lost comm clarification

[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).



​

 

[HMR]

For those of you still awake...here's the rest!

(c) Leave clearance limit.





​

(1) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) Estimated Time En Route (ETE).



(2) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and 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.


​

​

6-4-2. Transponder Operation During Two-way Communications Failure




​

a. If an aircraft with a coded radar beacon transponder experiences a loss of two-way radio capability, the pilot should adjust the transponder to reply on MODE A/3, Code 7600.



b. The pilot should understand that the aircraft may not be in an area of radar coverage.



​

6-4-3. Reestablishing Radio Contact




​

a. In addition to monitoring the NAVAID voice feature, the pilot should attempt to reestablish communications by attempting contact:





​

1. On the previously assigned frequency, or



2. With an FSS or *ARINC.



​

b. If communications are established with an FSS or ARINC, the pilot should advise that radio communications on the previously assigned frequency has been lost giving the aircraft's position, altitude, last assigned frequency and then request further clearance from the controlling facility. The preceding does not preclude the use of 121.5 MHz. There is no priority on which action should be attempted first. If the capability exists, do all at the same time.





​

NOTE-


*Aeronautical Radio/Incorporated (ARINC) is a commercial communications corporation which designs, constructs, operates, leases or otherwise engages in radio activities serving the aviation community. ARINC has the capability of relaying information to/from ATC facilities throughout the country.

THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT.

​

 

[Lead Sled]

For a pilot of a high performance jet, it wouldn't be very practical to maintain your cruising altitude (typically FL370 or higher) until you reached the clearance limit. ATC will be painfully aware that they're not talking to you and they'll going to clear the airspace around you for miles. They want to you to be predictable. I guarantee you that if you maintain your cruising flight level until you get to the IAF or over the airport they're going to be wondering just what on Earth you're going to do next. If you encounter VFR conditions enroute then maintain VFR and land. If you can't terminate the flight VFR then make a normal descent (If you filed a STAR then you'll want to comply with any published altitudes and airspeeds on it.) If you end up having to shoot an approach, get yourself to an appropriate IAF and fly the approach. ATC will see what you're doing and you'll have the airspace to all yourself.

'Sled

 

[146guy]

"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." (AIM)


I like this part, I'd bet most would just climb to their expected altitude. Going lost comm. shortly after takeoff would be a real fuel problem especially in the mid-west with low MEA's or MORA's if filed direct. A lot of the SID's only take you to 5000' or so, you would end up only being able to fly at very low altitudes all the way to your destination!

 

[nosehair]

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.

This is the wisest bit of information on this thread.

 

[NYCPilot]

Here's an easy way to recall the lost comm rules.
Just remember: MEA and C,D,E,F.


ALTITUDE
Fly the highest of your M.E.A.

M = MEA
E = Expected
A = Assigned




ROUTE
"CDEF" (Fly the route in this order)

C = Cleared
D = Direct (to the NAV aid if being RADAR vectored)
E = Expected
F = Filed


AB...C, D, E, F (just like the alphabet, in this order)

 

[check6]

So, I know this was posted a while ago, but let me get this straight. If the Clearance Limit is the airport, which is the most common, then the idea would be to shoot the approach and land ASAP. If the clearance limit is not the airport, and instead a fix(either a random fix or an IAF),then that is when FAR 91.185(c)(3) comes into play. That's what my consensus is, unless someone wants to add something. I do agree with all the comments about the situation being an emergency and the references to 91.3(that's probably what I'd do), but as an instructor, I want to teach it out of the book.

 

[NYCPilot]

If the clearance limit fix is the airport then you would begin an approach as close as possible to your filed ETA, not “ASAP.” Should you arrive earlier, you would hold at an approach fix until your ETA before beginning the approach.

If the clearance limit is a fix other than the airport or an approach fix (IAF), you would hold at the clearance limit fix until EFC and then proceed to an approach fix of your choice and begin an approach. If you arrive at the approach fix earlier than your filed ETA, hold there until ETA and then begin your approach. If you were not issued an EFC time prior to your clearance limit fix, you would proceed to the clearance limit and continue on to an approach fix where you would hold until your filed ETA. At ETA, you would begin the approach.

Also, under these circumstances the airspace is cleared for you and you have the right to execute any IAP for that particular destination. Of course, prudence dictates (as well as the FAR’s) that should you happen to encounter VFR weather, maintain VFR and land as soon as practicable.

Whenever you are given holding instructions or a clearance limit, the controller is required to issue an EFC time. This EFC time is important for the very reason that if you lose two-way communications, your route and intentions of flight will be predicable. That is why it is issued. Also, if you haven’t received an EFC time or a clearance beyond your clearance limit, you are expected to hold at this fix, until advised otherwise.

Although these are the rules to technically follow in the event of a total lost of communications, you may elect to just begin the approach anyway, especially since ATC will most likely have you on RADAR. This will help clear the airspace sooner.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Exactly the quandary I'm speaking of, and if you are not GPS equipped how exactly do they want you to fly to the airport and then to an IAF?

Sorry if someone answered this question already, too lazy to read all 4 pages.

If you look in your AFD most (if not all) airports have some kind or radial, brg, and dme from a navaid nearby. Usually that navaid is associated with the enroute structure so, if you are on the airways you can easily go to the navaid/fix and navigate to your airport using Class one navigation.

 

[NYCPilot]

DC8 Flyer –

Good point. Seems to be a little known fact that there is usually a radial or bearing of some sort that takes you directly to the airport that can be found in the AF/D. One time I had a student divert on a cross country due to simulated weather. I asked him to take me to an airport that was small and partially obscured by mountains on both sides. As predicted, he had a lot of difficulty trying to locate it. Aside from pointing out the obvious, such as climbing to a higher altitude and locating it in relation to prominent landmarks, I explained to him how he could quite easily look up the radial that leads right to it, from the AF/D. If one is not handy, you can draw a line from a VOR direct to the airport as well (assuming you have a sectional).

If for some reason you do need to divert, it’s a lot easier to pick an airport with a navigation facility on or near the field and one with DME is a plus. This makes your navigation and computations much easier.

 

[huncowboy]

If the clearance limit fix is the airport then you would begin an approach as close as possible to your filed ETA, not “ASAP.” Should you arrive earlier, you would hold at an approach fix until your ETA before beginning the approach.

We have this argument going for the last few months at my place as well. I tend to disagree with the above.

The title of 91.185(c)(3) is: "Leave clearance limit."

Thus my understanding is that the rule does not kick in, when your airport is the clearance limit as you will never need to leave it. So I won't even get into reading the paragraphs under it as it does not apply. IMHO you would proceed and fly the approach upon arrival. Our DPE is on the same view which means nada. However our Regional FAA inspector from the Orlando FSDO is on the same opinion as you and many others... which again means nothing.

I have also read at some noname website that this rule was designed for non-radar. In non-radar cases you'd always get a clearance limit other than your airport. With my waste (sarcasm) experience of local IFR flying in South FL, which is always covered by radar, I can't back this up (except that I always get cleared to the airport) but it seems to make perfect sense. But common sense is poor guidance when reading the FARs.

I would love to see a court ruling or Legal Council interpretation. Perhaps Avbug or someone else has something for us.

As far as the altitude goes, IMO read AIM 6-4-1 especially Example 2.

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.

To me the above indicates that minimum altitudes are MEA, MOCA, MORA and published altitudes on approach plates starting with MSA and feeder routes all the way down to MDA and DA. Also none of the examples mention appropriate IFR altitudes based on magnetic course.

Would I put money (if I would not be a CFI and would have some) on my theories above? Nope.

 

[inthewind]

In the military we went over this extensively every year. As far as when to shoot the approach [/U]or leave your clearance limit, it it at your filed eta of the efc.
The altitude is the highest of MEA, assigned, or expected.

A few years ago a contractor cut the com cables for all of Miami Center when digging with a backhoe. Everyone complied with above procedures and landed safely. What would have happened if American XXXX had decided that 'O well I'm under radar control I'll shoot the approach whenever I goddamn feel like it?

 

[NYCPilot]

We have this argument going for the last few months at my place as well. I tend to disagree with the above.

The title of 91.185(c)(3) is: "Leave clearance limit."

Thus my understanding is that the rule does not kick in, when your airport is the clearance limit as you will never need to leave it. So I won't even get into reading the paragraphs under it as it does not apply. IMHO you would proceed and fly the approach upon arrival. Our DPE is on the same view which means nada. However our Regional FAA inspector from the Orlando FSDO is on the same opinion as you and many others... which again means nothing.

That’s correct that you will never have to “leave” the airport, because you will not head to it first (unless of course, it is an IAF because there is a navaid on the field which is, or will guide you to, the approach fix (IAF)). But my interpretation still stands. The point being, you will either begin the approach immediately upon arrival at an approach fix (a.k.a. IAF) or hold until your ETA. This is predicated upon receiving an EFC time or not.

You CANNOT begin an instrument approach UNLESS you have an IAF in which to execute it from. Therefore, all approaches (RADAR and non-RADAR under a lost-comm. situation) will require the commencement of the approach from this point. Some airports have multiple IAF’s some only one. The point is, the IAF is a means to transition from the enroute environment into the approach environment by means of radio navigation. Thus, EFC or not, ETA or not, you will begin your approach from an IAF. Think of the clearance limit, if it is the airport, as being the IAF or putting it another way, the IAF is representative of the airport if the airport is the clearance limit fix.

Hope this doesn’t sound too confusing.

 

[Vector4fun]

I have also read at some noname website that this rule was designed for non-radar. In non-radar cases you'd always get a clearance limit other than your airport. With my waste (sarcasm) experience of local IFR flying in South FL, which is always covered by radar, I can't back this up (except that I always get cleared to the airport) but it seems to make perfect sense. But common sense is poor guidance when reading the FARs.

I would love to see a court ruling or Legal Council interpretation. Perhaps Avbug or someone else has something for us.

Here ya go Cowboy,


Faa 7110.65 Controller's Handbook

4-7-6. ARRIVAL INFORMATION

b. Forward the following information to approach control facilities before transfer of control jurisdiction:

NOTE-
Transfer points are usually specified in a letter of agreement.
​

1. Aircraft identification.

2. Type of aircraft and appropriate aircraft equipment suffix.

3. ETA or actual time, and proposed or actual altitude over clearance limit. The ETA need not be given if the arrival information is being forwarded during a radar handoff.

4. Clearance limit (when other than the destination airport) and EFC issued to the aircraft. Clearance limit may be omitted when provided for in a letter of agreement.
​

5. Time, fix, or altitude when control responsibility is transferred to the approach control facility. This information may be omitted when provided for in a letter of agreement.



In a non-radar environment, the LOAs will always (In my experience) specify a revised clearance limit other than the airport, and will always require an ETA from the Center. And remember, no controller knows what you're filed ETA was, unless you filed with that controller. Hopefully, you also remembered to start figuring and reporting your ETA to the next fix after the controller said "Radar service terminated, contact XYZ Approach on 118.6" or some such.


What I don't know, actually, is whether there are any non-radar Approach Controls left in the Lower 48. There were several dozen back when I got started in this Biz...​

 

[huncowboy]

That’s correct that you will never have to “leave” the airport, because you will not head to it first (unless of course, it is an IAF because there is a navaid on the field which is, or will guide you to, the approach fix (IAF)). But my interpretation still stands. The point being, you will either begin the approach immediately upon arrival at an approach fix (a.k.a. IAF) or hold until your ETA. This is predicated upon receiving an EFC time or not.

You CANNOT begin an instrument approach UNLESS you have an IAF in which to execute it from. Therefore, all approaches (RADAR and non-RADAR under a lost-comm. situation) will require the commencement of the approach from this point. Some airports have multiple IAF’s some only one. The point is, the IAF is a means to transition from the enroute environment into the approach environment by means of radio navigation. Thus, EFC or not, ETA or not, you will begin your approach from an IAF. Think of the clearance limit, if it is the airport, as being the IAF or putting it another way, the IAF is representative of the airport if the airport is the clearance limit fix.

Hope this doesn’t sound too confusing.

We never had a disagreement about weather you can or can't shoot an approach from an IAF w/o comm. That should be part of everyone's flight planning to indicate an IAF as your last waypoint in the FP.

I am only talking about weather you will or will not hold until ETA.

 

[Lead Sled]

...That should be part of everyone's flight planning to indicate an IAF as your last waypoint in the FP...

That is not a requirement. What if the IAP is for an approach that's inappropriate for the circumstances? If your clearance limit is an airport, you simply select an appropriate approach, make your way to the IAP, fly it and land. ATC will clear the airspace for miles around you. You guys are making this too hard.

'Sled

 

[huncowboy]

That is not a requirement.
'Sled

never said it was... as far as making it hard... how about coming up with some good reference or source or whatever other than "you guys're making it too hard..." we aren't making anything too hard just simply trying to figure out what to teach to students.

 

[LAZYB]

Nordo

If your clearance limit is an airport, you simply select an appropriate approach, make your way to the IAP, fly it and land. ATC will clear the airspace for miles around you. You guys are making this too hard.

'Sled

Ditto.

Don't get hung-up on Doc's input/replies, but reference the ATC input.

http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/messages/6723.html

<fwd> same site

Doc,

I guess it could come down to a "thinking", reasonable, practical and safe course of action, versus, an erudite liability-adverse legal/etymological interpretation of the convoluted obtusely written FARs. "Leaving the clearance limit" - you're not! I think a lot of people/CFIIs have rationalized and developed procedures to address and make sense of the ambiguity, "Leaving the clearance limit", for "closure". My opening statement was not meant to be confrontational but to lampoon the less than clear guidance given by the FAA. I think the following response by Bill English, the author of "Squawk 7600!" - the article I referenced - indicates the PIC will be challenged to use his knowledge and skills and, if necessary, invoke his 91.3 prerogative - all the time flying safely and having other traffic separated from you.

(fwd)

Hi Don

I'd have to go find the article, I have no idea where I have it.

There have been a few FAA interps in the intervening 8 years, mostly having to do with STARS that have vertical "expect" notations. Used to be, under NORDO, you considered those to be ATC instructions to "expect" and should descend to meet them. Apparently that got too confusing with the proliferation of STARS/FMSPs with vertical components, so they now say those don't necessarily count. There may be a few a more, I don't know, haven't kept up on the issue.

Most people (including FAA types) get hung up by missing what the paragraph addresses- when to *leave* the clearance limit. In old Air Force procedure, the CL was often the IAF, *not* the airport, but that's not so in the civilian world (or even the air force anymore). The point of the article is that in the vast majority of flights that sub-paragraph simply does not apply since you never get to the clearance limit in order to leave it.

Of course, since a whole lot of people do think it applies, it de facto is considered, since ATC in reality has no idea what you're going to do. Or even if you are NORDO for some more serious reason and have actually had an emergency and are operating under those provisions.

Let me give you a few thinking points:
1. Expecting the FAA to put forth specific rules for abnormal situations is unrealistic. Thinking is far more important. I'm not saying to not follow the rules, but don't read them like some Talmudic scholar expecting to find exact guidance for every possible situation.
2. Asking FAA ATC for an interpretation of part 91 is a crap shoot. It's not their rule, and they don't even train for it (interestingly enough, the disputed procedure does *not* appear in the ATC handbook- it just says pilots will follow the procedures put forth in the AIM and FARs. Kinda funny eh? If the procedure is so exact, where is the corresponding ATC method of providing the separation? How could you even apply the "rule" at an airport with more than one SIAP?
3. The is nothing that will ruin a controller's day faster than an airplane that pulls a 180 in the middle of a traffic flow!
4. This is an arguement without a reason-- hold, don't hold, it really doesn't matter. ATC will separate you, or not, the best way they can figure.

Bill English
NTSB AS-30
Operational Factors

 

[DC8 Flyer]

never said it was... as far as making it hard... how about coming up with some good reference or source or whatever other than "you guys're making it too hard..." we aren't making anything too hard just simply trying to figure out what to teach to students.

AVE-F

Assignged
Vectored
Expexted
Filed

Im sure we all know the hierachy of how to get where ever we are goin.

How to use it.

If your filed KGFK to KFAR via Victore 171 (think thats airway, been a while), your flightplan would look like this

Dept. KGFK

Route V171

Dest KFAR

ATC Clearance:

Cleared as Filed, maintain 5000' blah blah blah.

Your clearance limit is KFAR, the airport, duh!

ETE :45 minutes

KGFK is about 75 miles north of KFAR, the two VORs that make up V171 are GFK and FAR there are a few fixes on the airway, but thats another argument.

So what you have literally filed is KGFK, Direct GFK, Direct FAR, Direct, KFAR.

Say you loose comes somewhere between GFK and FAR on the airway. You are supposed to fly to FAR then to KFAR (used the AFD to get there). Since KFAR is the clearance limit you would have to hold on the radial and DME fix of off FAR found in the AFD until your ETA or EFC, or amended time given to ATC. To make it simple, you arrive at KFAR (the radial dme fix off of FAR) at :44 from your KGFK departure time. Hold for one minute then proceed to an IAF and start the approach.

Thats how I learned it and taught it. 99% of the time the clearance limit is the airport and most airports have some kind of radial/dme fix associated with a nearby navaid in the AFD or the VOR that makes up the airway is on the field, close enough.

Putting IAF as waypoints on your flightplan wont work, since ATC is going to clear you to the airport unless you file KGFK V171 KFAR, direct ABC (IAF). But that doesnt make much sense, you want to go to KFAR not some point in space.

 

[Vector4fun]

Hope y'all know which ILSs will be in use when ya get here, because half of them will be turned off, guaranteed.

 

[Lead Sled]

...We aren't making anything too hard just simply trying to figure out what to teach to students.

How about "If your clearance limit is an airport, you simply select an appropriate approach, make your way to the IAP, fly it and land. ATC will clear the airspace for miles around you?" What more really needs to be said? Now for another question, what are you guys teaching your students about leaving altitude?

'Sled