Approach Pop Quiz.

[Grum.Man]

The clearance limit is the missed approach hold point if you can’t make the airport. Once given vectors after the missed you need a new clearance.

Had you been “Cleared To” ZEMPO, making it your Clearance Limit? Or was the last time you heard “Cleared TO” been the airport?

Cleared Direct Zempo.

 

[Grum.Man]

That was NOT a similar situation.

How do you figure? Same situation, approaching an IAF without further clearance. The only difference was I was about to break through and talk to ATC.

 

[luvflyin]

The clearance limit is the missed approach hold point if you can’t make the airport. Once given vectors after the missed you need a new clearance.


Cleared Direct Zempo.

Ok. There is another thing happening in situations like your Approach to 8A7 that ATC is supposed to do but often doesn't. That is they are to include the Airport as the Clearance Limit when giving the Approach Clearance at non towered airports.

4−8−2. CLEARANCE LIMIT
Issue approach or other clearances, as required,
specifying the destination airport as the clearance
limit if airport traffic control service is not provided
even though this is a repetition of the initial clearance.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT

Thats not really at issue though with the scenarios we are talking about though. Only point I'm making about that is when they did give you your Approach Clearance, "Cleared To the Twin Lakes Airport" should have been included in it. I'm assuming that at some point in your flight you were Cleared 'To' the Twin Lakes Airport, maybe at your departure airport, maybe in the air as a pop up when you first requested to get an approach at Twin lakes. I'm also going to assume that somewhere out to the Northwest they gave you a shortcut direct to ZEMPO, maybe cutting out BURCH or COXOV that you may have already had. They would do this by saying "Cleared Direct ZEMPO." That does not establish ZEMPO as your Clearance Limit. To the best of my knowledge, the only place the phraseology CLEARED DIRECT appears in the Controllers rule book is under Route and Altitude Amendments and it does not establish clearance 'limit.'

4−2−5. ROUTE OR ALTITUDE
AMENDMENTS
a. Amend route of flight in a previously issued
clearance by one of the following:
1. State which portion of the route is being
amended and then state the amendment.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CHANGE (portion of route) TO READ (new portion of
route).
2. State the amendment to the route and then
state that the rest of the route is unchanged.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(Amendment to route), REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED.
3. Issue a clearance “direct” to a point on the
previously issued route.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED DIRECT (fix,waypoint).
Or
CLEARED DIRECT (destination) AIRPORT.
NOTE−
Clearances authorizing “direct” to a point on a previously
issued route do not require the phrase “rest of route
unchanged.” However, it must be understood where the
previously cleared route is resumed. When necessary, “rest
of route unchanged” may be used to clarify routing.

A case could be made that if doing a Missed Approach, the Missed Approach Fix becomes the Clearance Limit. If so, then when they take you off the Missed Approach Procedure, either by giving you something before you get to the Fix or take you out of holding at the Fix, they then must give you a Clearance with a Clearance Limit. They could Clear you TO Twin Lakes via ZEMPO. If they planned on holding you at ZEMPO the could say something like "Cleared TO Zempo via present position Direct. Or Cleared TO ZEMPO, fly heading xxx, when able Proceed Direct. Only the word 'To' establishes Clearance Limit. Now where did 'Proceed" come from? When a Controller gives the Direct to a Fix with a Vector, their rules dictate that they say it like this:

FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN ABLE, PROCEED DIRECT (name of fix)

So they say Cleared Direct. You say you can't just yet, how about a heading to fly until I can. Now it's Proceed Direct. It's absurd. Especially with all the confusions, interpretations and misinterpretations over the phrase Cleared Direct. The solution is to do away with Cleared Direct and replace it with Proceed Direct.

 

[dtuuri]

What I'm trying to find is, "What was the controller giving the OP permission to do?"

The OP had "permission" to the destination airport. Then the OP had ATC assistance to find the IAF requested. How much more "permission" is there to give?

 

[dtuuri]

How do you figure? Same situation, approaching an IAF without further clearance. The only difference was I was about to break through and talk to ATC.

You were able to make contact, the OP was not.

 

[dtuuri]

A case could be made that if doing a Missed Approach, the Missed Approach Fix becomes the Clearance Limit. If so, then when they take you off the Missed Approach Procedure, either by giving you something before you get to the Fix or take you out of holding at the Fix, they then must give you a Clearance with a Clearance Limit.

In the OP's case s/he requested the RNAV RWY 9 approach to KLAL, which is an airport, and was directed to the IAF with the expectation of doing the full approach, probably because ATC knew it was desired for training rather than vectors to final. It was not a request to GUUNR to practice holding. Even if it had been, since the destination is KLAL (I guess), and since no EFC has been provided, under lost comms you go past "hold" and continue to the destination, ie., shoot the approach.

Only the word 'To' establishes Clearance Limit.

...Especially with all the confusions, interpretations and misinterpretations over the phrase Cleared Direct. The solution is to do away with Cleared Direct and replace it with Proceed Direct.

Hoo boy. I've never heard this in fifty years. When the clearance limit is changed there's always a BIG PRODUCTION of it and an emphasis on the phrase "clearance limit". They don't want you going beyond it and they make sure you understand completely. If you didn't do this, then you're lucky there was never an incident because "Cleared direct", "Cleared to" or "Proceed direct" would not be construed as a subtle change in one's clearance limit.

 

[luvflyin]

In the OP's case s/he requested the RNAV RWY 9 approach to KLAL, which is an airport, and was directed to the IAF with the expectation of doing the full approach, probably because ATC knew it was desired for training rather than vectors to final. It was not a request to GUUNR to practice holding. Even if it had been, since the destination is KLAL (I guess), and since no EFC has been provided, under lost comms you go past "hold" and continue to the destination, ie., shoot the approach.


Hoo boy. I've never heard this in fifty years. When the clearance limit is changed there's always a BIG PRODUCTION of it and an emphasis on the word "limit". They don't want you going beyond it and they make sure you understand completely. If you didn't, then you're lucky there was never an incident because "Cleared direct", "Cleared to" or "Proceed direct" would not be construed as a subtle change in one's clearance limit.

I'm really having trouble believing this actually using the word 'limit' when clearing aircraft 'short' to a fix. I went through FAA Academy. I used to work at a Non Radar Approach Tower. I have cleared airplanes short thousands of times. It was just Cleared to, via, altitude and holding and EFC if necessary. I was an Instructor at the FAA Academy. Never was an 'explanation' that it was a Clearance Limit when you were 'Cleared TO' a part of it

 

[Grum.Man]

Ok. There is another thing happening in situations like your Approach to 8A7 that ATC is supposed to do but often doesn't. That is they are to include the Airport as the Clearance Limit when giving the Approach Clearance at non towered airports.

4−8−2. CLEARANCE LIMIT
Issue approach or other clearances, as required,
specifying the destination airport as the clearance
limit if airport traffic control service is not provided
even though this is a repetition of the initial clearance.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT

Thats not really at issue though with the scenarios we are talking about though. Only point I'm making about that is when they did give you your Approach Clearance, "Cleared To the Twin Lakes Airport" should have been included in it. I'm assuming that at some point in your flight you were Cleared 'To' the Twin Lakes Airport, maybe at your departure airport, maybe in the air as a pop up when you first requested to get an approach at Twin lakes. I'm also going to assume that somewhere out to the Northwest they gave you a shortcut direct to ZEMPO, maybe cutting out BURCH or COXOV that you may have already had. They would do this by saying "Cleared Direct ZEMPO." That does not establish ZEMPO as your Clearance Limit. To the best of my knowledge, the only place the phraseology CLEARED DIRECT appears in the Controllers rule book is under Route and Altitude Amendments and it does not establish clearance 'limit.'

4−2−5. ROUTE OR ALTITUDE
AMENDMENTS
a. Amend route of flight in a previously issued
clearance by one of the following:
1. State which portion of the route is being
amended and then state the amendment.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CHANGE (portion of route) TO READ (new portion of
route).
2. State the amendment to the route and then
state that the rest of the route is unchanged.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(Amendment to route), REST OF ROUTE UNCHANGED.
3. Issue a clearance “direct” to a point on the
previously issued route.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED DIRECT (fix,waypoint).
Or
CLEARED DIRECT (destination) AIRPORT.
NOTE−
Clearances authorizing “direct” to a point on a previously
issued route do not require the phrase “rest of route
unchanged.” However, it must be understood where the
previously cleared route is resumed. When necessary, “rest
of route unchanged” may be used to clarify routing.

A case could be made that if doing a Missed Approach, the Missed Approach Fix becomes the Clearance Limit. If so, then when they take you off the Missed Approach Procedure, either by giving you something before you get to the Fix or take you out of holding at the Fix, they then must give you a Clearance with a Clearance Limit. They could Clear you TO Twin Lakes via ZEMPO. If they planned on holding you at ZEMPO the could say something like "Cleared TO Zempo via present position Direct. Or Cleared TO ZEMPO, fly heading xxx, when able Proceed Direct. Only the word 'To' establishes Clearance Limit. Now where did 'Proceed" come from? When a Controller gives the Direct to a Fix with a Vector, their rules dictate that they say it like this:

FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN ABLE, PROCEED DIRECT (name of fix)

So they say Cleared Direct. You say you can't just yet, how about a heading to fly until I can. Now it's Proceed Direct. It's absurd. Especially with all the confusions, interpretations and misinterpretations over the phrase Cleared Direct. The solution is to do away with Cleared Direct and replace it with Proceed Direct.

Why all that may be true at the end of the day you are not cleared for the approach unless they say “cleared rnav 9 twin lakes”. Yes I was cleared to twin lakes during the initial call up but you can’t just take it upon your self to fly the approach for the very reason I wasn’t cleared for the approach. This would be even more important if there is a lot of radio congestion because that means there is a lot of other traffic that may conflict with the IAP. Just because you can’t establish contact before reaching the IAF doesn’t make you lost comms. Lost comms is considered an emergency and squawking 7600 gives you priority over other aircraft. They would then clear any conflicting traffic expecting you would continue the approach as perscribed.

 

[dtuuri]

I'm really having trouble believing this actually using the word 'limit' when clearing aircraft 'short' to a fix. I went through FAA Academy. I used to work at a Non Radar Approach Tower. I have cleared airplanes short thousands of times. It was just Cleared to, via, altitude and holding and EFC if necessary. I was an Instructor at the FAA Academy. Never was an 'explanation' that it was a Clearance Limit when you were 'Cleared TO' a part of it

If you're including holding instructions or EFC, sure--it's obviously a clearance limit. The OP did not receive such, though, and I've been in circumstances where they wanted me to go no further than a certain fix, but didn't have the instructions and EFC ready. They didn't say, "Cleared to <FIX>", they said, "Your clearance limit is now <FIX> stand by for an EFC and holding instructions." So, in the case of an amended clearance you better provide more than just "Cleared to" if you want to stop the pilot's progression. I see no real conflict with the context of your use of the term and what I'm saying for the OP's situation.

 

[luvflyin]

Why all that may be true at the end of the day you are not cleared for the approach unless they say “cleared rnav 9 twin lakes”. Yes I was cleared to twin lakes during the initial call up but you can’t just take it upon your self to fly the approach for the very reason I wasn’t cleared for the approach. This would be even more important if there is a lot of radio congestion because that means there is a lot of other traffic that may conflict with the IAP. Just because you can’t establish contact before reaching the IAF doesn’t make you lost comms. Lost comms is considered an emergency and squawking 7600 gives you priority over other aircraft. They would then clear any conflicting traffic expecting you would continue the approach as perscribed.

Yeah. It boils down to when do you make the decision that you are Lost Com.

 

[luvflyin]

If you're including holding instructions or EFC, sure--it's obviously a clearance limit. The OP did not receive such, though, and I've been in circumstances where they wanted me to go no further than a certain fix, but didn't have the instructions and EFC ready. They didn't say, "Cleared to <FIX>", they said, "Your clearance limit is now <FIX> stand by for an EFC and holding instructions." So, in the case of an amended clearance you better provide more than just "Cleared to" if you want to stop the pilot's progression. I see no real conflict with the context of your use of the term and what I'm saying for the OP's situation.

The more I thought about it I was seeing that yeah, maybe there are some Facilities, maybe it's most nowadays, that will get very explicit about explaining that that Fix you just got Cleared TO is your Clearance Limit. Getting cleared short is an unusual thing and seeing as it probably takes a lot of pilots by surprise I can understand it. At a minimum the are supposed to either give you holding instructions or tell you no delay expected:

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (fix), HOLD (direction), AS PUBLISHED,
or
CLEARED TO (fix), NO DELAY EXPECTED.

I see that some of the confusion is created by sloppy ATC work and some by lack of pilot knowledge.

 

[dtuuri]

At a minimum the are supposed to either give you holding instructions or tell you no delay expected:

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (fix), HOLD (direction), AS PUBLISHED,
or
CLEARED TO (fix), NO DELAY EXPECTED.

And if the OP was "Cleared to GUUNR, no delay expected," that makes GUUNR a clearance limit? With no EFC? Then under 91.185 he continues.

As for confusion, I don't see "Cleared to" in the Pilot & Controllers Glossary, or AIM for that matter. I would think it would be pretty important to know "Cleared to" means an amended clearance limit.

 

[luvflyin]

And if the OP was "Cleared to GUUNR, no delay expected," that makes GUUNR a clearance limit? With no EFC? Then under 91.185 he continues.

As for confusion, I don't see "Cleared to" in the Pilot & Controllers Glossary, or AIM for that matter. I would think it would be pretty important to know "Cleared to" means an amended clearance limit.

If he's Cleared To GUUNR, that's the clearance limit. No EFC or holding instructions is sloppy controller work. AIM 5-3-8 a., b., and c., d. and e. tell you what you are supposed to do about that.

 

[Tommar98]

This isn't as difficult as people are making out to be. You shouldn't fly an approach unless cleared. You aren't lost comms unless you are squaking 7600. If you in fact lost comms squaked 7600 then you would fly the approach as it was expected as you would be given priority over other aircraft on the approach.

Well I disagree. The regulation is lost communication - not lost radio. There is volumes written about what causes lost communication and it doesn't mean just a radio out. They had no communication with the ATC. If the regulation. Only applied to scenarios where 7600 would apply then they would write it to reflect lost radios. But it's not written that way. The "expect full approach" is the key language that would allow the approach to continue. I don't thinks it's complicated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dtuuri]

If he's Cleared To GUUNR, that's the clearance limit. No EFC or holding instructions is sloppy controller work. AIM 5-3-8 a., b., and c., d. and e. tell you what you are supposed to do about that.

Well, there's nothing in there that says "Cleared to" is an amended clearance limit. No EFC or holding instructions means there is no clearance limit there. And 5-3-8. says this in a note at the end:

NOTE−
In the event of two-way communications failure, pilots are required to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185.​

It does not say "radio failure" and hasn't since CAR 60.49, AFAIK. If it seems confusing, why continue to use confusing terminology?

 

[Palmpilot]

...Lost comms is considered an emergency and squawking 7600 gives you priority over other aircraft....

"Whether two-way communications failure
constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances,
and in any event, it is a determination made
by the pilot." AIM 6-4-1b​

 

[Grum.Man]

Well I disagree. The regulation is lost communication - not lost radio. There is volumes written about what causes lost communication and it doesn't mean just a radio out. They had no communication with the ATC. If the regulation. Only applied to scenarios where 7600 would apply then they would write it to reflect lost radios. But it's not written that way. The "expect full approach" is the key language that would allow the approach to continue. I don't thinks it's complicated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is actually written as communication failure. I.e. a malfunction that prevents you from talking to atc. In any case you should set 7600 and do what you feel is right. Just be prepared to file a report when you close your flight plan as to why you declared an emergency just because you couldn’t wait for a break in radio traffic for clarification. The expect full approach would be relevant in a communication failure which this was not. Since it was not, the realavent term is cleared for the approach.

For a second let’s assume this is a legit loss of communication. The OP was getting vectors to a fix. Yes there was an “expect”. Following the procedures for lost communications the OP should fly to the fix and hold. If no further clearance is received they would then complete the approach as close to expected ETA as practicle.

In neither case is flying to the fix then completing the approach the appropriate answer.

 

[luvflyin]

Well, there's nothing in there that says "Cleared to" is an amended clearance limit. No EFC or holding instructions means there is no clearance limit there. And 5-3-8. says this in a note at the end:

NOTE−
In the event of two-way communications failure, pilots are required to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185.​

It does not say "radio failure" and hasn't since CAR 60.49, AFAIK. If it seems confusing, why continue to use confusing terminology?

Yeah. I can’t find anything in the AIM that defines the phrase “Cleared To.” Somehow I know that when I am Cleared To the Bum Phuq Airport, that that is my Clearance Limit. And if after that they change their minds and tell me I am now Cleared To the Bum Phuq VOR, that my Clearance Limit has changed. Can’t find the definition of Amended in the AIM either. Gotta go to Funk and Wagnells for that.

 

[Grum.Man]

"Whether two-way communications failure
constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances,
and in any event, it is a determination made
by the pilot." AIM 6-4-1b​

Correct. I would not consider loosing communications in VMC to be an emergency. Loosing it in IMC absolutely would be an emergency.

 

[ahypnoz]

It appears what we are really talking about is not lost communications, but ATC lost situational awareness of were the airplane is in relation to the approach and what should the pilot do in that situation.

 

[dtuuri]

Following the procedures for lost communications the OP should fly to the fix and hold.

Yes, if the OP was told to hold.

If no further clearance is received they would then complete the approach as close to expected ETA as practicle.

No. Begin the descent or the approach, as applicable, at the ETA, not complete it.

 

[Grum.Man]

Yes, if the OP was told to hold.

Incorrect. You would hold regardless. And await further instructions. This is to give ATC a chance to reach you or provide further instruction in the event you can hear them but can’t transmit.

 

[dtuuri]

Incorrect. You would hold regardless. And await further instructions. This is to give ATC a chance to reach you or provide further instruction in the event you can hear them but can’t transmit.

What was the purpose for being cleared to the destination airport then?

 

[Grum.Man]

What was the purpose for being cleared to the destination airport then?

If the airport was VMC you would be given a visual approach to which the airport would be the clearance limit. If you lost communication in VFR conditions you would continue VFR and land as soon as practicle. At no point was he cleared for the approach after going missed.

 

[dtuuri]

If the airport was VMC you would be given a visual approach to which the airport would be the clearance limit. If you lost communication in VFR conditions you would continue VFR and land as soon as practicle. At no point was he cleared for the approach after going missed.

Why would the controllers' manual say this for a non-towered airport but not for one with a tower?:

4−8−2. CLEARANCE LIMIT
Issue approach or other clearances, as required,
specifying the destination airport as the clearance
limit if airport traffic control service is not provided
even though this is a repetition of the initial clearance.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT​

I'd say because the tower must issue landing approval. Other than that, there's no difference: Both have approach control, both initial clearances were to the destination airports. With a tower, you need approval to "land", at both you need approach to "sequence". Without the ability to communicate, you need neither.

If you have a Learjet right on your tail are you going to make a 180 because the frequency is tied up? Lost comm rules say "no". If you think you need a "repetition of the initial clearance", then you make a 180. Which would be smarter?

EDIT: (Yawn) I'm going to bed.

 

[Grum.Man]

Why would the controllers' manual say this for a non-towered airport but not for one with a tower?:

4−8−2. CLEARANCE LIMIT
Issue approach or other clearances, as required,
specifying the destination airport as the clearance
limit if airport traffic control service is not provided
even though this is a repetition of the initial clearance.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT​

I'd say because the tower must issue landing approval. Other than that, there's no difference: Both have approach control, both initial clearances were to the destination airports. With a tower, you need approval to "land", at both you need approach to "sequence". Without the ability to communicate, you need neither.

If you have a Learjet right on your tail are you going to make a 180 because the frequency is tied up? Lost comm rules say "no". If you think you need a "repetition of the initial clearance", then you make a 180. Which would be smarter?

Not really following what you are implying here. The person issuing your clearance has no idea what the weather is at your destination which is why they clear you to the airport instead of a fix. There will never be a Learjet right on your tail at an uncontrolled field because only one aircraft can be on the approach at a time. If you are at a controlled field it would be even more prudent to squawk 7600 so the controllers can waive the Learjet off. The lost communication rules do say you should fly to the last clearance which in this case was the fix, not the airport. You should then hold at the fix if no further clearance is given. Since this is a missed approach you have likely passed the ETA. If this is the case I would make at least one lap while I tried to sort out the communication failure and set the transponder which would alert atc to your issue allowing them to attempt to provide further instructions and clear other traffic from the area.

If you really think proceeding on an approach without first being cleared for the approach just change to advisory frequency as soon as you get close and do what ever you feel like. That is basically what you are suggsting to do here. There are plenty of times on a busy day when I have been forgotten about and blown through the IAF with no further direction. If I can’t break in I hit the ident button which always gets their attention. It’s almost immediately followed by an apology and a vector to rejoin the inbound course and the term “cleared for the approach”.

 

[Grum.Man]

Really all this is pointless discussion because this isn’t a communications failure. At best it’s a communication interruption and task saturation of the controller. The best course is to continue on your heading until you contact atc or they contact you. The expect full approach could just as easily mean from ARSHW as it does GUUNR as they are both IAF. Since you were not cleared for the approach it doesn’t garuntee that GUUNR is the IAF he wants you to use. Once you pass GUUNR they could very well give you vectors to intercept the 094 course past ARSHW and complete the full approach from there. Unless the controller sees this thread we have no idea what their intentions were. We just know you weren’t cleared for the approach yet.

 

[jordane93]

Did someone say pull the chute yet?

 

[dtuuri]

Why would the controllers' manual say this for a non-towered airport but not for one with a tower?:

4−8−2. CLEARANCE LIMIT
Issue approach or other clearances, as required,
specifying the destination airport as the clearance
limit if airport traffic control service is not provided
even though this is a repetition of the initial clearance.​

​

Not really following what you are implying here.

That you don't need an approach clearance (or tower, for that matter) to make the approach and land if you can't communicate.

All this talk about using the transponder (ARINC, cell phone, walkie-talkie, etc) is moot. We're talking about two-way communications failure. If you don't have it when you need it, 91.185 is the way to go. If you were enroute, go ahead and wait at least one minute, as per the AIM, call FSS, and anything else you think of, but over the IAF--you need to decide, right now, what ATC expects. 91.185 tells you.

 

[jaybee]

"N-C172 turn left heading 270 direct GUUNR when able. Expect the full approach."

Are you 1000% positive that was how it was phrased ?

Are you 1000% certain it wasn't stated as - "cleared direct GUUNR when able" ?

 

[Grum.Man]

​

That you don't need an approach clearance (or tower, for that matter) to make the approach and land if you can't communicate.

All this talk about using the transponder (ARINC, cell phone, walkie-talkie, etc) is moot. We're talking about two-way communications failure. If you don't have it when you need it, 91.185 is the way to go. If you were enroute, go ahead and wait at least one minute, as per the AIM, call FSS, and anything else you think of, but over the IAF--you need to decide, right now, what ATC expects. 91.185 tells you.

So since you are treating this as a loss of communication (which it really isn't) and quoting 91.185 as what to do let's evaluate your thought process in a more every day occurrence situation. Let's take the routing and approach out of the equation since you feel you don't need an approval to fly an approach. Let's say you were cleared to 3k feet, expect 10k in 10minutes. The radio is busy and in 10 minutes you haven't heard back from ATC. You can honestly say you would commence your climb to 10k at the 10 minute mark? Have you actually done this and not got scolded?

 

[dtuuri]

So since you are treating this as a loss of communication (which it really isn't) and quoting 91.185 as what to do let's evaluate your thought process in a more every day occurrence situation. Let's take the routing and approach out of the equation since you feel you don't need an approval to fly an approach. Let's say you were cleared to 3k feet, expect 10k in 10minutes. The radio is busy and in 10 minutes you haven't heard back from ATC. You can honestly say you would commence your climb to 10k at the 10 minute mark? Have you actually done this and not got scolded?

Have "actually" done this in a simulator at Flight Safety and was praised for it. After takeoff on runway 26 at Stapleton the sim instructor started talking non-stop on the frequency, working both sides of the conversations with other simulated traffic. I was quite impressed with the show. But we're headed toward the simulated mountains and the SID had a lost comm procedure to climb after ten minutes (or something like that), so I did and was commended.

 

[Grum.Man]

Have "actually" done this in a simulator at Flight Safety and was praised for it. After takeoff on runway 26 at Stapleton the sim instructor started talking non-stop on the frequency, working both sides of the conversations with other simulated traffic. I was quite impressed with the show. But we're headed toward the simulated mountains and the SID had a lost comm procedure to climb after ten minutes (or something like that), so I did and was commended.

Well of course you should follow a SID. But assuming you aren’t on a SID and are already at or above MEA what would you do? You’re “lost comms” and it’s been 10 minutes and we’re told to expect higher. There is no emergency just like the situation posed by the OP.

 

[dtuuri]

Well of course you should follow a SID. But assuming you aren’t on a SID and are already at or above MEA what would you do? You’re “lost comms” and it’s been 10 minutes and we’re told to expect higher. There is no emergency just like the situation posed by the OP.

The SID is an ATC clearance written out. If there's no SID, they spell the same thing out verbally, hence you do exactly the same thing. Lost comm procedures are covered in Chapter six of the AIM. Btw, I thought you said lost comm WAS an emergency, no?

 

[luvflyin]

It appears what we are really talking about is not lost communications, but ATC lost situational awareness of were the airplane is in relation to the approach and what should the pilot do in that situation.

Something like that. I wouldn’t call it loss of situational awareness but the Controller gave incomplete and/or incorrect instructions. I’d have to know what his intent was to know which. The pilot gets left scratching his head wondering WTF does he want. Then he is unable to communicate with the Controller in a timely manner so yeah, the discussion will lead to talkin about lost com.

 

[luvflyin]

Why would the controllers' manual say this for a non-towered airport but not for one with a tower?:

4−8−2. CLEARANCE LIMIT
Issue approach or other clearances, as required,
specifying the destination airport as the clearance
limit if airport traffic control service is not provided
even though this is a repetition of the initial clearance.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (destination) AIRPORT​

I'd say because the tower must issue landing approval. Other than that, there's no difference: Both have approach control, both initial clearances were to the destination airports. With a tower, you need approval to "land", at both you need approach to "sequence". Without the ability to communicate, you need neither.

If you have a Learjet right on your tail are you going to make a 180 because the frequency is tied up? Lost comm rules say "no". If you think you need a "repetition of the initial clearance", then you make a 180. Which would be smarter?

EDIT: (Yawn) I'm going to bed.

Who knows why. Most of the whole damn book is a result of incidents that have happened in the past. My guess is once upon a time a pilot got cleared for the Approach and landed at the wrong airport. Everyone wasn’t on the same page as to what his Clearance Limit was

 

[luvflyin]

Did someone say pull the chute yet?

Yeah, but it was a streamer

 

[dtuuri]

Who knows why. ... My guess is once upon a time a pilot got cleared for the Approach and landed at the wrong airport.

Then they have it backwards because it's the airline pilots going to towered fields that land at the wrong airports.

 

[ahypnoz]

If the controller had better situational awareness, as the pilot crosses GUUNR, ATC would have either said "continue current heading, or hold at ARSHW or given a new heading. It was not a loss of communication, It is a lack of communication. lack of communication is not talking. If the pilot does not attempt to communicate, I do not think that is a loss of communication.

The big problem that I have is that GUUNR is not on the approach plate, Does anyone else have a problem with this instruction, given a fix that is not on the approach plate on a missed approach?
The instructions given is not for the published missed or the alternate missed thus it will not be automatically sequenced by garmin.
If you are "on the go" or "going missed" There is going to be a lot of twisting and button pressing.

 

[bflynn]

...You request the RNAV RWY 9 after switching from tower on the missed...

The big problem that I have is that GUUNR is not on the approach plate

GUNNR is an IAF for the RNAV RWY 9. It's not on the ILS, but the OP said he switched to the RNAV approach.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1811/00939R9.PDF