Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Radio Failure Hypothetical Situation  
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

I've noticed that some airports don't have full-procedure approaches.

Just as an example, what would you do in this situation?
You are flying in a Cessna 172/U (no DME) into Houston Intercontinental (IAH) on an IFR flightplan in IMC. You lose communication and you have determined after going thru all the troubleshooting steps that your radios have died. Because it's total IMC, you must continue on your flight plan to your destination and shoot a full procedure approach, however IAH has no full approaches published. Your alternate that you filed, Hobby Airport (HOU), has 1 full procedure approach published, but it requires a DME. What do you do?

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

I'd consider a radio failure in IMC an emergency condition, thus you have the right to violate the FARs if you deem it necessary.

You'll notice that DME is not required for the approaches to 9 and 27 (and perhaps some others, but those are the ones I looked it). Let's say that the wind was from the east, so a landing on runway 9 was in order. I'd proceed to the HUB VOR, then outbound on the HUB 331 radial to the localizer. I'd proceed outbound on the localizer, make a standard procedure turn to the left in order to stay away from the other runways, and head back inbound. I'd stay at or above the published OROCA for that area for terrain clearance until I was inbound on the localizer. Since I'd be squawking 7600, ATC would know to get everyone else out of my way. They'd definitely want a report afterwards, but that would mean that I'd gotten down safely, and I'd feel confident that I could rationalize everything that I did to the FAA.

Good question, though.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3329 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I'd proceed outbound on the localizer, make a standard procedure turn to the left in order to stay away from the other runways, and head back inbound.

If a procedure turn isnt published you can't just create one. All of the approaches at IAH say "RADAR REQUIRED" meaning you have to be in communication with ATC and receive instructions for them on how to intercept the approach, whether it be radar vectors or being told to intercept it at one of the fixes.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I'd consider a radio failure in IMC an emergency condition, thus you have the right to violate the FARs if you deem it necessary.

There are specific rules to follow when you have a radio failure when flying IFR. You can still navigate, so this isn't an all-out emergency. You still can't throw the FARs out the window... yet. If you lose your NAV radios, then that's a different story.

Personally in this situation I would proceed to a smaller, uncontrolled airport that had a full-approach published that didn't require DME. I would probably exercise a little better pre-flight planning and find an alternate airport that had a full-procedure approach that my aircraft was capable of. But again thats just me. Keep the hypothetical answers coming!


User currently offlineBri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 2):
You can still navigate, so this isn't an all-out emergency. You still can't throw the FARs out the window... yet.

I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. If you're in the rediculously crowded airspace over Texas in actual IMC with no radios, can that be considered an emergency? I would argue that yes, it would. The C172 POH Emergency Procedures section tends to agree, indicating you should sqwak 7700 for one minute, followed by 7600 for 15 minutes. That will indicate to ATC that you deem an emergency is in progress, and as such, can deviate from any FAR to the extent necessary to meet the emergency.

My old instructor had failed comms once returning to our home base of APA, in Class D under a Class B shelf. There's a non-towered field that was probably within fuel range but with very limited maintenance facilities, and the airplane's home base was APA. He followed the standard procedure of circling over the tower sqwaking 7600, received a green light signal, and landed safely. Afterwards, he called the tower, and they said, "Are you calling us from your cell phone?" He said, "well, yes, of course..." And they replied, "Is there any reason you couldn't have called us from your cell phone in flight?" He quickly realized the value of having all the ATC telephone numbers published in the A/FD. Even if you couldn't hear them, they could probably hear you, at least enough to understand the situation, and have a better awareness of your intentions. Just food for thought...



Position and hold
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3296 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 2):
There are specific rules to follow when you have a radio failure when flying IFR. You can still navigate, so this isn't an all-out emergency. You still can't throw the FARs out the window... yet. If you lose your NAV radios, then that's a different story.

There are indeed specific rules to follow, but I would contend that it is indeed an emergency, and thus while it's good to follow the rules as much as practical, I'd have no problem with breaking them if I felt that it was absolutely necessary.

This situation has a lot of variables in it. Are you coming in on a STAR? If so, then you may want to find a published holding pattern and do a few turns there while squawking 7600 so that you can both let ATC know your predicament, and think about what you are going to do. Has ATC already started vectoring you for the approach? If so, you're going to have no idea where you are, and you'll have to find some sort of navaid to get your bearings. Coming in right off a STAR there may be no navaid around to use, and you don't really have a clearance limit to proceed to.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 2):
If a procedure turn isnt published you can't just create one.

I'd rather do a non-published procedure turn on an ILS where I knew I had obstruction clearance than take my chances shooting a full procedure VOR/DME approach without DME. Neither is a good idea, but one is a lot less risky than the other, and, as I've mentioned, options are short in this scenario. I don't like the idea of diverting to an airport that's not your alternate without letting ATC know, especially an uncontrolled one - you never know whether there's somebody on the ground who's gotten their IFR clearance but hasn't taken off yet. A towered one is less of a problem - approach could call ahead to make sure that the runway is nice and clear for you.

If you can reach ATC on the phone, great (and that would be the first thing I'd try). They may be able to provide you with some assistance, or at least you'll be able to make your intentions known. Failing that, you're on your own, and I would absolutely consider that an emergency.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 2):
I would probably exercise a little better pre-flight planning and find an alternate airport that had a full-procedure approach that my aircraft was capable of.

Definitely a good idea. I'd make sure that I could shoot an approach into at least my alternate if I were to lose communications.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
If so, then you may want to find a published holding pattern and do a few turns there while squawking 7600 so that you can both let ATC know your predicament, and think about what you are going to do.

You can't just decide to hold, ATC is expecting you at a certain time and clears planes out of the way accordingly. Also, if your radio is dead, there is no guarantee that your transponder isn't dead either. In most cases, as I've been told, transponder failure usually does accompany radio failure, so turning around in circles to let ATC see something that isn't there is a waste of your time and fuel.

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
I don't like the idea of diverting to an airport that's not your alternate without letting ATC know, especially an uncontrolled one - you never know whether there's somebody on the ground who's gotten their IFR clearance but hasn't taken off yet

You don't have a problem holding in a holding pattern just for the heck of it but diverting to an airport thats most likely alot less busy and crowded bothers you? lol... again, like I said above, there's no guarantee that ATC still sees you on radar, so there is no guarantee that they will just automatically follow you and clear people out of the way. I'd much rather get into less crowded airspace any day.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 5):
there's no guarantee that ATC still sees you on radar

ATC will see you on radar as long as the radar is on and you are within the reception area. They may not see your data block, which runs off of information from your transponder, but they will see you, and controllers are trained to deal with such situations.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 5):
You don't have a problem holding in a holding pattern just for the heck of it but diverting to an airport thats most likely alot less busy and crowded bothers you?

Not knowing who or what's going to be there when I break out of the clouds bothers me, yes. I have more confidence in a controlled field being clear than an uncontrolled field. Plus, with regard to diverting to an airport not on your flightplan, suppose there are NOTAMs that would be good to know before trying to land there, a runway closure or a navaid out of service, perhaps. Flight service generally doesn't give you NOTAMs for airports that aren't in your flightplan.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3230 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
Not knowing who or what's going to be there when I break out of the clouds bothers me, yes. I have more confidence in a controlled field being clear than an uncontrolled field.

You have alot more chance of breaking out of the clouds to an unpleasant surprise at a controlled field than at an uncontrolled field. Controlled airports tend to be busier, that is of course why they are controlled.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
They may not see your data block, which runs off of information from your transponder, but they will see you

Not true. I've had transponder outages before and they cannot see you at all. Be ready to hear an earful if your radio is in fact working  Wink

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
I'd rather do a non-published procedure turn on an ILS where I knew I had obstruction clearance

You aren't guaranteed any obstruction clearance if you are below the MSA for that area (which in this case just happens to conveniently be 2,400). There's a reason that they don't have a procedure turn there, whether or not you know what it is, be it obstruction clearance or anything else.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
with regard to diverting to an airport not on your flightplan, suppose there are NOTAMs that would be good to know before trying to land there, a runway closure or a navaid out of service, perhaps. Flight service generally doesn't give you NOTAMs for airports that aren't in your flightplan.

So then in any other emergency situation where say, you lost your engine, would you still opt not to land at the airport right below you and in a field instead because you don't have the NOTAMs for that airport?

If the toss-up here is between a controlled airport with lots of traffic vs. an uncontrolled airport with little traffic and a possible NOTAM, i'm going to opt with the smaller, less busy airport. You are much more likely to encounter traffic at a busier airport than a NOTAM at a smaller airport. Landing on a runway thats undergoing repairs is much less hazardous than a mid-air collision if you ask me.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

I'd still go into IAH. I'd consider radio failure in actual IMC to be an emergency. Since I can't fly the approach at my alternate, I'd stick to IAH. No telling what you would find at the smaller airports you didn't get a briefing on, plus ATC definately wouldn't be expecting it.

I agree with the plan of Mir to get to HUB, fly outbound on a published radial to intercept the localizer, make a procedure turn and fly the ILS down. I can stay above the MSA until established inbound on the ILS, ensuring obstacle clearance. Definately sounds safer then flying an approach into an airport without knowing what you will find at the non-controlled airport. Aircraft could be on the runway, the runway could be closed, approach lights might be inop (important on a really crummy day), the approach could be unusable, etc......



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 7):
You have alot more chance of breaking out of the clouds to an unpleasant surprise at a controlled field than at an uncontrolled field.

Not if they're expecting you, and they would be at IAH.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 7):
Not true. I've had transponder outages before and they cannot see you at all.

Please explain your circumstances a bit more please, because they can indeed see you without a transponder, they just don't see any data for you. ATC uses two radar systems, primary, which is active radar that sees the reflection of radar energy off your airplane skin, and secondary, which interragates the transponder. Infact, I've flown an airplane with no transponder through the IFR system before (after getting ATC's approval), and they tracked me just fine.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 7):
You aren't guaranteed any obstruction clearance if you are below the MSA for that area (which in this case just happens to conveniently be 2,400). There's a reason that they don't have a procedure turn there, whether or not you know what it is, be it obstruction clearance or anything else.

He stated that he would be above the OROCA, which would guarentee him obstruction clearance. ATC will take care of the rest.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 7):
So then in any other emergency situation where say, you lost your engine, would you still opt not to land at the airport right below you and in a field instead because you don't have the NOTAMs for that airport?

Not the same situation. With a perfectly functioning airplane (aside from comm failure) in IMC, I would not land at an airport for which I had no NOTAMs and ATC wasn't expecting me to arrive at. More important than a broken runway would be a broken nav aid. You arrive at your unplanned airport only to find that the only navaid used for approaches is broken...D'OH! Now what?


You picked a scenario that is not addressed by the regulations, so judgement must be applied to the regs. While it is true that there is no IAF for any of the approaches at IAH, any competent IFR pilot should be able to establish themselves on an approach there. ATC is expecting you to arrive at IAH, can still see you on the radar, barring some unusual events, and will make sure you don't hit anyone.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 9):
ATC uses two radar systems, primary, which is active radar that sees the reflection of radar energy off your airplane skin

I've been told by ATC that because of deteriorated radar reception due to weather and the small size of a Cessna 172 that it makes it hard to pick up as a primary target and that most of the time it won't be picked up as such.

So assuming that's true, how could anyone clear anything out of the way for you?

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 9):
While it is true that there is no IAF for any of the approaches at IAH, any competent IFR pilot should be able to establish themselves on an approach there.

Sure, I'd have no problem giving myself vectors to line up with an approach, but if they go out of the way to write PROCEDURE TURN N/A and RADAR REQUIRED in big bold letters on the approach plate, bigger than any of the other writing on there, don't you think they must be somewhat serious with that rule?


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 10):
I've been told by ATC that because of deteriorated radar reception due to weather and the small size of a Cessna 172 that it makes it hard to pick up as a primary target and that most of the time it won't be picked up as such.

I suppose it's possible for weather to cause a 172 to disappear, but normally they'll see you just fine. When I did it without a transponder, I was in a 172 and in the clouds.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 10):
So assuming that's true, how could anyone clear anything out of the way for you?

They know where you're going, and what time you're supposed to get there. How they do it is up to them, but it will be done. If they can't see you, and you go somewhere they're not expecting, then you're completely on your own, they won't give you any aid because they don't know what you're doing. Go where you said you're going, and they'll help you.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 10):
Sure, I'd have no problem giving myself vectors to line up with an approach, but if they go out of the way to write PROCEDURE TURN N/A and RADAR REQUIRED in big bold letters on the approach plate, bigger than any of the other writing on there, don't you think they must be somewhat serious with that rule?

They're pretty serious with the "two way communications system required" rule too.

Here are your options:

1) Get yourself on the approach and land.
2) Go somewhere else, forsake any ATC assistance, and place yourself and others in jeopardy all for the sake of following a rule that is meant to be broken when the situation requires it, and this situation does.

It would be quite easy to explain choosing option 1. Option 2, not so much, especially if you hit someone (assuming you survive).



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3186 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 2):
I would probably exercise a little better pre-flight planning and find an alternate airport that had a full-procedure approach that my aircraft was capable of. But again thats just me.

No it's not just you. If you are going to pick an alternate you need to be able to actually use the alternate......IMHO....What good is a field you can't land at.

Quoting Bri2k1 (Reply 3):
Afterwards, he called the tower, and they said, "Are you calling us from your cell phone?" He said, "well, yes, of course..." And they replied, "Is there any reason you couldn't have called us from your cell phone in flight?" He quickly realized the value of having all the ATC telephone numbers published in the A/FD.

Well the tower guys are right, I would have to say that hindsight is 20/20 in this situation. I am sure everyone of us has found ourselves in a situation where 5 minutes later you thinking, "Damm I should have thought of that."

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 9):
you picked a scenario that is not addressed by the regulations, so judgement must be applied to the regs.

You know there are times when I wonder how many people the FAA have hanged becasue they used their judgment because the regs didn't address a situation.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3182 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 7):
So then in any other emergency situation where say, you lost your engine, would you still opt not to land at the airport right below you and in a field instead because you don't have the NOTAMs for that airport?

It seems that you propose a situation in which I could see the airport right below me. Thus I could see the state of the runway, and wouldn't need to do an IFR approach. I'd have no problem with landing at that airport in VMC conditions without all the NOTAMS. An approach in IMC is a different story altogether, since you don't know what's going to be at the other end, or whether you can even use that approach that you want to.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 10):
if they go out of the way to write PROCEDURE TURN N/A and RADAR REQUIRED in big bold letters on the approach plate, bigger than any of the other writing on there, don't you think they must be somewhat serious with that rule?

It's a rule that you can break, since you have an emergency situation, so long as you take steps to ensure that it is safe to do so. Like I said before, ATC will want a report from you as to what you did and why, but as long as you can justify what you did, that won't be a problem.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):

It seems that you propose a situation in which I could see the airport right below me. Thus I could see the state of the runway, and wouldn't need to do an IFR approach.

If you are flying the approach down to the minimums and are visually looking for the runway environment before deciding to land, you should also be able to see the airport.

As far as not knowing about operable NAV aids, there are many non-precision approaches that involve NAV aids not located on the field (such as VORs) which you should know whether or not they are operating. A perfect example in this case would be the VOR-D approach to West Houston Airport (IWS) which uses the IAH VOR for primary reference and the HUB VOR for cross-reference. DME isn't required. You could very easily fly down to the circling minimums, then assuming you break thru the clouds below, fly over the airport and observe it before executing a landing.


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 12):
You know there are times when I wonder how many people the FAA have hanged because they used their judgment because the regs didn't address a situation.

Yeah, when not in an emergency.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 14):
If you are flying the approach down to the minimums and are visually looking for the runway environment before deciding to land, you should also be able to see the airport.

Don't know what you're trying to say here. Rephrase maybe?

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 14):
As far as not knowing about operable NAV aids, there are many non-precision approaches that involve NAV aids not located on the field (such as VORs) which you should know whether or not they are operating. A perfect example in this case would be the VOR-D approach to West Houston Airport (IWS) which uses the IAH VOR for primary reference and the HUB VOR for cross-reference. DME isn't required. You could very easily fly down to the circling minimums, then assuming you break thru the clouds below, fly over the airport and observe it before executing a landing.

So you're going to cruise through the IFR system without talking to anyone, going to a place that no-one expects you to go, being able to see nothing, without even knowing if you'll be able to land there and perhaps having to do it all again to get to another place that you don't know if you'll be able to land? Do you know if their approach lights work there? Those may be the difference between getting in and not. What about an external factor that makes the approach unflyable, such as a large crane in a bad spot? More than a navaid can shut down an approach.

The big sky little airplane theory is crap, I've been nearly killed twice by other airplanes. I'm going where they expect me to go and where I know I can land thanks.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 14):
If you are flying the approach down to the minimums and are visually looking for the runway environment before deciding to land, you should also be able to see the airport.

If I had an engine failure, there would be no need to make a decision to land, I'd be forced to land anyway.

I sure as hell would not start an IFR approach with an engine failure, since there's no way my altitude would last long enough to make that runway. If I was already on the approach, different story, but I'd still probably land short of it. If I was in clouds and knew there was an airport nearby, I wouldn't even try for it unless I had GPS that could tell me exactly where it was - searching for something that you can't see would only lead to disorientation, and that's never good. I'd make a brisk but controllable descent to get out of the clouds, and once I could see land again, I'd find the best spot to land and put it down there, airport or no airport.

If it was just the lost comms, I could do a missed approach, but do I really want to go back up into the clouds in an aircraft that isn't airworthy to do so? Not particularly.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
I could do a missed approach, but do I really want to go back up into the clouds in an aircraft that isn't airworthy to do so? Not particularly.

If worse came to worse, assuming every runway and taxiway was obstructed, you could still put down in the grass next to the runway if you didn't think it was a good idea to go back up into the clouds. You'll have gotten yourself down in one piece, you'll have avoided congested traffic areas, and you wouldn't have broken any FARs by creating procedure turns.

In reality if I were somehow in this scenario (which is highly unlikely, I don't feel comfortable flying IFR with out at least a DME), then I probably would shoot this VOR-D approach and put down somewhere at IWS, whether it be a runway or taxiway or adjacent strip of grass. But of course, that's easy for me to say now after contemplating the scenario and debating it back and forth for a couple days  Wink


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3065 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 17):
You'll have gotten yourself down in one piece, you'll have avoided congested traffic areas, and you wouldn't have broken any FARs by creating procedure turns.

You didn't avoid congested airspace, you blissfully plowed through it without talking to anyone, without seeing anyone, and without anyone having any idea what you were doing or where you were going. That you didn't run into anyone was pure blind luck. You showed complete disregard for the regs by not continuing to your filed destination as they tell you to do.

I don't know how else to say this, ATC will keep you seperated from others if you go where you said you were going to go and arrive when you said you would. If you go somewhere unexpected, all bets are off.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 15):
The big sky little airplane theory is crap, I've been nearly killed twice by other airplanes. I'm going where they expect me to go and where I know I can land thanks.

I'll give you credit for that. In the end there is no set procedure for exactly what to do here, and there is no solution really that doesn't come without some kind of risk, whether it be self-vectoring into IAH or a full approach into a smaller airport off to the side. No solution thats been given here is really wrong in my opinion, but then again none of them are distinctively right either. In these situations judgement calls have to be made somewhat quickly, and it's very likely that you wouldn't consider every variable in your thought process. That's why I think its beneficial to discuss it like we are here, it makes you think about things you might not have otherwise thought of. Pre-emptive action, so to speak. I know personally that I've never thought about filing an alternate airport that has full approaches that my aircraft is capable of. In fact, being from Houston, I often file IAH as my alternate... doesn't do me much good in this situation!

Thanks again everyone for the insightful responses so far! Keep them coming if you still have them.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 17):
you wouldn't have broken any FARs by creating procedure turns.

But you would have broken FARs by deviating off your route without authorization. Not that I'd fault you for that if I were the FAA, but to me it seems pretty much impossible to operate within the FARs in this case - mostly because they don't specify what needs to be done.

Also, doing what I mentioned in my first reply, is, from the way I read the FARs (91.175.j), not expressly prohibited. It says:

In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT", no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

I'm not being vectored to final, since I've lost communications (even though I may have been in the process of recieving vectors at the time communications were lost). I'm not doing a timed approach. "No PT" is not written anywhere on the approach plate. Thus, I don't see where a procedure turn is expressly prohibited in this case.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3061 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 18):
That you didn't run into anyone was pure blind luck. You showed complete disregard for the regs by not continuing to your filed destination as they tell you to do.

How does creating a procedure turn for an approach that doesn't have one not fall into this too? Especially if it's written in giant bold letters on the approach plate, larger than anything else on there "RADAR REQUIRED" as well as "PROCEDURE TURN N/A." Personally I think that they put that there specifically for planes that have lost their COMs, otherwise why else would you consider doing a procedure turn there? If they wanted you to attempt that approach, I don't think they would be so blatant about warning you against it. So to say that theyre expecting you at IAH doesn't click with me.


User currently offlineXjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2473 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Thats why I always underestimate my ETA times.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Thread starter):
however IAH has no full approaches published.

Every approach on a plate is a full approach, plain and simple. How ATC directs you into it depends on if you complete the full approach or do a radar guided approach.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 17):
If worse came to worse, assuming every runway and taxiway was obstructed, you could still put down in the grass next to the runway if you didn't think it was a good idea to go back up into the clouds. You'll have gotten yourself down in one piece, you'll have avoided congested traffic areas, and you wouldn't have broken any FARs by creating procedure turns.

Remind me not to fly with you in a 7600 emergency.

Quoting FlyMeARiver (Reply 17):
which is highly unlikely, I don't feel comfortable flying IFR with out at least a DME

While a DME is a nice addition, a plain ILS is enough. Throughout my instrument training, I never once had any instrument telling me distance. All that you are doing is following both the vertical guidace from the GS and the horizontal guidance from the localizer. Making sure you have your markers unmuted, you can shoot the approach (and time it as well).

Keep in mind, im well aware that GPS will basically tell you the distance into the airport. But if I say that the distance given by GPS and a DME are going to be two different things, that will open another can of worms.

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 18):
I don't know how else to say this, ATC will keep you seperated from others if you go where you said you were going to go and arrive when you said you would. If you go somewhere unexpected, all bets are off.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

XJR



Look ma' no hands!
User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3057 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 20):
Thus, I don't see where a procedure turn is expressly prohibited in this case.

The "RADAR REQUIRED" is what prohibits it. It would be like trying to shoot an NDB approach without an operating ADF even though the approach plate says "ADF REQUIRED." The approach requires radar, no matter how important you think it is in this case or not. They bothered to stick it on there in very large font, so I think they're serious about it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 20):
"No PT" is not written anywhere on the approach plate.

The "No PT" designation is used on approaches that do have IAFs, meaning that to fly the full approach from that IAF doesn't require you to have any kind of course reversal. It isn't used to prohibit a procedure turn for that whole approach. The ILS 9 at IAH does not have any IAFs, so the No PT designation couldn't be used on here anyway.

AIM 5-4-9 b. 10 states that "the absence of the procedure turn barb in the plan view indicates that a procedure turn is not authorized for that procedure."

You may say that creating a procedure turn is fine as long as you are above the MSA, but think about how some approaches have holding patterns in place of procedure turns and the very minimal difference that makes in terms of the area you fly over, and obviously they want you flying the holding pattern and not the procedure turn when the holding pattern is what's published, despite the fact that you still might have obstruction clearance. I would think that they are equally as picky, if not more, when there is no course reversal published at all.


User currently offlineFlyMeARiver From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Quoting Xjramper (Reply 22):
Every approach on a plate is a full approach, plain and simple. How ATC directs you into it depends on if you complete the full approach or do a radar guided approach.

A full approach is one in which you are not given radar vectors to intercept it, but instead intercept it via an initial approach fix. The ILS approaches at IAH all require radar vectors and none have a designated IAF.


25 Ralgha : ATC is expecting you to get yourself on an approach. How they clear the airspace is not your concern, it will be cleared. You really think that? An a
26 Mir : I didn't say it was fine and dandy, I said it was safe, and would reliably get you re-established inbound on the ILS. Your alternative isn't fine eit
27 FlyMeARiver : This is where I totally agree with you. OK let's assume for a moment that I concede this point to you. You have no option that best fits, so you esta
28 Mir : I'd head to HOU and shoot the approach there. No need to mess around with non-charted stuff if you have an alternate airport that you can land at. I'
29 Xjramper : Keep in mind when you file, alongside your aircraft model (ie C172) you add what you are capable of, aka "slant golf, or slant Uniform, etc". This te
30 FlyMeARiver : I know this. My first post said C172/U and now in this changed scenario i'm saying to assume that instead of /U you are /A. Because DME or not, there
31 ThirtyEcho : Just to put one point to rest: I used to fly into Dallas Love before there was such a thing as a transponder and Dallas approach could find me on rada
32 Zeke : Dont have time to go into a detailed reply to this today. I cut to the chase, everyone who has posted above needs to review the procedures, no one has
33 Xjramper : It is an emergency. If you lost all of your communications, that would constitute an emergency. You lose not only your communitcations, but your navi
34 Bri2k1 : It's the PIC who has final say regarding the operation of the aircraft. If the PIC determines it's an emergency, he or she can bend a FAR to the exten
35 Post contains links Zeke : The question above was for communication failure. The PIC should always assume that they are able to transmit, just unable to receive. Should broadca
36 ThirtyEcho : "...all of your radios have died..." Not my handheld. You DO have a handheld for single engine IFR, right? Just go to the last assigned freq using you
37 Sphealey : This would be a good question to pose to Dan Brown (an Atlanta controller) over at avweb.com. sPh
38 Post contains images FlyMeARiver : situation states total IMC DME isn't the issue with the IAH approaches, it's the fact that they're all radar required, as most of the above posts poi
39 Xjramper : I have never heard of that. Never. And i looked at the AIM procs in that site, gotta tell ya, everything we all said was consistant with what they sa
40 ThirtyEcho : Haha...no. I am graduating from college in 8 days lol. I have no money to purchase a handheld radio. Like most aviators, you will have a closed casket
41 727EMflyer : Ok, here are some questions from a non-instrument rated, non-avionics tech guy. 1. We lost both radios, but isn't it typical that your NAV radios are
42 Chksix : Aren't IMC rated planes equipped with dual "busses" just to prevent a total blackout in case of a burned fuse or something?
43 Bri2k1 : There are two different things being confused here. The avionics master switch controls power to the entire bus. From the bus, different circuits powe
44 Xjramper : Or i just follow the regs and get myself down safe. Not that hard. The skyhawk is littered with redundancy. Two vacuums, two mags, two pumps, a backu
45 Bri2k1 : There's only one vacuum pump on my Skyhawk. What do you mean by backup for your pressure system? There's only one pitot tube. There can be an alternat
46 Xjramper : You can't compare a skyhawk to an airliner. For the Skyhawk type, it is sufficent enough to get you down safely. Again, that is checked out prior to
47 Chksix : Thanks for the clarification Bri.
48 ThirtyEcho : The skyhawk is littered with redundancy. Not at my local airport. I went out to the ramp and counted the number of props on the 172s and divided by th
49 Mir : This wouldn't be CatIII weather, but I have done an ILS down to CatI minimums, and I would pretty much classify that as "can't see crap", since 200ft
50 Post contains images Xjramper : If you fly VFR on top and you are not instrument rated, your ticket should be pulled because you are a dumb ass and don't know how to follow rules. R
51 Xjramper : I missed this one: Doesnt really shock me. Its not supposed to, unless you had some poor quality instructors. XJR
52 Bri2k1 : Don't confuse VFR-on-top with VFR-over-the-top, which is legal (although not smart) to do without an instrument ticket. It's also not found in the gl
53 Post contains links Zeke : Maybe you should read what I said again, as you may have noticed I was the one who posted the AIM reference. And in the AIM its say IF VMC etc etc, n
54 Mir : There's nothing in there that says what to do in the situation at hand. The closest thing there is is this: But that would only work were you not on
55 Ralgha : I'd still probably land at IAH. While ATC would probably figure it out pretty quick if you headed to your alternate of HOU, I'd rather just land and n
56 ThirtyEcho : Lets. Are you going to draw an allusion to the fact that I will undoubtedly go into ice Undoubtedly, you will. My first encounter with ice was in perf
57 Deltamike172 : There seems to be a wild goose chase for regulations that explain what to do when you come to an airport where all the approaches say RADAR REQUIRED a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Radio Failure Hypothetical Situation
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
ADF Failure Hypothetical Situation posted Sun May 21 2006 15:38:21 by FlyMeARiver
Hypothetical Situation On Landing posted Fri Feb 25 2005 04:01:19 by Ngr
MAS 777 Trent Engine Failure On Takeoff posted Mon Nov 6 2006 17:30:22 by Corsair2
Etihad Loses Etops Due GE90 HPT Failure posted Mon Oct 23 2006 00:38:03 by Ejazz
Trent Fan Blade Failure. posted Sun Oct 22 2006 05:33:39 by BOE773
Aircrash Investigation: Hypothetical Scenario. posted Wed Sep 27 2006 21:02:43 by DIJKKIJK
Landing Gear Failure posted Sun Sep 10 2006 16:12:48 by A320ajm
Is This A Problem (SXM Landing Situation) posted Thu Jul 20 2006 23:06:33 by SuseJ772
Canadian Radio Ranges posted Mon Jul 17 2006 02:58:39 by Firefly_cyhz
Engine Failure On Twin Just Before Touchdown - GA? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 21:57:14 by JulianUK

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format