Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
...and while all of that is going on, ATC is going to clear the airspace for miles around the NORDO aircraft.
7600 Descent
- Thread starter Captain
- Start date
Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
Again, depending upon what you're flying at FL390, you've got a plethora of backups - in our case 3 VHF comms, dual HFs, a sat phone, and internet so that gives us the ability to Skype as well. Once we're down below 10,000' or so we'll get cell phone coverage. What am I forgetting? Oh, we've got dual audio panels (with emergency audio), 4 head sets and dual electrical systems with 3 generators and an emergency battery. If you can't figure out a way to talk to somebody with all of that stuff you simply aren't trying hard enough. It would take one heck of a failure to take all of that stuff off line simultaneously.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Good points. I forgot that the context was operation in the flight levels, and that aircraft with that capability usually have more redundancy.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Not sure I understand the point of all this talk about the surplus comms abilities of some aircraft. Are you guys trying to tell newbies they can dismiss 91.185 as being irrelevant?
My point is to defend a rule I think has gotten a bad rap, mostly because it hasn't been taught properly. The reason for that, in my opinion, is because ATC changed the rule somewhat quietly back in the 1980s, but flight instructors continued to teach the old rule while pointing at the new language. No wonder IFR students got frustrated and now disparage it. I hope you guys agree with me that the rule makes sense, isn't hard to understand and you never know when or why you might have to fall back on it, even if only temporarily.
dtuuri
Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
I agree, 100%. I was talking in practical terms regarding operations in the upper flight levels. Although anything is possible, as you move up the ladder, failures such as what would be required to result in a total loss of communications also become less likely. I worry more about stuff going down on the ATC side of things, even then there are plenty of alternate ways of doing things. Newbies need to be aware of that too.
As far as 91.185 and what I would have do to actually get back on the ground goes, is hard to say. You've got the regulation, then you've also got to deal with what happened that brought on the loss of communications. With most jets, a TOTAL loss of the ability to communicate would entail some pretty significant systems failures which could impact not only the avionics side of things, but also stuff like flaps, airbrakes, fuel transfer, antiskid, etc. The loss of any or all of that stuff could very possibly require a diversion to an airport with longer runways or other pilots actions undertaken under his/her emergency authority. One thing for certain, ATC is going to give any NORDO aircraft a wide berth. That's a good thing.
Last edited:
Captain
Final Approach
I wish we'd stop dismissing the scenario with "can't happen. Planes that go that high have redundant systems".
I fly a P180. It has two VHF, a SatPhone that is often deferred and a transponder. I have a cell phone but I've found it seldom works above 3K and even below its spotty at best.
The sat phone is the only edge I have over standard GA equipment. If its working then fine, I'll use it. But if its not then are we saying to cross the IAF at FL390? Really? That would surely require holds to descend that may or not be published.
Wouldn't ATC be clearing airspace around and below a NORDO plane?
I fly a P180. It has two VHF, a SatPhone that is often deferred and a transponder. I have a cell phone but I've found it seldom works above 3K and even below its spotty at best.
The sat phone is the only edge I have over standard GA equipment. If its working then fine, I'll use it. But if its not then are we saying to cross the IAF at FL390? Really? That would surely require holds to descend that may or not be published.
Wouldn't ATC be clearing airspace around and below a NORDO plane?
Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
What is DHS going to do about a NORDO aircraft up in the flight levels? I bet if there truly was an airplane up at FL390 that suddenly lost all ability to communicate there would be a pair of F-16s up checking it out within minutes. Do you guys remember what the intercept procedures and signals are? Regardless, ATC has just reestablished communication courtesy of the USAF.
Here's another "perfect storm" scenario: You're departing Denver for TEB and the wx at TED is forecast and reported to be at minimums. Your alternate is 300 miles west of TEB. You've based your reserve fuel on being able to climb back up to altitude - remember you're in a jet. You're level at FL390 when you notice that everything has gone silent. Over the mid-west, there's not a cloud in the sky - "clear and a million" - the weather doesn't get sucky until you're within about 300 miles of the east coast. What are you going to do? Are you really going to soldier on and descend into the east coast corridor NORDO shoot an approach that could likely go missed? I bet ATC would really love that one. Just think of all of the air traffic that would screw up.
Flying a Bonanza IFR at 7000' is one thing. Flying a jet at FL390 introduces a whole new set of considerations to factor into the equation. It's a good thing it doesn't happen very often and when it does it's usually only temporary - you're RNAV DIRECT to somewhere down the road and ATC forgot about you and didn't hand you off to the next controller. After a while you realize that you haven't heard anything on the radio for a while and get curious. But that's why you're supposed to monitor 121.5.
Last edited:
Captain
Final Approach
Again, change the situation. We've gone from 'Can't Happen' to 'you'll be intercepted'.
No, I doubt you will. Not IMC.
And if I were VMC with the ground in sight I'd start down right there. Maybe squak 1200 for a minute to signal an impending descent and then start down.
So, are we still crossing the IAF at FL390?
Associated conditions: IMC and lost comms.
Not: cell phones, HF, redundant equip, wifi, selcal, intercepted, or whatever other distractions y'all want to come up with.
No, I doubt you will. Not IMC.
And if I were VMC with the ground in sight I'd start down right there. Maybe squak 1200 for a minute to signal an impending descent and then start down.
So, are we still crossing the IAF at FL390?
Associated conditions: IMC and lost comms.
Not: cell phones, HF, redundant equip, wifi, selcal, intercepted, or whatever other distractions y'all want to come up with.
Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
Would I cross the IAF at FL390? All things considered, no I would not. As others have said, that would be stupid. I would start down at an appropriate distance and rate, fly my cleared route, comply with any altitude restrictions/speeds on any STARs and shoot the approach. Then I would deal with stuff on the ground. I would expect ATC to keep traffic well away from me while all of this was going on. I would also follow the instruction that you are given when flying oceanic routes - I'd turn on the lights prior to turning off course or starting down. That's what I would do if I was at FL390. If I was down lower, then my actions would be different. Your mileage might be different.
As for an intercept in IMC, yes, they'll do that. I had an F-16 intercept us when we had to declare an emergency while flying into Washington National right after 9/11 and we were talking to ATC.
I'm not discounting the fact that it could happen, of course it can, all I'm saying is that there's a difference in likelihood between Part 25 transport category jet and a Part 23 light airplane. I would be curious to know how many actual cases have occurred in the past 20 years in transport aircraft?
As for an intercept in IMC, yes, they'll do that. I had an F-16 intercept us when we had to declare an emergency while flying into Washington National right after 9/11 and we were talking to ATC.
I'm not discounting the fact that it could happen, of course it can, all I'm saying is that there's a difference in likelihood between Part 25 transport category jet and a Part 23 light airplane. I would be curious to know how many actual cases have occurred in the past 20 years in transport aircraft?
Last edited:
Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
Captain
Final Approach
It came up on our forum.
I've always been on the side of starting down to cross the IAF at the MEA with a normal descent. Some folks on the forum called foul and said you are REQUIRED to cross the IAF at the highest of the set...so Fl390 if that's what was filed. Sounded dumb to me. Thought I'd bounce it off PoA.
I've always been on the side of starting down to cross the IAF at the MEA with a normal descent. Some folks on the forum called foul and said you are REQUIRED to cross the IAF at the highest of the set...so Fl390 if that's what was filed. Sounded dumb to me. Thought I'd bounce it off PoA.
Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
We've discussed it in recurrent training as well and pretty much everybody was of the mindset to start down with a normal descent, based upon the assumption that it really didn't matter what you did, ATC would keep other aircraft well clear of you regardless of what you do. Also, in the upper FL's you're just about always visual. (Getting actual instrument time in a jet is a very slow process - even if the weather's nasty it's tough to get more than a tenth or two, if that, on most legs.) Also, DHS would likely have a brace of F-16s off of your wing in very short order.
Fortunately, to date this has been a pretty much theoretical exercise, because the number of times this has happened to aircraft operating in the upper flight levels is so low to be statistically zero. Which is all well and good unless you happen to be the one it happens to.
The scenario I presented, a few posts back, is the one that I think would be most likely.
Given that scenario, I would definitely start down and get below FL180 ASAP and land at the nearest suitable airport. To soldier on, then descend into weather and interject a NORDO aircraft into the NYC area traffic would be exercising poor judgement of the highest level in my opinion. And then, what if you go missed and have to go back 300 miles to your alternate? What altitude and route will you fly? Fortunately (and gratefully) this type of failure is truly rare. But it's something we do need to think about.
Last edited:
John Collins
En-Route
If someone were to continue in VFR conditions in your scenario, if I were an FAA Inspector, I would cite the pilot for violating 91.185(b) and throw in a 91.13 for good measure.
Dead Stick
Line Up and Wait
Granted, but also realize that all operations in Class A Airspace are conducted under IFR so technically there is no VFR up there.
John Collins
En-Route
Therefore it is obvious, descend to below FL 180. Regardless, the rule specifies VFR conditions, not VFR rules.
Last edited:
Captain
Final Approach
Go back a bit and you'll see I said I'd go down to from the flight levels if VMC to the ground.
What I would not do is go down if I couldn't see the ground. While its usually VMC in the flight levels there is often a solid layer below. It would do no good to start down VMC from FL390 only to hit a layer at 6,000. No whatcha going to do?
I'd have to see the ground, not just be in the clear.
What I would not do is go down if I couldn't see the ground. While its usually VMC in the flight levels there is often a solid layer below. It would do no good to start down VMC from FL390 only to hit a layer at 6,000. No whatcha going to do?
I'd have to see the ground, not just be in the clear.
dtuuri
Final Approach
And the AIM specifically states the VFR rule, 91.185(b), applies to Class A airspace too.
dtuuri
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
John Travolta might not agree:
dtuuri
