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 comm -- what would you do?
A student and I took off today IFR from HPN. Destination was FWN (Sussex,
NJ). Rhumb line course is 42 NM at 294 degrees. Clearance was "Westchester 1, RV CMK, CMK 275R to intercept SAX 039R, SAX, direct FWN, maintain 3000, expect 4000 after 10 minutes". Departing runway 34, the SID is "climb to 1000, then left turn 295, expect vectors to departure fix". CMK is 14 miles at 037. We depart, check in with NY Approach, and get "maintain 4000". Nothing about heading, so we stay on the SID heading of 295, which conveniently is pointing us right at our destination. Here's the question. If you went lost comm, what would you do? Technically, our next waypoint is still CMK, so "fly the route previously cleared" would have us head direct CMK then as cleared. But, every mile we fly on 295 takes us further and further away from CMK, and making a, say, 150 degree, course change to head back to CMK seems pretty dumb. Yet, they wouldn't have given us such a circuitous route if there wasn't some good reason they needed to keep us away from the rhumbline. The route is off-airways, but you note that the VOR-A (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0511/05412VGA.PDF) MSA is 3100. Assume you're familiar with the area, and know that 4000 clears all terrain that might possibly be a factor along any route you might pick. So, what would you do? Turn back to CMK and proceed from there? Keep on the 295 heading until you intercept the CMK 275 or the SAX 039, whichever comes first (assuming that heading even intercepts those at all). Turn direct SAX? Hit the reset button and start the scenario again? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
"Roy Smith" wrote: The route is off-airways, but you note that the VOR-A (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0511/05412VGA.PDF) MSA is 3100. Assume you're familiar with the area, and know that 4000 clears all terrain that might possibly be a factor along any route you might pick. So, what would you do? Turn back to CMK and proceed from there? Keep on the 295 heading until you intercept the CMK 275 or the SAX 039, whichever comes first (assuming that heading even intercepts those at all). Turn direct SAX? Hit the reset button and start the scenario again? Turn back to CMK and proceed from there, with an eye on the chart for obstacle/terrain clearance. Staying on 295 doesn't really assure you of anything even if you climb to 4,000 because you don't know when or what the next vector would have been. You can assume that the clearance after CMK works if you maintain charted IFR minimum altitudes. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
From 91.185 (lost comm): (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; I would argue that since you are told to expect radar vectors to departure fix, and the first fix is CMK, then by the letter of the regulation you are supposed to proceed to CMK. It's silly and inefficient, but I can't see a way around this in the regs. Practically speaking, this maybe adds a few minutes. If you can afford the time (lost comm is due to something benign, like audio panel failure) you might as well do it by the book. If it's more serious, there's always emergency authority. The real issue is why you were cleared the way you were, and how exercising emergency authority could cause you to run afoul of whatever prompted the roundabout clearance. I find it just a bit surprising you got that clearance in the first place - around here, short IFR legs in the close vicinity of a class B are almost always by RADAR vectors. I have little experience with short IFR legs in your part of the world (I'm generally either coming or going on long distance legs) so you need to tell me if a clearance like that is typical in such a situation. Assuming it is typical, it probably had to do with traffic - which is going to be moved away from you as soon as the controllers realize you're lost comm (likely before you realize it). If that's the case, no real consequence to taking a shortcut if the comm failure is accompanied by an emergency. The other (much scarier) possibility would be the existence of a flight restricted area - temporary or otherwise - along the direct course, and the unpleasant possibility of an incompetently handled military interception in IMC (which has already killed at least one completely innocent pilot and pax legally operating IFR on a flight plan) or simply a heat seeking missile up the exhaust. If that's the case, think twice about that shortcut. Michael |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
I would argue that since you are told to expect radar vectors to
departure fix, and the first fix is CMK, then by the letter of the regulation you are supposed to proceed to CMK. It's silly and inefficient, but I can't see a way around this in the regs. Turning towards CMK on your own would also alert them that you've lost comm (unless by coincidence, they were giving you the clearance at the same time), in which case the lack of audible response may clue them in. and the unpleasant possibility of an incompetently handled military interception in IMC (which has already killed at least one completely innocent pilot and pax legally operating IFR on a flight plan) When? Post 9-11? Cite? Why hasn't more noise been made? Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
Michael wrote: I find it just a
bit surprising you got that clearance in the first place - around here, short IFR legs in the close vicinity of a class B are almost always by RADAR vectors. Yes, it's pretty typical. Sometimes you get cleared "radar vectors direct", but much more often you get something like what I got. In fact, this particular clearance is common enough that I use as an exercise for people learning our GPS. Something like "CMK CMK275R intercept SAX039R SAX" is one of the few things that's actually easier to execute with dual VORs than with a GPS. I agree with you that if you lost comm right off the ground, direct CMK then as cleared would make sense. The more interesting scenario is what happens if you check in with Departure (as we did) and he just leaves you on the SID heading with no further instructions for a while. At some point, you're 5 miles from SAX and 30 miles from CMK, and it obviously doesn't make any sense to double back any more. It's unclear where the dividing line is between those two extremes. I don't think there's any right answer to this, it's just an interesting exercise in PIC decision making ability to figure out what the right thing to do is. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
an incompetently handled military interception in IMC (which has
already killed at least one completely innocent pilot and pax legally operating IFR on a flight plan) I did not hear about this!! What are the details?? -- Thanks, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
When? Post 9-11?
Nope, years prior. Can't find the cite anymore. Short version - Baron on an IFR flight plan over the Gulf, due to crossed wires a fighter is sent to take a look. Weather is cruddy, pilot botches the intercept (realize that at 8000 ft, cruise speed for a Baron is just about the same as stall speed for a fighter) and there's a midair. Fighter pilot bails out successfully. Baron pilot and his pax go in. At the time (this was over a decade ago) a huge stink was raised. There was talk of a lawsuit, but it was squashed via sovereign immunity. Supposedly, intercept procedures were changed. However, a friend of mine was flying on a DVFR flight plan from over the Gulf in his Twin Comanche and looked back, upon hearing a strange noise, to see an F-16 hanging just off his wing, everything hanging out. Seconds later, the pilot has do dive away to avoid a stall, coming within several feet of my friend. So nothing has changed. Michael |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
"Michael" wrote in message ups.com... Nope, years prior. Can't find the cite anymore. Short version - Baron on an IFR flight plan over the Gulf, due to crossed wires a fighter is sent to take a look. Weather is cruddy, pilot botches the intercept (realize that at 8000 ft, cruise speed for a Baron is just about the same as stall speed for a fighter) and there's a midair. Fighter pilot bails out successfully. Baron pilot and his pax go in. At the time (this was over a decade ago) a huge stink was raised. There was talk of a lawsuit, but it was squashed via sovereign immunity. Supposedly, intercept procedures were changed. However, a friend of mine was flying on a DVFR flight plan from over the Gulf in his Twin Comanche and looked back, upon hearing a strange noise, to see an F-16 hanging just off his wing, everything hanging out. Seconds later, the pilot has do dive away to avoid a stall, coming within several feet of my friend. So nothing has changed. Is this it? NTSB Identification: ATL83MA084B Accident occurred Sunday, January 09, 1983 in CHERRY POINT, NC Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas F4C, registration: AFNG BEECH D55, registration: N7142N Injuries: 7 Fatal, 2 Uninjured. THE TWO ACFT COLLIDED AT ABOUT 9,500 FT MSL 30 MI SOUTH OF CHERRY POINT. AFTER DEPARTING NASSAU, THE PLT OF THE BE-D55 NEVER ACTIVATED HIS FLT PLAN. AN ADIZ PENETRATION TIME WAS THEREFORE NEVER ESTABLISHED. WHEN THE UNIDENTIFIED ACFT ENTERED WARNING AREA W-122, THE USAF CONTACTED FAA ATC FOR IDENTIFICATION INFO. SINCE FAA WAS NOT CONTROLLING ANY TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA AN INTERCEPT ORDER WAS ISSUED. AT 1637 FAA GOT A POSITION REPORT FROM THE BE-D55 & RELAYED IT TO MILITARY CONTROL. HOWEVER, THE TWO FIGHTER ACFT CONTINUED TO CLOSE IN ON THE TARGET FOR RADAR CONTACT. THE LEAD ACFT WAS TO CLOSE ABOUT 1,000 FT BELOW THE TARGET AT A PREPLANNED CLOSURE RATE OF 50 KTS (ACTUAL RATE WAS 127 KTS). SECONDS BEFORE THE COLLISION, THE BE-D55 TURNED LEFT AS REQUESTED BY FAA ATC THUS TURNING IT INTO THE PATH OF THE OVERTAKING INTERCEPTOR WHICH ALSO HAD TURNED LEFT TO BREAK OFF THE INTERCEPT. THE SAFETY BOARD DID NOT DETERMINE THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT, BUT OFFERED STATEMENTS OF CAUSE. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
Roy Smith wrote:
I don't think there's any right answer to this, it's just an interesting exercise in PIC decision making ability to figure out what the right thing to do is. At least you've a fix towards which you can fly. A common clearance out of CDW towards the west is "180 vectors Lanna V30...". This is even given to aircraft /U...which would find it tough to fly direct to Lanna. In practice, we'd fly "SBJ Lanna..." but I still find it an odd clearance. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it one of my pet peeves regarding routing. Similarly odd is a clearance like "STW direct KCDW" or "COATE direct KCDW". Neither STW nor COATE are initial approach fixs, so what should be done? In RADAR and COMM, one is vectored to final. But in a communication failure? Fly to SAX (which is an IAF for CDW's LOC22)? [Assuming IMC, of course.] - Andrew |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Lost comm -- what would you do?
At some point, you're 5 miles from SAX and 30 miles from CMK,
and it obviously doesn't make any sense to double back any more. I'm not sure it ever made sense to double back to CMK. That's not really the point. The regulation is clear - your next fix is CMK. I'm not saying that going to CMK is the right thing to do, especially if you are 5 miles from SAX - merely that it's what the regulation calls for. Sometimes the regulation is just wrong. I don't think there's any right answer to this, it's just an interesting exercise in PIC decision making ability to figure out what the right thing to do is. Well, I sort of agree. There really isn't one exact right answer, but there are reasonable answers and unreasonable ones. One of those unresonable answers involves actually following the rules when you're 5 miles from SAX. Part of PIC decision making in the real world is knowing when to bend the rules in a non-emergency situation, and knowing what you can get away with. If you talk to an actual practicing center or approach controller, he will tell you that in the event of lost comm, the best thing for everyone is for you to get on the ground by the most expeditious route, since they can't count on you doing anything in particular (more likely than not your lost comm is associated with a more serious emergency) and are going to sterilize the airspace around you anyway. In the age of RADAR capable of seeing primary targets, that's the sensible course of action. 91.185 hasn't kept pace. It doesn't need to. Lost comm due to equipment failure is a rare event these days, and lost comm due to equipment failure not associated with another emergency in IMC has got to be so rare it's not worth the effort of rewriting the rules. We torment our instrument students with the minutiae of lost comm rules, but in reality that's strictly a checkride exercise. So forget about following the letter of the rules - do something sensible. Remember - no action is foolproof. A fed who wants to get you will get you. One who isn't after your hide will accept that you did something reasonable. Backtracking 40 miles and tying up the system with your NORDO self for an extra 45 minutes isn't reasonable, even if that's what the rule calls for (and clearly it does). Let's say you're changing radios on your audio panel, and due to crappy soldering and decades of vibration, the switch comes off in your hand. Everything else still works, but with no audio panel you can't use either comm. No real emergency - the fan is still turning, the juice is still flowing, and the nav is still pointing. If you've established comm with ATC, climbed to your final altitude, and were left on your DP heading, there's very little chance the controller had any intention of ever sending you back to CMK. He's either going to send you direct by RADAR vectors, or have you join the route somewhere in the middle (or reroute you). I would suggest that a reasonable thing to do is look at your position relative to your cleared route, and draw a reasonable intercept course from your present position to your route. We generally consider 30 degrees to be a reasonable intercept. If you can make that work, that's what makes sense. If you're too close to SAX to make that work, you need to go direct SAX. That's how the controller would put you back on the route if he had to (due to transponder problems, for example) and that's what you ought to do. However, if there's a flight restriction area that prompted the circuitous clearance, be damn sure your course for getting back on the cleared route avoids it. If the only way you can assure this is by backtracking to CMK, well, that's what you do. It's not an exact right answer, but it does give you some reasonable guidance on what to do. It's what makes sense in the real world. It may not play so well on an IFR oral. Michael |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lost comm while VFR in Class Bravo | Roy Smith | General Aviation | 10 | April 23rd 04 11:12 PM |
Lost comms after radar vector | Mike Ciholas | Instrument Flight Rules | 119 | January 31st 04 11:39 PM |
Lost comm altitude? | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | January 11th 04 12:29 AM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |
Lost comm - Arrival | Michael 182 | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | July 28th 03 12:04 AM |