Instrument Checkride Scenario Questions

[Skybound-mg]

I got a very interesting CheckRide scenario I'd love some feedback on:

KHFD to B21 (Approach plate is attached). Route: KHFD DVANY T315 KEYNN T295 CON T395 JOBBY B21

I'm sure this airport was picked for a bunch of tricky stuff:

• Best criusing altitude for route is 7000' AGL AND Airport is under MOA that starts at 7000ft AGL,

• Airport only has AWOS-AV (altimiter and vis only) -- but it seems to be enhanced -- as there's METARs in Foreflight with Wind, Vis, temp, DP, Altimiter, and Density Altitude -- but no ceilings.. even Foreflight says Flight Category Unknown.
• Airport only has RNAV-GPS A (circling) -- has the inverted [C] (expanded circling minimums). (does alternate need to be other than GPS -- I have WASS, so no)
• Very confusing Procedure NA note. Look up RNAV GPS-A (B21) - Augusta VOR/DME is to the south west of the airport. "Procedure NA for arrivals at AUG VOR/DME on V39 Southwest bound" If I arrive at the VOR 38.8NM SW of the airport from southwest bound I can't do the rnav but i can if I get to the VOR/DME some other way? WHY Is this here? The turn is too tight with terrain or something?
• Hold is 5NM instead of normal 4NM for GPS,
• The airport is 880MSL, and the circling mins are 3000MSL!?
• if conditions are 1200-3 or less, min climb of (530ft/nm X 69.52 kts(80mph))/60 = 667ft/min climb. 3 adults in a 172M with full fuel, best rate of cliimb as 645ft/min at Std Temp sea level at Max Gross Weight, 882 airport elev, warm day, no go.

Questions Below:

1. lost comms -- lets say clearance limit is B21, what would I do? I'm cruising at 7000 where the MOA starts (MOA is 7000ft agl to 18000ft agl). I'm assuming I'm continuing to airport at 7000, then to fix where approach starts, if I'm early, hold at the IAFleave at a time where I will arrive at airport closest to ETA as possible -- don't deviate lower to oroca, etc as i have no clearance to do so-- no losing altitude until I am established on the approach? (lose altitude in the hold at IAF?)
2. Do i need an alternate? I can't get ceilings here from the AWOS-AV- and the closest airport ALSO has AWOS-AV only. I can use approved weather sources like GFA, 1800wxbrief, etc.-- if it's severe clear I'm good, or if forecasts are clearly good I don't need an alternate.. I'd file one anyways, but this DPE will want a definitive answer: do I legally NEED one. -- if approved weather products show that forecasts for that area are good 1 hour before and after with at least 2000 ceiling and 3sm VIS I do not need one LEGALLY, but I'm damn sure filing one. Correct?
3. The circling is bananas. Circling mins are 2120 feet above the airport, with the MAP at the runway. What do I do if I break out mins right near the airport at 2120 ft above? Fly a pattern twice to lose the altitude? Use one of these (like (b)) ??

4. Anything else here? This is just.. a really weird airport.

 

[flyingron]

The book answer is you go to B21 and then to a IAF on the approach (HOLIB, AUG, or ZOGTU). Hold as necessary to make the ETA or to get down from 5000.

Use the best weather to determine if you have 1-2-3. These will be forecasts most likely rather than the current hourly. Note that forecasts with TEMPO, BECMG, or PROB use the most pessimistic weather.

You never HAVE to circle. It is just that the criteria isn't met for a straight-in ( this case the offset in the final approach course necessary to avoid the terrain I think, but I'm no TERPS wizard). However, if you get the runway environment in view, have the required visibility, and can get down to the runway with normal manouvers, you can just fly straight to RWY 35. Otherwise, you can do whatever circiling manouver you want as long as you stay with in the protected area to set yourself up for whatever runway you want to land on. 2800' is a bit short to try to get down from directly over the runway without some sort of pattern to descend and get you back to final.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's really way to much so some short answers

1. lost comms -- lets say clearance limit is B21, what would I do? I'm cruising at 7000 where the MOA starts (MOA is 7000ft agl to 18000ft agl). I'm assuming I'm continuing to airport at 7000, then to fix where approach starts, if I'm early, hold at the IAFleave at a time where I will arrive at airport closest to ETA as possible -- don't deviate lower to oroca, etc as i have no clearance to do so-- no losing altitude until I am established on the approach? (lose altitude in the hold at IAF?)

Why did you lose comm? Did you check for the correct frequency? Are you sure it's not an emergency? It would be unusual in 2025 if it weren't. Do you want an answer parroting the regulations(and around until your ETA and block all other traffic in the area) or a real world answer? I know DPEs who want to hear that you know and understand what the reg says but can give a real world answer. I'd head to the nearest IAF and start the approach. The MOA? Well if it was hot, my clearance would have probably gone around it but, just in case, I might well squawk emergency and skip lost comm altogether.

1. Do i need an alternate? I can't get ceilings here from the AWOS-AV- and the closest airport ALSO has AWOS-AV only. I can use approved weather sources like GFA, 1800wxbrief, etc.-- if it's severe clear I'm good, or if forecasts are clearly good I don't need an alternate.. I'd file one anyways, but this DPE will want a definitive answer: do I legally NEED one. -- if approved weather products show that forecasts for that area are good 1 hour before and after with at least 2000 ceiling and 3sm VIS I do not need one LEGALLY, but I'm damn sure filing one. Correct?

Read what the regulation actually says rather than what you think or were told it says. The answer is there.

1. The circling is bananas. Circling mins are 2120 feet above the airport, with the MAP at the runway. What do I do if I break out mins right near the airport at 2120 ft above? Fly a pattern twice to lose the altitude? Use one of these (like (b)) ??

So long as you follow the correct traffic pattern direction, do whatever keeps you out of the clouds and in sight of the runway. Break out early enough, land straight in. If not, well, there's a reason it's called "circling."

 

[EdFred]

Questions/comments:
Why JOBBY and not HOLIB
Personally I Ignore the MOA, If it's hot, ATC will do what they gotta do for for you, especially if you have to go through it as part of the approach. They will probably descend you to 5000 before getting to it anyway since that's an altitude on the approach plate.

Being SW of the airport is not SW bound.

1. I file to the destination, with one of the IAF along the route. That way I just fly the approach when I hit the IAF in case of lost comms.
3. Yup, some mins are crazy high.

 

[RussR]

I like it as a checkride-question airport. It tests your knowledge.

But it's nothing real unusual, it's just a typical airport and approach in hilly/mountainous terrain. Lots of compromises have to be made in the design.

The Procedure NA note says what it says, and you interpreted it correctly. It means exactly that. It's because that would be more than 90 deg of turn on an RNAV procedure, which is against the criteria.

A 4nm hold is not "normal", it's just what you're used to seeing at lower elevation airports. Holding distance is based on altitude, since TAS goes up with altitude and therefore turn radius does as well. The minimum holding altitude here is 5000, which is high enough to get a 5 nm pattern. Check out some of the patterns in Colorado, you'll see even longer leg lengths.

The circling isn't bananas, it is what it is. There's high terrain around, a high circling MDA should be no surprise. You break out in time, you go mostly straight-in and land. If you don't, you do something like your option B. I wouldn't think it would take 2 laps around the pattern, though, seems like 1 lap would be pretty much a normal descent, assuming you usually fly a VFR pattern at 1000 AGL on downwind.

For the departure, yes, there is terrain in the way. You want to depart IFR, you need to meet those minimums. Or, of course, you hit something.

(Oh, and you mean "MSL" when you are saying "AGL".)

• Airport only has AWOS-AV (altimiter and vis only) -- but it seems to be enhanced -- as there's METARs in Foreflight with Wind, Vis, temp, DP, Altimiter, and Density Altitude -- but no ceilings.. even Foreflight says Flight Category Unknown.
• Airport only has RNAV-GPS A (circling) -- has the inverted [C] (expanded circling minimums). (does alternate need to be other than GPS -- I have WASS, so no)
• Very confusing Procedure NA note. Look up RNAV GPS-A (B21) - Augusta VOR/DME is to the south west of the airport. "Procedure NA for arrivals at AUG VOR/DME on V39 Southwest bound" If I arrive at the VOR 38.8NM SW of the airport from southwest bound I can't do the rnav but i can if I get to the VOR/DME some other way? WHY Is this here? The turn is too tight with terrain or something?
• Hold is 5NM instead of normal 4NM for GPS,
• The airport is 880MSL, and the circling mins are 3000MSL!?
• if conditions are 1200-3 or less, min climb of (530ft/nm X 69.52 kts(80mph))/60 = 667ft/min climb. 3 adults in a 172M with full fuel, best rate of cliimb as 645ft/min at Std Temp sea level at Max Gross Weight, 882 airport elev, warm day, no go.

Questions Below:

1. lost comms -- lets say clearance limit is B21, what would I do? I'm cruising at 7000 where the MOA starts (MOA is 7000ft agl to 18000ft agl). I'm assuming I'm continuing to airport at 7000, then to fix where approach starts, if I'm early, hold at the IAFleave at a time where I will arrive at airport closest to ETA as possible -- don't deviate lower to oroca, etc as i have no clearance to do so-- no losing altitude until I am established on the approach? (lose altitude in the hold at IAF?)
2. Do i need an alternate? I can't get ceilings here from the AWOS-AV- and the closest airport ALSO has AWOS-AV only. I can use approved weather sources like GFA, 1800wxbrief, etc.-- if it's severe clear I'm good, or if forecasts are clearly good I don't need an alternate.. I'd file one anyways, but this DPE will want a definitive answer: do I legally NEED one. -- if approved weather products show that forecasts for that area are good 1 hour before and after with at least 2000 ceiling and 3sm VIS I do not need one LEGALLY, but I'm damn sure filing one. Correct?
3. The circling is bananas. Circling mins are 2120 feet above the airport, with the MAP at the runway. What do I do if I break out mins right near the airport at 2120 ft above? Fly a pattern twice to lose the altitude? Use one of these (like (b)) ??

View attachment 141872
4. Anything else here? This is just.. a really weird airport.

 

[Skybound-mg]

Questions/comments:
Why JOBBY and not HOLIB
Personally I Ignore the MOA, If it's hot, ATC will do what they gotta do for for you, especially if you have to go through it as part of the approach. They will probably descend you to 5000 before getting to it anyway since that's an altitude on the approach plate.

Being SW of the airport is not SW bound.

1. I file to the destination, with one of the IAF along the route. That way I just fly the approach when I hit the IAF in case of lost comms.
3. Yup, some mins are crazy high.

When you file an fix with an IAF, is that what you're given as your clearance limit? Or are you cleared to the airport (B21) in this case as filed. If so, the clearance limit is the airport, and I haven't been cleared on an approach.

Per 91.185:
Leave clearance limit.

1. When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) Estimated Time En Route (ETE).
2. If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

Just because you filed a fix with an IAF as your route, that doesn't make it your clearance limit, and since you haven't been cleared on an approach, can you just start down, or do you have to follow 91.185 to the letter -- fly to the airport at the MEA/Expected/Assigned (highest) altitude, then go to a fix from with it begins? I got non-definitive answers from 2 different CFIIs on this question.

 

[EdFred]

When you file an fix with an IAF, is that what you're given as your clearance limit? Or are you cleared to the airport (B21) in this case as filed. If so, the clearance limit is the airport, and I haven't been cleared on an approach.

Per 91.185:
Leave clearance limit.

1. When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) Estimated Time En Route (ETE).
2. If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

Just because you filed a fix with an IAF as your route, that doesn't make it your clearance limit, and since you haven't been cleared on an approach, can you just start down, or do you have to follow 91.185 to the letter -- fly to the airport at the MEA/Expected/Assigned (highest) altitude, then go to a fix from with it begins? I got non-definitive answers from 2 different CFIIs on this question.

There's the book answer - which you provided - and the real world answer. The real world answer is they are going to clear everyone out of your way and want you out of the airspace fairly quickly if possible. If you fly all the way to B21, then back to your IAF, just to fly back to B21, when you get on the ground, ATC is going to ask "WTF were you doing? Just fly the route and approach so we don't have to keep all that airspace clear."

When I had my lost comms moment, I was NOT going to fly the next 3.5 hours in the slag because that's what I was cleared to. I checked my charts, knew what the bases were, knew what my terrain was, dialed in 7600, and descended to the nearest airport. FBO came out and said "Atlanta Center said thanks, and they refiled your flight plan from here (SVH) if you get the comms figured out."

 

[midlifeflyer]

There's the book answer - which you provided - and the real world answer. The real world answer is they are going to clear everyone out of your way and want you out of the airspace fairly quickly if possible. If you fly all the way to B21, then back to your IAF, just to fly back to B21, when you get on the ground, ATC is going to ask "WTF were you doing? Just fly the route and approach so we don't have to keep all that airspace clear."

When I had my lost comms moment, I was NOT going to fly the next 3.5 hours in the slag because that's what I was cleared to. I checked my charts, knew what the bases were, knew what my terrain was, dialed in 7600, and descended to the nearest airport. FBO came out and said "Atlanta Center said thanks, and they refiled your flight plan from here (SVH) if you get the comms figured out."

That’s the way to do it.

 

[luvflyin]

When you file an fix with an IAF, is that what you're given as your clearance limit? Or are you cleared to the airport (B21) in this case as filed. If so, the clearance limit is the airport, and I haven't been cleared on an approach.

Per 91.185:
Leave clearance limit.

1. When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) Estimated Time En Route (ETE).
2. If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

Just because you filed a fix with an IAF as your route, that doesn't make it your clearance limit, and since you haven't been cleared on an approach, can you just start down, or do you have to follow 91.185 to the letter -- fly to the airport at the MEA/Expected/Assigned (highest) altitude, then go to a fix from with it begins? I got non-definitive answers from 2 different CFIIs on this question.

Your Clearance Limit is what ATC says it is. The word ‘to’ is what establishes Clearance Limit. If you are Cleared To the Sugarloaf Airport then that is the Clearance Limit. There is no rule or regulation stipulating that an Approach Fix that is on the Route of Flight becomes the Clearance Limit. If ATC wants a Fix to be the Clearance Limit, they are required to say so.

 

[luvflyin]

HOLIB

I like it as a checkride-question airport. It tests your knowledge.

But it's nothing real unusual, it's just a typical airport and approach in hilly/mountainous terrain. Lots of compromises have to be made in the design.

The Procedure NA note says what it says, and you interpreted it correctly. It means exactly that. It's because that would be more than 90 deg of turn on an RNAV procedure, which is against the criteria.

A 4nm hold is not "normal", it's just what you're used to seeing at lower elevation airports. Holding distance is based on altitude, since TAS goes up with altitude and therefore turn radius does as well. The minimum holding altitude here is 5000, which is high enough to get a 5 nm pattern. Check out some of the patterns in Colorado, you'll see even longer leg lengths.

The circling isn't bananas, it is what it is. There's high terrain around, a high circling MDA should be no surprise. You break out in time, you go mostly straight-in and land. If you don't, you do something like your option B. I wouldn't think it would take 2 laps around the pattern, though, seems like 1 lap would be pretty much a normal descent, assuming you usually fly a VFR pattern at 1000 AGL on downwind.

For the departure, yes, there is terrain in the way. You want to depart IFR, you need to meet those minimums. Or, of course, you hit something.

(Oh, and you mean "MSL" when you are saying "AGL".)

HOLIB and ZAGTU are IAF’s for this Approach. I see no connection to the Enroute Structure. Is that no longer required?

 

[RussR]

HOLIB

HOLIB and ZAGTU are IAF’s for this Approach. I see no connection to the Enroute Structure. Is that no longer required?

Not required for RNAV procedures, and has not been for some time now.

 

[luvflyin]

Not required for RNAV procedures, and has not been for some time now.

Thx

 

[luvflyin]

@Skybound-mg
When unable to proceed VFR, probably as often as not nowadays, FAR 91.185 will leave you in "...a situation not covered in the regulation..." because of widespread use of Direct that has no connection to points specified in 91.185. You have already seen good examples here of "...exercise good judgment in whatever action they elect to take..."

AIM
6−4−1. Two-way Radio Communications Failure
a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations
associated with two-way radio communications failure. During two-way radio communications failure, when
confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever
action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action
contained in 14 CFR Section 91.3(b).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Do i need an alternate? I can't get ceilings here from the AWOS-AV- and the closest airport ALSO has AWOS-AV only. I can use approved weather sources like GFA, 1800wxbrief, etc.-- if it's severe clear I'm good, or if forecasts are clearly good I don't need an alternate.. I'd file one anyways, but this DPE will want a definitive answer: do I legally NEED one. -- if approved weather products show that forecasts for that area are good 1 hour before and after with at least 2000 ceiling and 3sm VIS I do not need one LEGALLY, but I'm damn sure filing one. Correct?

Another part of the discussion would be, if the forecast is 2000 & 3, you don’t legally need an alternate, but you’re probably not going to get in on the approach.

 

[midlifeflyer]

AIM
6−4−1. Two-way Radio Communications Failure
a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations
associated with two-way radio communications failure. During two-way radio communications failure, when
confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever
action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action
contained in 14 CFR Section 91.3(b).

Thank you for quoting my No.1 all-time favorite statement in the AIM.

 

[Skybound-mg]

There's the book answer - which you provided - and the real world answer. The real world answer is they are going to clear everyone out of your way and want you out of the airspace fairly quickly if possible. If you fly all the way to B21, then back to your IAF, just to fly back to B21, when you get on the ground, ATC is going to ask "WTF were you doing? Just fly the route and approach so we don't have to keep all that airspace clear."

When I had my lost comms moment, I was NOT going to fly the next 3.5 hours in the slag because that's what I was cleared to. I checked my charts, knew what the bases were, knew what my terrain was, dialed in 7600, and descended to the nearest airport. FBO came out and said "Atlanta Center said thanks, and they refiled your flight plan from here (SVH) if you get the comms figured out."

I fully agree with this and I would do the same. The DPE I'm testing with is a stickler and without question, wants the book answer. My checkride last week I answered like you said -- I lost comms right before my last fix before the airport. I told him I troubleshooted, comms were indeed out, squawked 7600, my next fix was the airport -- i wanted to get down in this emergency as soon as possible and be as predictable as possible, so I went to a fix an approach began at, was early, so held at the IAF until close to ETA time time, and I was going to land, and I failed the oral portion of the checkride for it. "I'm glad you said you wanted to be as predictable as possible, and being as predictable as possible would be going to your clearance limit first then going to the IAF). He told me I should go to the airport and hold over the airpot until my eta time, then fly to a IAF, then land.

so now I'm paying the full checkride fee again to burp out the book answer

 

[luvflyin]

I fully agree with this and I would do the same. The DPE I'm testing with is a stickler and without question, wants the book answer. My checkride last week I answered like you said -- I lost comms right before my last fix before the airport. I told him I troubleshooted, comms were indeed out, squawked 7600, my next fix was the airport -- i wanted to get down in this emergency as soon as possible and be as predictable as possible, so I went to a fix an approach began at, was early, so held at the IAF until close to ETA time time, and I was going to land, and I failed the oral portion of the checkride for it. "I'm glad you said you wanted to be as predictable as possible, and being as predictable as possible would be going to your clearance limit first then going to the IAF). He told me I should go to the airport and hold over the airpot until my eta time, then fly to a IAF, then land.

so now I'm paying the full checkride fee again to burp out the "book answer"

Have you shown him this thread?

 

[midlifeflyer]

"I'm glad you said you wanted to be as predictable as possible, and being as predictable as possible would be going to your clearance limit first then going to the IAF). He told me I should go to the airport and hold over the airpot until my eta time, then fly to a IAF, then land.

so now I'm paying the full checkride fee again to burp out the "book answer"

I think most examiners will want you to at least recite the book answer so they know you know it. As unrealistic as it might be in today's NAS, I think it does have its place. Beyond that, you need to know in advance if they will accept a real world answer in addition to the book answer.

For example, why would one wait until the ETA? What makes it predictable? It's not as if ATC knows what the heck you filed for an ETA. It's not on their strip and, frankly, they don't care. Sure, I guess they can make a call to whomever actually has access to what you filed and find out what it was but as a controller (whom I used as a reference for "Lost Comm Realities" in one of the last issues of IFR Magazine) said, "we would never do that." That's consistent with every controller I've even heard talk about the issue.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Have you shown him this thread?

Better would be to listen to Opposing Bases.

 

[Skybound-mg]

Just for kicks, here's a legal interpretation from 2018 saying the FAA does, in fact, stand by the requirements of 91.185

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2018/Van_West_2018_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

Edit: and they state squauking a transponder code is not a substitute for two way communication with ATC, and they expect you to do exactly what 91.185 says.

 

[midwestpa24]

I'm so glad our local examiners have a lot of real world experience and want to test that you can handle the real world, not just recite the book.

Case in point, here is a scenario I was given on one of my check rides.

The examiner gave me the destination, passengers, bags, etc., to plan the trip including weight and balance. He knew the route and aircraft well enough to know I would have to sacrifice a little fuel for weight. Conditions were good enough that an IFR alternate was not required, so only the standard 45 minute fuel reserve was all that was legally needed, which we had. So he asks what happens if you get to the destination, and the field is unexpected closed due to a crash, etc. Well I would divert to...the next nearest airport is over an hour away at cruising speeds, out of range. Now most of us are probably used to flying in areas where the next nearest airport is 20-30 miles away, maybe 50 tops, but there are still parts of the US that are sparsely populated and quite spread out. Flying by the book, or by what is legal, still doesn't cover every circumstance.

And yes I think the FAA needs to update 91.185. The idea of circling in the soup with a now malfunctioning airplane waiting on my ETA is ridiculous and dangerous. Someone needs to go do this at ORD, ATL, or DFW and shut down a major hub airport to prove this to the FAA. I would wager whoever wrote 91.185 has never flown IFR in a real airplane, at least not in the 21st century.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I would wager whoever wrote 91.185 has never flown IFR in a real airplane, at least not in the 21st century.

I would wager that whoever wrote 91.185 didn’t want a single reg the length of War and Peace to cover every possibility until the end of aviation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just for kicks, here's a legal interpretation from 2018 saying the FAA does, in fact, stand by the requirements of 91.185

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2018/Van_West_2018_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

Edit: and they state squauking a transponder code is not a substitute for two way communication with ATC, and they expect you to do exactly what 91.185 says.

Yep, and when you block traffic going into the three NYC airports because you hung out for a half hour in an approach corridor, I'm sure the Chief Counsel will be thrilled.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would wager that whoever wrote 91.185 didn’t want a single reg the length of War and Peace to cover every possibility.

Which is why the AIM says what it does.

 

[midwestpa24]

I would wager that whoever wrote 91.185 didn’t want a single reg the length of War and Peace to cover every possibility until the end of aviation.

Yep, and if the FAA is reading this, if I ever go NORDO while IFR, consider it as I have declared an emergency and I am landing ASAP. I have no idea why the radio quit, or if anything else is going to quit, and I'm not hanging around in the clouds waiting to find out.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yep, and if the FAA is reading this, if I ever go NORDO while IFR, consider it as I have declared an emergency and I am landing ASAP. I have no idea why the radio quit, or if anything else is going to quit, and I'm not hanging around in the clouds waiting to find out.

So, reducing power to idle and spiraling down through the clouds, or just descending straight ahead?

 

[midwestpa24]

So, reducing power to idle and spiraling down through the clouds, or just descending straight ahead?

Nearest VFR airport or nearest airport with an instrument approach. I'll just use common sense and live to fight another day.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Nearest VFR airport or nearest airport with an instrument approach. I'll just use common sense and live to fight another day.

Ah, so not “ASAP.” Good thing only the FAA has to be clear.

 

[midwestpa24]

Ah, so not “ASAP.” Good thing only the FAA has to be clear.

Could use the good ole spin down method from 100 years ago. I've heard it was relatively effective, as long as the bases were high enough to recover.

 

[luvflyin]

Just for kicks, here's a legal interpretation from 2018 saying the FAA does, in fact, stand by the requirements of 91.185

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2018/Van_West_2018_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

Edit: and they state squauking a transponder code is not a substitute for two way communication with ATC, and they expect you to do exactly what 91.185 says.

That is one of the Chief Counsel’s interpretations on the subject. There was one where they recanted and issued another one. I don’t remember which one this one was in the sequence, but I’m pretty sure it was the one where they had to say we was wrong.

 

[luvflyin]

So, reducing power to idle and spiraling down through the clouds, or just descending straight ahead?

Spiral, pfft. I read somewhere once that many moons ago, like the biplane era, they would spin it down

 

[RussR]

Yep, and when you block traffic going into the three NYC airports because you hung out for a half hour in an approach corridor, I'm sure the Chief Counsel will be thrilled.

I would love it if someone did that, just so we could see the response.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I would love it if someone did that, just so we could see the response.

It would probably include the AIM verbiage

During two-way radio communications failure, when
confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever
action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action
contained in 14 CFR Section 91.3(b).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Spiral, pfft. I read somewhere once that many moons ago, like the biplane era, they would spin it down

A spiral would most likely be ASAPer.

 

[luvflyin]

I would love it if someone did that, just so we could see the response.

Get me a plane, buy the gas, retain a Lawyer, double dog dare me and I’ll volunteer.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yep, and if the FAA is reading this, if I ever go NORDO while IFR, consider it as I have declared an emergency and I am landing ASAP. I have no idea why the radio quit, or if anything else is going to quit, and I'm not hanging around in the clouds waiting to find out.

That’s exactly how ATC will treat it. They don’t know why you are NORDO either.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Nearest VFR airport or nearest airport with an instrument approach. I'll just use common sense and live to fight another day.

BTW, one tip I received from a controller. Unless you enter visual conditions, if all things are equal, use a towered airport. That sounds a bit counterintuitive but the point is that while you can’t communicate with them, they can communicate with each other so they will work together to clear the way all the way to the ground.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would love it if someone did that, just so we could see the response.

If I were still actively practicing I’d love that one. “Even when asked to modify your interpretation in the face of reality, you specifically told us in a formal legal opinion my client had to do that.”