Lost comms after radar vector

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

And yet you just said you could hold at such a fix.

"Could" and "would" are different concepts here.

It is physically possible to hold at many fixes in situations where such holding
is not desirable or sensible. OTOH, there are situations (e.g., lost comm
complicated by other emergency such as temporary disorientation) where a turn in
holding to 'get your stuff together' is a good idea.

I am NOT advocating an NDB hold or other hard-to-accomplish extended hold in a
lost comm situation. I am trying to point out that in some situations, a hold
makes sense and is in accordance with the rules.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:eaAPb.96486$Rc4.581993@attbi_s54...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

snip
I am NOT advocating an NDB hold or other hard-to-accomplish extended hold
in a
lost comm situation. I am trying to point out that in some situations, a
hold
makes sense and is in accordance with the rules.

Oh come on Weiss, you just want to be a bully.

Now you apologise to Steve and the group.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

Direct, using the time/heading/distance from your preflight planning.

Ah, via dead-reckoning. I see. Are you an instrument-rated pilot? Are you
a pilot at all?

Take it out of context if you must -- I described much more than dead reckoning
after that.

Yes, I am an ATP, and currently work as such.


In the airplane, if I lost comm prior to TAGOR, all I have to do is fly
direct from TAGOR to the SEA 341/5.7 (cross-checking with the
PARKK NDB at the field, if I don't have DME -- I could do this as
an NDB hold, too, but I am assuming that isn't an option at MKE),
using the preplanned heading and time, adjusted for any wind
corrections I'd been using enroute to TAGOR.

Nope, not an option at MKE. Given that you can navigate enroute and hold
using just dead-reckoning, why do you bother with navaids while enroute at
all?

The NACO IFR charts appear to be available by purchase/subscription only, and
are not actually available on line. However, there happens to be a TPP Change
Notice currently on line for the ILS 01L at MKE. From the plate, it looks like
you could find the airport using a VOR/VOR fix with BAE and HRK. You would have
a variety of MM and IM beacons to choose from and use for cross-checks.

Where did I claim to navigate via dead reckoning only? Have you never plotted
or flown point-to-point?

"Gary Drescher" wrote...

Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a
Standard pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c.

But if the clearance limit is the destination airport, then there won't be
and EFC, and so 91.185c3ii does *not* say to hold over the airport. Suppose
you lost comm shortly before getting to an IAF, and before being cleared for
the approach. In that case, compliance with 91.185c3ii as written would
require you fly from the IAF to the airport, then back to the IAF, then back
to the airport to land. Is that what you would do?

In general, shortly before getting to an IAF, I have already been talking to
Approach, and have been told to "expect the ILS 24R." At that point,
91.185(c)(1)(iii) and 91.185(c)(2)(ii) would apply, and I would squawk 7600 and
continue with the approach.

If I have not been explicitly told to expect an approach, and an IAF was the
last filed point on my flight plan, I would consider that IAF as my clearance
limit. Note also that the "route filed in the flight plan" (91.185(c)(1)(iv))
generally terminates at an IAF (it is good practice to ensure it does). Seldom
is the airport itself in the route block. I have always been taught that
regardless of the "cleared to destination airport" terminology in the IFR
clearance received just prior to takeoff, the actual clearance limit -- and the
ETE calculation for the route -- is to the last NAVAID/Fix/waypoint entered in
the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF. This concept
is backed up in Para. 5-1-4.K and 5-1-7.f of the AIM, as well as 91.185(c)(3)(i)
and 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"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."

Note that the "descent and approach" are commenced at the derived ETA -- NOT the
departure from the non-IAF holding fix.

However, in the case where "Cleared direct Milwaukee" is given airborne, that
is, in fact, an amendment to the filed flight plan. That is where
91.185(c)(3)(ii) could come into play (assuming there is no NAVAID or Fix named
MKE or MLWKE). You navigate direct toward overhead the airport (and if you
cannot, you do not accept the clearance in the first place). If you lose comm
enroute in IMC, follow 91.185(c)(3)(ii) after arriving overhead the airport.


Since compliance would be nonsensical, it seems clear that 91.185c3 just
wasn't intended to address the case where the clearance limit is the
destination airport.

I am not advocating any "nonsensical" compliance. I am advocating the use of
rules-based reasoning when making the decision whether or not to hold in the
lost-comm scenario.

I believe I clarified a [very common] case where 91.185c3 would indeed apply,
where the clearance limit is the destination airport, in my last paragraph
above. I believe I also provided a sound basis for my rationale regarding the
actual clearance limit -- a rationale that gives some sense to 91.185c3.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

Have you given up on dead-reckoning?

Nope. I use it all the time when sailing, kayaking, and rowing. I also use it
a lot when flying VFR. I use it as a basis for IFR navigation as well:

Dead Reckoning is the process of estimating your position by advancing a known
position using course, speed, time and distance to be traveled. In other words
figuring out where you will be at a certain time if you hold the speed, time and
course you plan to travel. (http://www.auxetrain.org/Nav1.html)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

"John R Weiss" wrote...

I don't!


You did less than a day ago:

It seems you're taking statements out of context again... The question was:

"Gary Drescher" wrote...

Let's say you lack RNAV, and your destination airport has an off-field VOR
approach, no DME, and no other nearby navaid. How would you propose to use
that airport as a holding fix if you're going to hold for an hour?

To make it a bit more clear, "I don't" propose to hold at such a fix for an
hour.

OTOH YOUR question, was "How do I hold over the airport?":

Okay. I'm heading to Milwaukee from Grand Rapids. I've filed the
preferential, GRR..MKG.V2.SUDDS..MKE, and have been cleared as filed.
I'm flying a BE35/U; two nav/comms, GS receiver, ADF, and marker
beacon receiver. At MINNY I discover I cannot transmit or receive on
either comm radio. How do I hold over the airport?

To which I responded:

Per AIM 5-3-7.c:

Over MKE
Standard pattern (right turn, 1 or 1 1/2 minute legs)
On the course from SUDDS to MKE
At your cleared altitude
Until the time calculated per 91.185(c)(3)(ii)

Since I don't know whether or not SUDDS is an IAF, I simply answered the
question, assuming that in the situation you described, you might choose to hold
over the airport.

After finding an approach plate for MKE (which does not show SUDDS) on line this
AM, I can further clarify by noting that you can use the BAE and HRK VORs to
plot a VOR/VOR fix over the airport, and use that as your holding point, should
you choose to hold over the airport. You can back up that fix by tuning your
ILS receiver to an appropriate frequency (e.g., 110.3 for the I-MKE ILS 01R) and
use your marker beacon receiver to note passage over a MM or IM. Depending on
your inbound course, you might be able to get some useful LOC information, but I
wouldn't rely on it.

WOULD I do that for an hour? I doubt it -- I can't come up with a rational
scenario.

COULD I do it for a couple turns, given a scenario where I decided it was the
right thing to do? Yes! An HSI would make it easier, but it could be done with
a pair of CDIs.

A fix defined by the intersection of 2 VOR radials is sufficient for navigation.
It may take a bit of time to plot the 2 radials, and a few more seconds to plot
the course and distance from SUDDS to MKE, but each of those is a basic
navigation process. You might have even done it in your preflight planning, and
annotated your Sectional and/or Low Alt IFR chart just for situational
awareness...

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51...
"Gary Drescher" wrote...

Easy -- per 91.185(c)(3)(ii). Holding over the airport would be a
Standard pattern per AIM 5-3-7.c.

But if the clearance limit is the destination airport, then there won't
be
and EFC, and so 91.185c3ii does *not* say to hold over the airport.
Suppose
you lost comm shortly before getting to an IAF, and before being cleared
for
the approach. In that case, compliance with 91.185c3ii as written would
require you fly from the IAF to the airport, then back to the IAF, then
back
to the airport to land. Is that what you would do?

If I have not been explicitly told to expect an approach, and an IAF was
the
last filed point on my flight plan, I would consider that IAF as my
clearance
limit.
I have always been taught that
regardless of the "cleared to destination airport" terminology in the IFR
clearance received just prior to takeoff, the actual clearance limit --
and the
ETE calculation for the route -- is to the last NAVAID/Fix/waypoint
entered in
the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF.

But contrary to what you would construe, and contrary to what you have
always been taught, the AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary explicitly defines
"clearance limit" as "the fix, point, or location to which an aircraft is
cleared when issued an air traffic clearance". (Note that a clearance limit
doesn't even have to be a fix.) So you're essentially inventing your own
private definition of "clearance limit" in order to try to make 91.185c3ii
seem sensible. The very need to do that demonstrates that 91.185c3ii does
*not* make sense as written. We're then unfortunately left to guess at its
true intent.

This concept
is backed up in Para. 5-1-4.K and 5-1-7.f of the AIM, as well as
91.185(c)(3)(i)
and 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"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."

Note that the "descent and approach" are commenced at the derived ETA --
NOT the
departure from the non-IAF holding fix.

I don't see how any of the text you cite addresses your proposed definition
of "clearance limit". The term is clearly defined in the P/CG.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:ciCPb.100983$nt4.300167@attbi_s51...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:EhBPb.100820$nt4.298386@attbi_s51...

snip
the Route of Flight block of the flight plan -- normally the IAF.

But contrary to what you would construe, and contrary to what you have
always been taught, the AIM's Pilot/Controller Glossary explicitly defines
"clearance limit" as "the fix, point, or location to which an aircraft is
cleared when issued an air traffic clearance". (Note that a clearance
limit
doesn't even have to be a fix.) So you're essentially inventing your own
private definition of "clearance limit" in order to try to make 91.185c3ii
seem sensible. The very need to do that demonstrates that 91.185c3ii does
*not* make sense as written. We're then unfortunately left to guess at
its
true intent.

Many the original CFR 14 Parts require "interpreataion" and it is dangerous
to do otherwise. It is one of the reasons Part 145 had to be rewitten, so
that something that could work will be in the palce code that could never
have worked.

Onward and upward ...

In article .net, "Steven P.
McNicoll" writes:

The chances of
losing both transmitters and both receivers simultaneously are extremely
remote, unless the loss is due to a failure in the electrical system, which
would leave the other installed avionics just as useless as the comm
radios.

A hand held GPS on battterys is a good emergency avionic. I have a 195 on
ship's power (with bateries installed) as well as a 430 in the panel. It might
not be legal to do an approach with the 195 but it's better than a ham
sandwich.

Chuck

In article .net, "Steven P.
McNicoll" writes:

How would the system distinguish between your 7600 code and another 7600
code?


I guess you do have to plan for two or more at one time. How often does one
occur and have you ever had two at once?

I thought that the code appeared on the CRT along with my position. Does it?

Chuck