If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comms after radar vector
I had a "discussion" with my instructor about lost comms in IMC after
a radar vector. To illustrate, consider this scenario (gratuitously enhanced with specifics): Depart BJC (Boulder, CO) for a flight to EVV (Evansville, IN). You expect the flight to take 4:30. You depart at 1200Z. Once airborne, you get established on a clearance route and you realize that the tailwinds are much stronger than forecast. After 3 hours have passed, you find the GPS saying EVV is only another 30 minutes enroute (thus the flight now should take 3:30 instead of 4:30). You get the ATIS, using ILS RWY 22, relatively low IMC conditions at EVV. ATC then gives you a radar vector to bias your flight path north for the approach. At this moment, you loose comms. All attempts to establish comms are in vain. The weather is also low IMC in every direction. What do you do? My instructors answer was this: when lost comms is noticed and no attemp to establish alternate comms works, then proceed to the outer marker of the ILS22 approach (VICCI) and hold as diagrammed until your flight planned expected arrival time, then shoot the approach. In this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than planned). My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the simplest and most direct way possible. My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the book" and that's what you have to do. I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this. My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up directly for the approach. This is really an academic question because I pretty much doubt anyone would convince me anything other than landing at my earliest and safest opportunity would be the right course of action, rules or no rules to the contrary. In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I would hold for any reason. My thinking about ATC response is that they cannot assume any behavior of a lost comm aircraft, there could be more wrong than just the lost comms (such as the pilot is incapacitated and a passenger is flying, thus no behavior is predictable). So I would think they would vector everyone else away and hope the plane gets on the ground as soon as possible. Curious what the group reg gurus and ATC types think about this. -- Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101 CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax 255 S. Garvin St, Suite B Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Ciholas" wrote in message m... I had a "discussion" with my instructor about lost comms in IMC after a radar vector. To illustrate, consider this scenario (gratuitously enhanced with specifics): Depart BJC (Boulder, CO) for a flight to EVV (Evansville, IN). You expect the flight to take 4:30. You depart at 1200Z. Once airborne, you get established on a clearance route and you realize that the tailwinds are much stronger than forecast. After 3 hours have passed, you find the GPS saying EVV is only another 30 minutes enroute (thus the flight now should take 3:30 instead of 4:30). You get the ATIS, using ILS RWY 22, relatively low IMC conditions at EVV. ATC then gives you a radar vector to bias your flight path north for the approach. At this moment, you loose comms. All attempts to establish comms are in vain. The weather is also low IMC in every direction. What do you do? Squawk 7600 briefly, return to my assigned beacon code, fly the approach, land, clear the runway. My instructors answer was this: when lost comms is noticed and no attemp to establish alternate comms works, then proceed to the outer marker of the ILS22 approach (VICCI) and hold as diagrammed until your flight planned expected arrival time, then shoot the approach. In this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than planned). My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the simplest and most direct way possible. My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the book" and that's what you have to do. I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this. My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up directly for the approach. This is really an academic question because I pretty much doubt anyone would convince me anything other than landing at my earliest and safest opportunity would be the right course of action, rules or no rules to the contrary. In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I would hold for any reason. My thinking about ATC response is that they cannot assume any behavior of a lost comm aircraft, there could be more wrong than just the lost comms (such as the pilot is incapacitated and a passenger is flying, thus no behavior is predictable). So I would think they would vector everyone else away and hope the plane gets on the ground as soon as possible. Curious what the group reg gurus and ATC types think about this. I've been a controller for over twenty years; center, approach, and tower, and an IFR pilot longer than that, and I think you show more sense than your instructor. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I'm training for my CFII and had the same conversation with my instructor
over a similar situation. In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185. The deal is this: unless you loose comms early on in the flight and no radar services are available, they'll see you on radar and will provide separation accordingly. If you lost your transponder as well, you've likely experienced total electrical failure, and now 91.3(b) applies, meaning get on the ground. Don't circle over Evansville for an hour NORDO, they might shoot you down. "Mike Ciholas" wrote in message m... I had a "discussion" with my instructor about lost comms in IMC after a radar vector. To illustrate, consider this scenario (gratuitously enhanced with specifics): Depart BJC (Boulder, CO) for a flight to EVV (Evansville, IN). You expect the flight to take 4:30. You depart at 1200Z. Once airborne, you get established on a clearance route and you realize that the tailwinds are much stronger than forecast. After 3 hours have passed, you find the GPS saying EVV is only another 30 minutes enroute (thus the flight now should take 3:30 instead of 4:30). You get the ATIS, using ILS RWY 22, relatively low IMC conditions at EVV. ATC then gives you a radar vector to bias your flight path north for the approach. At this moment, you loose comms. All attempts to establish comms are in vain. The weather is also low IMC in every direction. What do you do? My instructors answer was this: when lost comms is noticed and no attemp to establish alternate comms works, then proceed to the outer marker of the ILS22 approach (VICCI) and hold as diagrammed until your flight planned expected arrival time, then shoot the approach. In this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than planned). My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the simplest and most direct way possible. My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the book" and that's what you have to do. I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this. My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up directly for the approach. This is really an academic question because I pretty much doubt anyone would convince me anything other than landing at my earliest and safest opportunity would be the right course of action, rules or no rules to the contrary. In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I would hold for any reason. My thinking about ATC response is that they cannot assume any behavior of a lost comm aircraft, there could be more wrong than just the lost comms (such as the pilot is incapacitated and a passenger is flying, thus no behavior is predictable). So I would think they would vector everyone else away and hope the plane gets on the ground as soon as possible. Curious what the group reg gurus and ATC types think about this. -- Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101 CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax 255 S. Garvin St, Suite B Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Brad Z" wrote in message news:uAJOb.97275$xy6.175256@attbi_s02... In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185. Actually, it's unlikely the controller knows you're early as it's unlikely he knew your original ETA. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
No guru, no expert, no nuthin' here, but--a problem I see is that the answer
from the regs depends on the clearance limit, and they don't specify what to do when the clearance limit is an airport. That's the most common case. I've discussed it with several instructors and controllers; consensus is in that case to procede to an airport and land without delay. David (PP-instr.) Mike Ciholas wrote: I had a "discussion" with my instructor about lost comms in IMC after a radar vector. To illustrate, consider this scenario (gratuitously enhanced with specifics): Depart BJC (Boulder, CO) for a flight to EVV (Evansville, IN). You expect the flight to take 4:30. You depart at 1200Z. Once airborne, you get established on a clearance route and you realize that the tailwinds are much stronger than forecast. After 3 hours have passed, you find the GPS saying EVV is only another 30 minutes enroute (thus the flight now should take 3:30 instead of 4:30). You get the ATIS, using ILS RWY 22, relatively low IMC conditions at EVV. ATC then gives you a radar vector to bias your flight path north for the approach. At this moment, you loose comms. All attempts to establish comms are in vain. The weather is also low IMC in every direction. What do you do? My instructors answer was this: when lost comms is noticed and no attemp to establish alternate comms works, then proceed to the outer marker of the ILS22 approach (VICCI) and hold as diagrammed until your flight planned expected arrival time, then shoot the approach. In this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than planned). My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the simplest and most direct way possible. My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the book" and that's what you have to do. I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this. My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up directly for the approach. This is really an academic question because I pretty much doubt anyone would convince me anything other than landing at my earliest and safest opportunity would be the right course of action, rules or no rules to the contrary. In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I would hold for any reason. My thinking about ATC response is that they cannot assume any behavior of a lost comm aircraft, there could be more wrong than just the lost comms (such as the pilot is incapacitated and a passenger is flying, thus no behavior is predictable). So I would think they would vector everyone else away and hope the plane gets on the ground as soon as possible. Curious what the group reg gurus and ATC types think about this. -- Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101 CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax 255 S. Garvin St, Suite B Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Brad Z" wrote in message news:uAJOb.97275$xy6.175256@attbi_s02... In your scenario, the "hold for an hour" consideration is baloney. The reg's state that you should commence the approach as soon as possible to your "filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route." I would argue that if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows you're early. I would argue that this is essentually an ETA amendment for all practical purposes, and therefore in alignment with 91.185. Actually, it's unlikely the controller knows you're early as it's unlikely he knew your original ETA. Yeah, but the point is, he knows where you are now. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The instructor not only lacks common sense, he lacks an in-depth understanding of
91.185. Since the flight was already in contact with approach control and being vectored to an approach, the "ETA gates" of the regulation have already being passed and approach control has certain and direct knowledge of the flight's existence in approach control airspace. Because a radar vector to an approach is a substitution for an initial approach segment, they were already in the initial "segment" of the approach. At this point completing the approach and landing while squawking 7600 is the only sensible and, probably, legal course of action. 91.185 is old and outdated. But, the feds won't rewrite it because they can't form a consensus on what to say differently. Holding for an hour after losing com duing arrival vectors is way beyond any stretch of that reg, though, and actually sounds like danger ahead of common sense. David Kazdan wrote: No guru, no expert, no nuthin' here, but--a problem I see is that the answer from the regs depends on the clearance limit, and they don't specify what to do when the clearance limit is an airport. That's the most common case. I've discussed it with several instructors and controllers; consensus is in that case to procede to an airport and land without delay. David (PP-instr.) Mike Ciholas wrote: I had a "discussion" with my instructor about lost comms in IMC after a radar vector. To illustrate, consider this scenario (gratuitously enhanced with specifics): Depart BJC (Boulder, CO) for a flight to EVV (Evansville, IN). You expect the flight to take 4:30. You depart at 1200Z. Once airborne, you get established on a clearance route and you realize that the tailwinds are much stronger than forecast. After 3 hours have passed, you find the GPS saying EVV is only another 30 minutes enroute (thus the flight now should take 3:30 instead of 4:30). You get the ATIS, using ILS RWY 22, relatively low IMC conditions at EVV. ATC then gives you a radar vector to bias your flight path north for the approach. At this moment, you loose comms. All attempts to establish comms are in vain. The weather is also low IMC in every direction. What do you do? My instructors answer was this: when lost comms is noticed and no attemp to establish alternate comms works, then proceed to the outer marker of the ILS22 approach (VICCI) and hold as diagrammed until your flight planned expected arrival time, then shoot the approach. In this particular case, this would be holding for about 1 hour due to faster than expected tailwinds (you arrive an hour earlier than planned). My answer was this: vector yourself around to the final approach course of ILS22 about 1-2 miles outside VICCI and directly shoot the approach with no holding. My thinking was to do what I expected the controller to do if I had comms and to get on the ground in the simplest and most direct way possible. My instructor justified his answers based on the regs and while he admitted his solution would effectively close an airport for an hour with a no comm airplane circling on the ILS, he claimed it was "by the book" and that's what you have to do. I thought that was silly and said that if presented with the above situation, I would disregard the book in favor of what I perceived to be the best response to the situation, namely get on the ground in the simplest and most straightforward way so I don't clog up airspace as a no comm airplane. I also was not going to do holds for an hour, in IMC, with some sort of failure which may grow to encompass more than the radios. I also did not believe the "book" says to do this. My answer could also be technically wrong since I didn't fly to the IAF and perform the procedure turn. But terrain avoidance is not a big issue in EVV (unlike BJC!), so I would feel comfortable lining up directly for the approach. This is really an academic question because I pretty much doubt anyone would convince me anything other than landing at my earliest and safest opportunity would be the right course of action, rules or no rules to the contrary. In fact, in any lost comm situation, I doubt I would hold for any reason. My thinking about ATC response is that they cannot assume any behavior of a lost comm aircraft, there could be more wrong than just the lost comms (such as the pilot is incapacitated and a passenger is flying, thus no behavior is predictable). So I would think they would vector everyone else away and hope the plane gets on the ground as soon as possible. Curious what the group reg gurus and ATC types think about this. -- Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101 CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax 255 S. Garvin St, Suite B Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... Yeah, but the point is, he knows where you are now. Yeah, but his argument is if the controller is giving you vectors for the approach, he knows you're early. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No SID in clearance, fly it anyway? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 195 | November 28th 05 10:06 PM |
Lost comm altitude? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | January 11th 04 12:29 AM |
Ham sandwich navigation and radar failure | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | December 31st 03 12:15 AM |
Marine Radar in a plane? | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 31 | August 13th 03 06:56 PM |