Vectors on an IFR Flight Plan?

[geardown]

Can you except vectors to a VOR from a point outside of its service volume if you are under radar control. If yes what do you do if you lose com?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Can you except vectors to a VOR from a point outside of its service volume if you are under radar control.

Can you "expect" them? I don't know. Can you get them? Sure. You can get vectors "direct" to most anything.

If yes what do you do if you lose com?

The same thing that you would do under 91.185 for any other type of lost comm on vectors.

==============================
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;
==============================

Obviously you can't immediately go direct by tuning in the VOR since you are outside the service volume, but you already have a vector toward it that accounts (to some degree) for wind conditions. So continue to fly that heading until you get a reliable read on the VOR.

 

[340drvr]

You often hear ATC give "Fly heading ###, direct XYZ VOR when able" to non-GPS aircraft.

 

[geardown]

Thanks for the replies, How about if ATC gives you a vector for traffic or sequencing after you accept the scenario above. Are you still legal? I had this happen the other day, and never had any concern of getting to the navaid, however the legality of it was questioned.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You are lost comm. There are those who would say that lost comm due to a failure of your equipment is a situation in which ATC really =doesn't= expect you to do anything other than get the heck down and out of their hair as soon as you can, 91.185 notwithstanding. The reasoning makes sense. If you've been in contact with ATC and suddenly stop responding, they figure that you have a problem and will move aircraft out of your way.

Even if you don't want to do that far in you rereading of the rule, lost comm is at least a "sorta maybe" emergency. There's no doubt that there are holes in 91.185. Your hypothetical is one where maybe there's a piece that's missing. So, you follow the 91.185 procedure as well as you can given the circumstances. Legal? What are the alternatives?

 

[flyinghunter]

a little twist

==============================
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;
==============================

ok, how bout this... you are on radar vectors for an approach, we'll assume VOR with the VOR as both the IAP and FAF. Two situations, assuming the final approach course is on the 180 radial southbound, what do you do:

1. You are SE of the VOR on a "downwind" when you lose comms, I say direct VOR and then full approach.

2. You are NE of the VOR still on "downwind" when you lose comms, do you turn an immediate base to intercept and continue inbound or proceed direct the VOR and do the full approach. Does having a IFR GPS or any GPS adjust your opinion.

 

[minitour]

Thanks for the replies, How about if ATC gives you a vector for traffic or sequencing after you accept the scenario above. Are you still legal? I had this happen the other day, and never had any concern of getting to the navaid, however the legality of it was questioned.

I'd pick up a course to the VOR from the point I realize "oh crap...I just lost comms".

Put 7600 up and continue on my merry way. Unless I was VFR...then I'd land ASASAPAPPY.

-mini

 

[nosehair]

==============================
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;
==============================

ok, how bout this... you are on radar vectors for an approach, we'll assume VOR with the VOR as both the IAP and FAF. Two situations, assuming the final approach course is on the 180 radial southbound, what do you do:

1. You are SE of the VOR on a "downwind" when you lose comms, I say direct VOR and then full approach.

2. You are NE of the VOR still on "downwind" when you lose comms, do you turn an immediate base to intercept and continue inbound or proceed direct the VOR and do the full approach. Does having a IFR GPS or any GPS adjust your opinion.

#1, yes. #2, do the one in which you feel most safe at executing. "by direct route to the point being vectored", that was the final approach course, right?
If your SA is up and you know a turn to base and/or final is appropriate, do that. If your not sure, go direct to the vor and full approach. ATC is supposed to expect either. There will be initial confusion because you are so close. I know they would want you to intercept final and proceed in.

As to the original poster, geardown, being outside of the srevice volume does not mean the signal is too weak or unreliable, the 40 mile (or whatever) "service volume" means there won't be another VOR on that frequency within range to confuse the radio with conflicting signals. If you are given vectors to a vor 50 or 60 miles away and you're getting the signal, you hear the morse code correctly, the obs and needle line up appropriately, you can navigate on it. You don't have to be within 40 miles to be "legal". In effect, you are "dead reckoning" to the 40 mile point.

 

[pilothouston123]

Always carry a copy of the cellular pilot. Loose coms and use your stanby pocket comm. AKA cell phone. Loose total electrical. Use handheld gps. shoot GPS approach to nearest airport and party with radar controlers.

True story

 

[DrewBlows]

Can you except vectors to a VOR from a point outside of its service volume if you are under radar control. If yes what do you do if you lose com?

I used to fly a PA-34-POS (little known model) to build multi time. It had an old Loran-C unit that worked precisely half the time (and didn't work precisely all the time you wanted it to). On slow nights when we wanted direct, we would plug our destination into the Loran and *suggest* a vector to the controller that would take us direct. ATC was usually happy to comply. This must happen often, because sometimes they would ask if we had a VFR GPS. We all had a good laugh when we confirmed it was Loran.