. All radios work
fine yet he is NORDO. We try and get him on 121.5. Eventually we do
but it might be 100 miles.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > Dave Butler > writes:
> >
> >
> >>When you go NORDO ATC is going to clear everyone else out of your
> >>way. Just get on the ground and relieve ATC of their misery.
> >
> >
> > Sounds plausible for a bugsmasher, maybe. But, imagine how ATC (and
> > NORAD for that matter) might respond to a bigger plane that goes NORDO
> > and instead of following the proper procedures, starts improvising.
>
>
> Happens many times everyday. Some airliner misses his radio call and
> flies out of range of the sector he was talking to. All radios work
> fine yet he is NORDO. We try and get him on 121.5. Eventually we do
> but it might be 100 miles.

One of the weirdest calls I've gotten was one day a while back I was
talking to New York doing practice approaches. "Traffic is a 757, not
under my control, nobody's talking to him". I never found out what
happened, but I can only guess a handoff got botched. The controller
didn't seem overly concerned.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:19:52 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>
>One of the weirdest calls I've gotten was one day a while back I was
>talking to New York doing practice approaches. "Traffic is a 757, not
>under my control, nobody's talking to him". I never found out what
>happened, but I can only guess a handoff got botched. The controller
>didn't seem overly concerned.


That's a topper in my book. <G>

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>> Dave Butler > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> When you go NORDO ATC is going to clear everyone else out of your
>>>> way. Just get on the ground and relieve ATC of their misery.
>>>
>>> Sounds plausible for a bugsmasher, maybe. But, imagine how ATC (and
>>> NORAD for that matter) might respond to a bigger plane that goes NORDO
>>> and instead of following the proper procedures, starts improvising.
>>
>> Happens many times everyday. Some airliner misses his radio call and
>> flies out of range of the sector he was talking to. All radios work
>> fine yet he is NORDO. We try and get him on 121.5. Eventually we do
>> but it might be 100 miles.
>
> One of the weirdest calls I've gotten was one day a while back I was
> talking to New York doing practice approaches. "Traffic is a 757, not
> under my control, nobody's talking to him". I never found out what
> happened, but I can only guess a handoff got botched. The controller
> didn't seem overly concerned.

No reason for the controller to be concerned. He's on the ground in a
nice, cozy, dark room with a mug of coffee! :-)

Matt

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Newps > writes:

> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> Dave Butler > writes:
>>>When you go NORDO ATC is going to clear everyone else out of your
>>>way. Just get on the ground and relieve ATC of their misery.

>> Sounds plausible for a bugsmasher, maybe. But, imagine how ATC (and
>> NORAD for that matter) might respond to a bigger plane that goes NORDO
>> and instead of following the proper procedures, starts improvising.
>
> Happens many times everyday. Some airliner misses his radio call [...]
> Eventually we [get him] but it might be 100 miles.

But isn't that airliner still following procedures - maintaining the
cleared track & altitude? A sudden dive and a turn ("improvising")
better arouse concern.


- FChE

[Scott Skylane]

Newps wrote:

>
> Happens many times everyday. Some airliner misses his radio call and
> flies out of range of the sector he was talking to. /snip/

Of course, it *never* happens that the controller forgets to give the
airliner the next frequency until it's too late...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane