lost comm clarification

[HMR]

You guys are reading way too much into this and making it too complicated.

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[sqwkvfr]

You guys are reading way too much into this and making it too complicated. The regs says to fly the "MEA", not the next higher altitude for the direction of flight. If the MEA is 9,300', or 10,300', then that's what you fly.

...and then what happens when you have a ATC comms failure or a stuck mike on frequency?? You could very well have two 7600s headed toward each other at the MEA.

This is exactly the problem that I've run into...I had a DE relate to me a story about an open mike in IMC near San Diego...which would put several aircraft in a lost comms situation. The FARs are NOT specific, the "instrument procedures handbook" isn't either.

I think it should be treated like JAFI said....when faced with a choice, do whatever's safer...and that would be flying at the appropriate minimum altitude for your course.

 

[Donsa320]

...and then what happens when you have a ATC comms failure or a stuck mike on frequency?? You could very well have two 7600s headed toward each other at the MEA.

This is exactly the problem that I've run into...I had a DE relate to me a story about an open mike in IMC near San Diego...which would put several aircraft in a lost comms situation. The FARs are NOT specific, the "instrument procedures handbook" isn't either.

I think it should be treated like JAFI said....when faced with a choice, do whatever's safer...and that would be flying at the appropriate minimum altitude for your course.

And, what makes you think there will be no one at 11,000 ft in your example above? I can guarantee you ATC will only be protecting the MEA and your original assigned altitude. You probably have some simplistic single route situation in mind but there can be diverging and converging airways and terminal routes as well as random vectors and GPS directs, etc, all going on above you. Your direction of flight has nothing to do with leaving the MEA to comply with the quadrangle separation. It is not provided for in the rule. Thankfully the transport category airplanes have TCAS to protect themselves from you. I pity the poor slobs around you that don't have TCAS!

~DC

 

[HMR]

Donsa- I'm not clear on what your answer to the situation is. What would you do? When anyone with 30,000+hrs(!) speaks, I'm all ears.

Please give the applicable references in the FAR's.

Thank You.

 

[HMR]

The regs says to fly the "MEA", not the next higher altitude for the direction of flight. If the MEA is 9,300', or 10,300', then that's what you fly.

The regs don't say to fly the "MEA". What if we lose comm when we're off-airway? 91.185(C)(2)(ii) says "The minimum altitude for IFR operations". Does that mean MEA, MVA, MSA, MORA, MOCA, cappuccino...?

If there's a loss of separation caused by a pilot flying the wrong altitude w/lost comm he better have a good reason for it when the Feds come a'knockin.

You have a lot more time in the air than I do. I appreciate your input.

 

[SSDD]

sqwkvfr,

You can play what if's all day long. What if you have five airplane converging on the same point at the appropriate IFR altitude? What if you have one NORDO airplane climbing and another descending? What if....?

 

[Donsa320]

Donsa- I'm not clear on what your answer to the situation is. What would you do? When anyone with 30,000+hrs(!) speaks, I'm all ears.

Please give the applicable references in the FAR's.

Thank You.

I thought I was rather clear in my original response. In lost communications if you cannot maintain VFR and land, then the only altitudes you are entitled to be at in IFR conditions are the one you were cleared to maintain, any higher altitude you were told to expect at a certain time if you are filed into the flight levels and any minimum enroute altitude that is higher than what you were cleared to maintain and then only for the route segment that requires it.
Nowhere is the direction of flight a consideration.
Those basic rules have not changed in the 53 years that I've had an instrument rating.
You can read the FARs for yourself but remember, the ATC guys do NOT know the FARs....they have their ATC Handbook which pilots, of course, never see.

I suggest that you have this discussion with several ATC Safety Reps. You will probably get a variety of answers there also.
From what I've found , they (ATC) will clear as much traffic out as they can and keep their fingers crossed. And it takes time.

BTW in all my hours I've only lost communications twice. Once in Korea and once in Norway. And that was long ago with tube radios.

~DC

 

[Fly_Chick]

A question came up during an IFR flight tonight. I asked my student what he would do if he lost comms. His reply was to

"continue the flight VFR, squawk 1200 and land as soon as practicable"

This was new to me as I always thought to squawk 7600. He pointed out to me the reg says "each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable" and his interpretation was to squawk 1200 since he was under VFR.

I did not initially agree with this... then started thinking... you can still be VFR with a specific squawk code. 7600 is the code for VFR or IFR lost comms. Have others heard of squawking 1200 in lost comms (VFR or IFR)?

What are the other opinions on this?

 

[flytheblue]

I would squawk 7600 whether Im in VFR or IFR conditions or the flight was originally VFR or IFR. What if you are landing at a controlled airport? How are you going to let ATC know you are lost comm? (assuming that you dont have a total electrical failure of course).

 

[JAFI]

I see the transponder as a "Communication" device. You transmit a discrete code, altitude (if you have mode C) and the radar system calculates ground speed and your position. The 1200 code is universal for "normal" VFR. If you are VFR and talking to ATC, they will give you a specific code to identify you from all the other VFR (1200) traffic. If we throw in Lost Comms then stay with the 7600 (discrete code) to identify you as Lost Comm and something other than "normal" traffic.

Have your student understand that the code is not just a standard IFR - VFR code but a communication to ATC who you are and maybe what is happening to you....

JAFI

 

[minitour]

What are the other opinions on this?

I lost comms on my long Commercial XC. I was on a code with center and after finally accepting the fact that I was NORDO, I squawked 7600...after about 15 minutes I put it on 1200 and continued (I was VFR). When I got there, I called FSS, got the number for Center, called up and they said that was exactly what the want to see. The 7600 catches their attention to say "Hey! I can't hear you!" and then after a while (once they realize it) the 1200 says "Okay, thanks for the help, I can keep going VFR no help needed"

The only time I wouldn't do that would be in B, C, or D...but enroute in E or G go for it...if you're VFR and could continue put up a 1200...

-mini

 

[JAFI]

Mini, you used the transponder to talk to ATC while acting as PIC, YOU broke the CODE!!

JAFI

 

[sqwkvfr]

And, what makes you think there will be no one at 11,000 ft in your example above? I can guarantee you ATC will only be protecting the MEA and your original assigned altitude. You probably have some simplistic single route situation in mind but there can be diverging and converging airways and terminal routes as well as random vectors and GPS directs, etc, all going on above you. Your direction of flight has nothing to do with leaving the MEA to comply with the quadrangle separation. It is not provided for in the rule. Thankfully the transport category airplanes have TCAS to protect themselves from you. I pity the poor slobs around you that don't have TCAS!

~DC

My DE on my IFR checkride told me different...she relayed the aformentioned "open mike" story from San Diego to drive home the point that there might very well be more than one aircraft with lost comms --effectively being blocked by the transmitter with the open mike-- rendering ATC unable to to protect the MEA.

Get it now?

She said to climb to the minimum IFR altitude appropriate for your course, which might not necessarily be the MEA. I would think that in the sort of situation she described, the chances of a mid-air would be greatly reduced if you were on the correct altitude with respect to your course.

Thanks for the civil response, BTW. Real nice. I would think that someone who claims to spend time in the training department would be a little more understanding, empathetic and diplomatic.

 

[minitour]

Mini, you used the transponder to talk to ATC while acting as PIC, YOU broke the CODE!!

JAFI

Are they after me now?...they're always after me lucky charms!!!

-mini

 

[Donsa320]

My DE on my IFR checkride told me different...she relayed the aformentioned "open mike" story from San Diego to drive home the point that there might very well be more than one aircraft with lost comms --effectively being blocked by the transmitter with the open mike-- rendering ATC unable to to protect the MEA.

Get it now?

She said to climb to the minimum IFR altitude appropriate for your course, which might not necessarily be the MEA. I would think that in the sort of situation she described, the chances of a mid-air would be greatly reduced if you were on the correct altitude with respect to your course.

Thanks for the civil response, BTW. Real nice. I would think that someone who claims to spend time in the training department would be a little more understanding, empathetic and diplomatic.

No, sorry, I do not "get it now". Was this an enroute loss of communications or during the vectors for approach with several airplanes being spaced for arrrival or what?
Enroute there should be little need for any draconian action to be taken. Watch for changes in minimum altitudes and try alternate communication outlets like towers and FSS. Monitor the navigation aids that have voice. Again, changing altitude without a clearance would be WAY down the list for me.

We all wonder what would happen if approach control at a really busy place like ORD, DFW or ATL would go down. Your DE's solution does not make much sense to me there either and I surely would not do what she suggests, i.e. leave my assigned altitude. Arg! An exception could be in the west coast basins with mountains around the airports. Smart money really keeps a close tab on one's position and where a vector is taking you, whether you have lost communications or not!

No hard and fast rule can be written to accommodate every situation but don't do anything to make it worse.

And yes, I've never been known to be particularly full of understanding, empathy or diplomacy. On the other hand, airline training departments are not always full of that either. <grin>

I am not saying to not think for yourself but be sure you have all the facts possible before deciding on a course of action and especially when you instruct others as to what to do.

These theads do provide great fodder for interview questions though, I have to say that.

~DC

 

[HMR]

sqwkvfr- I agree with your DE. This is a good example of an important reg being as clear as mud. The two highest time pilots that responded to you both recommended flying the "MEA". I'LL SAY IT AGAIN: "MEA" is not mentioned in 91.185.

Here's something I've learned about honest questions in Aviation: If "higher time" guys cop an attitude when you seek advice, it's usually a good sign they don't know themselves.

 

[sqwkvfr]

And yes, I've never been known to be particularly full of understanding, empathy or diplomacy. On the other hand, airline training departments are not always full of that either.

I'll worry about that when I get at least ten times the number of hours that I presently have. That is, if everyone's TCAS is working properly enough to avoid me so I can live that long, right?

Donsa and HMR, I appreciate both of you taking the time to respond.

 

[Donsa320]

sqwkvfr- I agree with your DE. This is a good example of an important reg being as clear as mud. The two highest time pilots that responded to you both recommended flying the "MEA". I'LL SAY IT AGAIN: "MEA" is not mentioned in 91.185.

Here's something I've learned about honest questions in Aviation: If "higher time" guys cop an attitude when you seek advice, it's usually a good sign they don't know themselves.

If you are referring to me, you will note that I do not say MEA. I said minimum enroute altitude. That is something you get to decide. If you happen to be on a published route, then it is a published MEA. Off airways or published routes you get the responsibility to determine the minimum enroute altitude.

I hope you make that distinction.

~DC

 

[Donsa320]

I'll worry about that when I get at least ten times the number of hours that I presently have. That is, if everyone's TCAS is working properly enough to avoid me so I can live that long, right?

Donsa and HMR, I appreciate both of you taking the time to respond.

You will be fine...just keep on thinking and learning.

~DC

 

[HMR]

I finally figured out how to cut and paste!!! I know this is super long but at least read the 3 examples towards the end. I hadn't read this for awhile and it cleared some things up for me.

[size=+1]Section 4. Two-way Radio Communications Failure[/size]​

6-4-1. Two-way Radio Communications Failure​

a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations associated with two-way radio communications failure. During two-way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action contained in 14 CFR Section 91.3(b).




b. Whether two-way communications failure constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances, and in any event, it is a determination made by the pilot. 14 CFR Section 91.3(b) authorizes a pilot to deviate from any rule in Subparts A and B to the extent required to meet an emergency.

c. In the event of two-way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two-way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185 quoted below:




​

NOTE-



Capitalization, print and examples changed/added for emphasis.




​

1. General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the rules of this section.




2. VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.




​

NOTE-



This procedure also applies when two-way radio failure occurs while operating in Class A airspace. The primary objective of this provision in 14 CFR Section 91.185 is to preclude extended IFR operation by these aircraft within the ATC system. Pilots should recognize that operation under these conditions may unnecessarily as well as adversely affect other users of the airspace, since ATC may be required to reroute or delay other users in order to protect the failure aircraft. However, it is not intended that the requirement to "land as soon as practicable" be construed to mean "as soon as possible." Pilots retain the prerogative of exercising their best judgment and are not required to land at an unauthorized airport, at an airport unsuitable for the type of aircraft flown, or to land only minutes short of their intended destination.




​

3. IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if subparagraph 2 above cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the flight according to the following:







​

(a)Route.







​

(1) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received;




(2) 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;

(3) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance; or

(4) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance by the route filed in the flight plan.




​

​

(b)Altitude.At the HIGHEST of the following altitudes or flight levels FOR THE ROUTE SEGMENT BEING FLOWN:







​

(1) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;




(2) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or

(3) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.



​

​

NOTE-



The intent of the rule is that a pilot who has experienced two-way radio failure should select the appropriate altitude for the particular route segment being flown and make the necessary altitude adjustments for subsequent route segments. If the pilot received an "expect further clearance" containing a higher altitude to expect at a specified time or fix, maintain the highest of the following altitudes until that time/fix:
(1) the last assigned altitude; or
(2) the minimum altitude/flight level for IFR operations.

Upon reaching the time/fix specified, the pilot should commence climbing to the altitude advised to expect. If the radio failure occurs after the time/fix specified, the altitude to be expected is not applicable and the pilot should maintain an altitude consistent with 1 or 2 above.
If the pilot receives an "expect further clearance" containing a lower altitude, the pilot should maintain the highest of 1 or 2 above until that time/fix specified in subparagraph (c) Leave clearance limit, below.



​

EXAMPLE-
1. A pilot experiencing two-way radio failure at an assigned altitude of 7,000 feet is cleared along a direct route which will require a climb to a minimum IFR altitude of 9,000 feet, should climb to reach 9,000 feet at the time or place where it becomes necessary (see 14 CFR Section 91.177(b)). Later while proceeding along an airway with an MEA of 5,000 feet, the pilot would descend to 7,000 feet (the last assigned altitude), because that altitude is higher than the MEA.

2. A pilot experiencing two-way radio failure while being progressively descended to lower altitudes to begin an approach is assigned 2,700 feet until crossing the VOR and then cleared for the approach. The MOCA along the airway is 2,700 feet and MEA is 4,000 feet. The aircraft is within 22 NM of the VOR. The pilot should remain at 2,700 feet until crossing the VOR because that altitude is the minimum IFR altitude for the route segment being flown.

3. The MEA between a and b - 5,000 feet. The MEA between b and c - 5,000 feet. The MEA between c and d - 11,000 feet. The MEA between d and e - 7,000 feet. A pilot had been cleared via a, b, c, d, to e. while flying between a and b the assigned altitude was 6,000 feet and the pilot was told to expect a clearance to 8,000 feet at b. Prior to receiving the higher altitude assignment, the pilot experienced two-way failure. The pilot would maintain 6,000 to b, then climb to 8,000 feet (the altitude advised to expect). The pilot would maintain 8,000 feet, then climb to 11,000 at c, or prior to c if necessary to comply with an MCA at c. (14 CFR Section 91.177(b).) Upon reaching d, the pilot would descend to 8,000 feet (even though the MEA was 7,000 feet), as 8,000 was the highest of the altitude situations stated in the rule (14 CFR Section 91.185).



​