Say Again #51

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

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

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

First:

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

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

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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

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

First:

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

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

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim


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

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

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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

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

First:

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

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

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can a controller confirm this?

Gerald

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

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

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

"G. Sylvester" wrote:

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

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

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

Can a controller confirm this?

Gerald

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

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

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

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

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

--
David Rind

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

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

wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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

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

First:

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

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

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?


Second:

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

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

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

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

David Rind wrote:

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

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


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

Paul Lynch wrote:

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

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

The introduction to the AIM reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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