IFR Route Filing and Lost Comm Procedures

aterpster said:
If that's the case, he will at least be communicating with the correct AFS entity about it all.
Click to expand...
I hope he communicates with ATO (they wouldn't answer my questions)--they're the ones who wrote amendment 91-189.

dtuuri
 
Oh. One more thing. Ask him how he'd feel holding for ETA inside 30 miles at an IAF with half the width of a normal feeder route/initial segment for obstacle protection when there's no depicted holding pattern on a GPS approach: KDPL GPS RWY 5
dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Unuuuh, I don't understand half of the discussion - gave myself a headache trying...

I have a Point A to Point B mentality...
There I am toodling along on a filed plan in IMC when all 3 radios take a dump... Now what - sheet or go blind are two options - but I reject them...
Knowing me, I will do the transponder thing to alert ATC that the magic smoke has leaked out of my transistors, then go back to my assigned squawk...
I will continue the flight as filed...
And when I reach my clearance limit I will go find the IAF and shoot the approach to the destination...
No holding, no ETA corrections, because I know that mighty ATC's radar and computers have been happily showing where I am and putting an expected vector line on the controllers screen as to where I will likely be in xx minutes... I know that the alert and spunky (when awake) controllers will see the trouble code attached to my blip and busily keep conflicting traffic away from where the mighty computer predicts I am going to be in xx minutes... When I reach my clearance limit and and turn to a direct heading towards the IAF at my filed destination, I would expect spunky controller to figure it out in 1 second flat that ai am doing exactly what my flight plan said I would do - of course lacking the sheer enjoyment of the 100mile detour radar vectors out to East Nowhere, with at least 3 altitude changes, that he would have given me had the radios played nice... At the torrid cruise speed of Fat Albert The Apache, I trust he can turn the fire breathing cattle tubes away from me in time to avoid aluminum intimacy..

In other words:
Fly the flight plan to the clearance limit, go to the IAF and fly the friggin approach - sheesh!

denny-o ( old and crochety)
 
dtuuri said:
That's because I've read the minutes <yawn>. Don't get me wrong, though. I just don't have the patience for it. Rich Boll can do my bidding before I can imagine it myself.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Therein lies the crux of your problem.

As to your further responses, you could do best by participating in the ACF rather than viewing it as a boring exercise.

Your responses could be considered to be quite self-serving, if not quite boring.
:rofl:
 
aterpster said:
Now in your example (i.e., SBY via V1 to JFK to KFRG), if a pilot were to lose communications where the clearance limit is KFRG, ATC would expect the pilot to fly via the ATC clearance routing and altitude to the IAF for the approach to the runway of intended landing. ATC would expect the pilot to depart the IAF as close as possible to the ETA, as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) ETE. In your example, the ATC clearance was SBY via V1 to JFK to KFRG, which makes the IAF as being either the Babylon NDB or FRIKK LOM/IAF, and then depart the IAF as close as possible to the ETA, as calculated from the filed or amended ETE.
Click to expand...

How does a non-ATCer know what ATC would expect?
 
I'm gonna archive this thread, and call Ron, Steve, Wally, and everybody else as witnesses if I'm ever charged with a violation related to this rule. I expect that between the FSDO rep "prosecuting" me and all these guys there will be at least six opinions on what I should have done, with FAA guidance to back up the opinions. Then, while everyone's arguing about how their guidance supercedes/obviates/takes precedence, I'll slip out in the confusion.

In the meantime, if I'm ever cleared to an airport and I lose comm enroute, what I'm gonna do is:
squawk 7600.
squawk 1200 and land if VFR.
Follow the M/E/A rule for altitude
Fly to the region where my airport is located, and head directly to an IAF for the runway/approach I want, shoot the approach, and land. I'm not gonna hold, I'm gonna trust ATC to keep a bubble clear around me and reward them by getting on the ground (and out of their hair) as soon as I can.
Call ATC or FSS as soon as I land, and tell them I'm down safely, and "thank you".
 
TMetzinger said:
In the meantime, if I'm ever cleared to an airport and I lose comm enroute, what I'm gonna do is:
squawk 7600.
squawk 1200 and land if VFR.
Follow the M/E/A rule for altitude
Fly to the region where my airport is located, and head directly to an IAF for the runway/approach I want, shoot the approach, and land. I'm not gonna hold, I'm gonna trust ATC to keep a bubble clear around me and reward them by getting on the ground (and out of their hair) as soon as I can.
Call ATC or FSS as soon as I land, and tell them I'm down safely, and "thank you".
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan, Tim. I like it. Pretty much what I had decided I would do in the situation.
 
aterpster said:
Therein lies the crux of your problem.
Click to expand...
Assuming I have a "problem" is the crux of yours.

Lost comm misunderstanding is not a charting issue. I spent a year actively getting an answer to my easy question, one a knowlegeble employee should have answered in five minutes. They passed it from department to department, tried throwing it away and finally sent it to the Chief Counsel's office where it got the same treatment--winding up on the desk of a young new-hire non-pilot to resolve the matter. She, in turn, consulted with several 'program offices' and, not knowing enough to tell who is right and wrong, tried to write a letter that satisfied them all, with mixed results.

I've spent even more time than that in past years, trying to get departure information into the AIM. At every turn, resistance was met, "Pilots don't need to know what's in 8260.3," they said. Around and around I went, again, department to department, spiraling up the chain of command one tier at a time. Eventually, after a couple years, Paul Best gave some marching orders and some changes were made.

The charting forum minutes reflect how tedious it is to effect changes, even obvious ones. It takes years and years. So, I opt for going over the head of a bureaucracy too fat for it's own good, where nobody is willing to take responsibility. I make my comments directly to the pilots.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
So, I opt for going over the head of a bureaucracy too fat for it's own good, where nobody is willing to take responsibility. I make my comments directly to the pilots.
Click to expand...

So everybody should listen to you and ignore the FAA? Are you telling the controllers what they should be expecting too? This only works if everyone's on the same page.
 
aterpster said:
How can comm fail in the typical light aircraft without loss of all IFR avionics?
Click to expand...

Funny that you mention that. On the way home yesterday I had two-way communications with Indy Center. My second com radio was off (mostly because it's a POS and when I monitor with it it makes the audio on the 430 sound crappy), and I was transmitting and receiving on my 430. I was handed off to Toledo Approach, and I switched frequencies. I made no other changes other than that. I heard nothing from Toledo for like 5 or 6 calls. I finally decide that I would give the POS Com2 a try. While still having TX/RX set to the 430, I turned the 2nd Com on, and voila, the 430 starts working normal again. So it can happen.

Called the avionic shop this morning to have them look at it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So everybody should listen to you and ignore the FAA?
Click to expand...
Of course not. I try to explain the FAA's requirements when they seem to be misunderstood, as any good CFI should.

flyingcheesehead said:
Are you telling the controllers what they should be expecting too? This only works if everyone's on the same page.
Click to expand...
No again. Controllers will do everything they can to clear the area around you, since you represent an unguided missle in their view. They have no way of knowing for sure where you will go or why. Does that mean you can just do as you please? Only if 91.185 is rescinded.

In practical terms, lost comms are probably temporary occurances, so the rules give a certain stability to the situation: the pilot follows a prescribed route at a safe altitude until comms are restored. In that way, everybody stays on the same page in the interim.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
I'm gonna archive this thread, and call Ron, Steve, Wally, and everybody else as witnesses if I'm ever charged with a violation related to this rule. I expect that between the FSDO rep "prosecuting" me and all these guys there will be at least six opinions on what I should have done, with FAA guidance to back up the opinions. Then, while everyone's arguing about how their guidance supercedes/obviates/takes precedence, I'll slip out in the confusion.

In the meantime, if I'm ever cleared to an airport and I lose comm enroute, what I'm gonna do is:
squawk 7600.
squawk 1200 and land if VFR.
Follow the M/E/A rule for altitude
Fly to the region where my airport is located, and head directly to an IAF for the runway/approach I want, shoot the approach, and land. I'm not gonna hold, I'm gonna trust ATC to keep a bubble clear around me and reward them by getting on the ground (and out of their hair) as soon as I can.
Call ATC or FSS as soon as I land, and tell them I'm down safely, and "thank you".
Click to expand...

And during a TRACON tour that's what ATC told what they want. They want us out of the system. Don't hold for 30 minutes, just shoot it and be done.
 
dtuuri said:
Controllers will do everything they can to clear the area around you, since you represent an unguided missle in their view. They have no way of knowing for sure where you will go or why.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. They expect you to follow the regs. Unless and until you deviate from that, everyone is on the same page, which is a good place to be.
 
dtuuri said:
Of course not. I try to explain the FAA's requirements when they seem to be misunderstood, as any good CFI should.
Click to expand...

The problem there is you're attempting to explain material that you do not understand.
 
EdFred said:
And during a TRACON tour that's what ATC told what they want. They want us out of the system. Don't hold for 30 minutes, just shoot it and be done.
Click to expand...

What? You would take the word of an ATCer over the word of Flight Standards about what is expected by ATC? Are you insane?
 
dtuuri said:
Assuming I have a "problem" is the crux of yours.

Lost comm misunderstanding is not a charting issue. I spent a year actively getting an answer to my easy question, one a knowlegeble employee should have answered in five minutes. They passed it from department to department, tried throwing it away and finally sent it to the Chief Counsel's office where it got the same treatment--winding up on the desk of a young new-hire non-pilot to resolve the matter. She, in turn, consulted with several 'program offices' and, not knowing enough to tell who is right and wrong, tried to write a letter that satisfied them all, with mixed results.

I've spent even more time than that in past years, trying to get departure information into the AIM. At every turn, resistance was met, "Pilots don't need to know what's in 8260.3," they said. Around and around I went, again, department to department, spiraling up the chain of command one tier at a time. Eventually, after a couple years, Paul Best gave some marching orders and some changes were made.

The charting forum minutes reflect how tedious it is to effect changes, even obvious ones. It takes years and years. So, I opt for going over the head of a bureaucracy too fat for it's own good, where nobody is willing to take responsibility. I make my comments directly to the pilots.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Of course lost comm is not a charting issue. In my 19,000 hours of flying it never came up once, at least not for me.

As to the FAA being slow to respond, that is the very reason ALPA got the ACF charted going in 1992. Not all issues flow smoothly through the ACF, but many have.

Paul Best retired a long time ago.

As an individual, neither you nor any other individual has much clout with the FAA. That's what the user groups are for. If you were sitting at the ACF table as AOPA's designated representative you would have considerable clout, particularly when your issue was credible.

As you certainly know, my name appears many time in ACF issues presented. I don't recall having seen your name once.

As to our controller friend from GRB he is seldom wrong about air traffic procedures and airspace matters. And, although he may get unecessarily abrupt sometimes, when he lays out a techincal issue or answer he always makes sense.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
I'm gonna archive this thread, and call Ron, Steve, Wally, and everybody else as witnesses if I'm ever charged with a violation related to this rule. I expect that between the FSDO rep "prosecuting" me and all these guys there will be at least six opinions on what I should have done, with FAA guidance to back up the opinions. Then, while everyone's arguing about how their guidance supercedes/obviates/takes precedence, I'll slip out in the confusion.

In the meantime, if I'm ever cleared to an airport and I lose comm enroute, what I'm gonna do is:
squawk 7600.
squawk 1200 and land if VFR.
Follow the M/E/A rule for altitude
Fly to the region where my airport is located, and head directly to an IAF for the runway/approach I want, shoot the approach, and land. I'm not gonna hold, I'm gonna trust ATC to keep a bubble clear around me and reward them by getting on the ground (and out of their hair) as soon as I can.
Call ATC or FSS as soon as I land, and tell them I'm down safely, and "thank you".
Click to expand...

Don't include me. :wink2:

Unless I slipped up somewhere I haven't given any 91.185 advice in this thread. I did act as messenger for our resident expert who gave me permission to share his email to AFS-410, the AFS branch that counts in this issue.

I've never seen any good or consistent scheme set forth for the highly unlikely event of lost comm (without all electronics gone).
 
TMetzinger said:
I'm gonna archive this thread, and call Ron, Steve, Wally, and everybody else as witnesses if I'm ever charged with a violation related to this rule. I expect that between the FSDO rep "prosecuting" me and all these guys there will be at least six opinions on what I should have done, with FAA guidance to back up the opinions. Then, while everyone's arguing about how their guidance supercedes/obviates/takes precedence, I'll slip out in the confusion.

In the meantime, if I'm ever cleared to an airport and I lose comm enroute, what I'm gonna do is:
squawk 7600.
squawk 1200 and land if VFR.
Follow the M/E/A rule for altitude
Fly to the region where my airport is located, and head directly to an IAF for the runway/approach I want, shoot the approach, and land. I'm not gonna hold, I'm gonna trust ATC to keep a bubble clear around me and reward them by getting on the ground (and out of their hair) as soon as I can.
Call ATC or FSS as soon as I land, and tell them I'm down safely, and "thank you".
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
dtuuri said:
I'll consider all offers. :skeptical:

dtuuri
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way. You have to convince them they need you. Or, you have every right to show up at the ACF representing your personal enterprise. You can even submit agenda items.
 
aterpster said:
You have to convince them they need you.
Click to expand...
I'm convinced they don't. Besides, I'm more interested in helping new pilots get safely (and legally) around the pot-holes this way: www.AvClicks.com than slowly attempting to fill them up this way: History of Open Issues.

But my hat's off to those of you who want to work that side of the street.

dtuuri
 
OMG what a bunch of nincompoops getting paid on my dime...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...0/afs420/acfipg/open/media/Hist_92-02-110.pdf

That recommendation has being discussed since the year I got my Private license, 19 years ago and not one out of all those people can get it accomplished -- when the Canadians had a working system for it in 1992.

Serious dumbassery going on right there. Every year it's, "Some other department/office is [sitting on] this one now."

Hope they're enjoying the taxpayer provided coffee and donuts. Jumping jee bus on a pogo stick.

Even as bad as the gub'mint is in that document, the one that takes the cake, and is my favorite quote -- is right there on the last page where the ALPA representative asks...

"At what airspeed is 1000' per nm calculated?"

It's 1000' per nm, not 1000' per minute.

Sigh. Reading this document makes me want to punch something.
 
denverpilot said:
Even as bad as the gub'mint is in that document, the one that takes the cake, and is my favorite quote -- is right there on the last page where the ALPA representative asks...

"At what airspeed is 1000' per nm calculated?"

It's 1000' per nm, not 1000' per minute.

Sigh. Reading this document makes me want to punch something.
Click to expand...

hmmm.... Trying to show you too are ready for government service? :lol:
 
denverpilot said:
Serious dumbassery going on right there. Every year it's, "Some other department/office is [sitting on] this one now."
Click to expand...
Hee-hee. :) Have you by chance ever been told by FEMA you're in a flood zone, when you aren't? Lots of people have, me included. If so, you need to buy flood insurance from the government if your house is financed. To do that, you need to hire a surveyor, so they know how much to quote you. Or, you can hire a surveyor to prove you aren't in the dad-gum thing in the first place. Either way... you have to hire a surveyor. About $500 bucks.

Seen any FAA Chief Counsel opinions lately? Waited for any? Since I got mine, I've been praying for a government shutdown.

Want the Feds to decide if you can have a hip replacement? :eek: Not me.

dtuuri
 
Palmpilot said:
Now that we're thoroughly off-topic, does Medicare decide who can get hip replacements?
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised. It decides who is eligible for cardiac defibrillators and pacemakers. If one is implanted in an individual who does not meet Medicare "guidelines" the physician can be subject to criminal prosecution and both the hospital and physician can be heavily fined. Needless to say the hospital and physician will not be reimbursed for the device or the cost of implanting it. Some people would like to withdraw from Medicare so they are not bound by these rules but then they would also be forced to give up social security benefits.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216872954763388.html
 
Gary F said:
I would not be surprised. It decides who is eligible for cardiac defibrillators and pacemakers. If one is implanted in an individual who does not meet Medicare "guidelines" the physician can be subject to criminal prosecution and both the hospital and physician can be heavily fined. Needless to say the hospital and physician will not be reimbursed for the device or the cost of implanting it. Some people would like to withdraw from Medicare so they are not bound by these rules but then they would also be forced to give up social security benefits.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216872954763388.html
Click to expand...

Sounds like some reforms are needed.

For those who are not on Medicare, do private health insurers decide who is eligible for various procedures?
 
Palmpilot said:
For those who are not on Medicare, do private health insurers decide who is eligible for various procedures?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, if they're paying.

And many State/Federal funded University (supposedly "teaching") Hospitals have hoops to jump through to get the "best candidates" meaning, if you're a high-risk case and will lower their percentages of "successful outcomes" they'll make sure you never see the inside of the OR at their "highly successful" (read: we want to wow new students and keep our funding) programs.
 
Palmpilot said:
Sounds like some reforms are needed.

For those who are not on Medicare, do private health insurers decide who is eligible for various procedures?
Click to expand...
Yes but you can usually call a physician with the insurance company and explain why you want to do something and they almost always approve. Insurance companies can not have you fined unless they go to court and prove fraud. Under Medicare there is the presumption of guilt unless you go to court and successfully defend yourself. This is similar to having sanctions imposed on a pilot by the FAA where you can accept the punishment or go before an administrative law judge in an attempt to defend yourself.
 
denverpilot said:
Absolutely, if they're paying.

And many State/Federal funded University (supposedly "teaching") Hospitals have hoops to jump through to get the "best candidates" meaning, if you're a high-risk case and will lower their percentages of "successful outcomes" they'll make sure you never see the inside of the OR at their "highly successful" (read: we want to wow new students and keep our funding) programs.
Click to expand...
Not the University of Michigan. They have never refused a transfer or referral from our hospital to the best of my knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top