Landing with no Radio in Class “C” Airspace

B

Bob Brown

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 11, 2018
Messages
9
Display Name
Display name:
Stinson Bob
What is the proper procedure for landing at a class “C” airport if you have communicated with approach control, are lawfully in the class C airspace, but have not been handed off to the tower, and you lose your radios as you are approaching to enter downwind to the active runway? Would you please cite the applicable FARs for authority. The FAA and I have a very big disagreement.

Thanks.
 
Need more information. Were your intentions to land at said airport? Can you receive but not transmit or other way round? Are you already squawking 7600?
 
Last edited:
Intention was to land at Class C airport and the approach controller knew this. Radios were dead; could not receive or transmit. Forgot to squawk 7600, but entered pattern, flew standard pattern and on final received steady green light - safe to land, and landed.
 
6-4-1 Two-way Radio Communications Failure

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap6_section_4.html

Note 6-4-2: It says "should" and not "must"

If an aircraft with a coded radar beacon
transponder experiences a loss of two-way radio
capability, the pilot should adjust the transponder to
reply on Mode A/3, Code 7600


And:
6-4-1 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).
So if you were in contact with ATC and already legally entered Charlie and EXPECTING to land at Charlie by ATC, continuing inbound to destination seems to exercise "good judgement" by the pilot rather than adding uncertainty by ATC guessing to your intentions should you have diverted, especially in Charlie airspace.
 
Last edited:
I agree 100%; but FAA says I should have immediately left the Class C airspace because I should not have been in Charlie without working radios (despite I had been cleared into Charlie before radios went dead) and I disagree. Any thoughts on other resource materials which could provide guidance, other than arguing about what is the exercise of “good judgment? Perhaps reported decisions of violation hearings or similar.

Thank you for our thoughtful responses. Very much appreciated.
 
Are they trying to take certificate action against you? What happened to the idea that in an emergency the PIC can take any action he deems necessary to deal with the emergency?
 
Bob Brown said:
I agree 100%; but FAA says I should have immediately left the Class C airspace because I should not have been in Charlie without working radios (despite I had been cleared into Charlie before radios went dead) and I disagree. Any thoughts on other resource materials which could provide guidance, other than arguing about what is the exercise of “good judgment? Perhaps reported decisions of violation hearings or similar.

Thank you for our thoughtful responses. Very much appreciated.
Click to expand...


You are not "cleared" into Charlie. To be authorized to enter Charlie you need to establish and maintain communications with Approach...if you lost coms prior to entering Charlie, they may have a point.

If you were already in Charlie having met the requirements for authorization to enter...ATC knew who you were, where you were going as a destination, and what to likely expect from you. You are now in subjective territory of what is "good judgement".

You can see the difference between operation in C and D...lost coms is called out in D but not C.

14 CFR § 91.129 - Operations in Class D airspace

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.129

14 CFR § 91.130 - Operations in Class C airspace

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.130
 
Last edited:
Bob Brown said:
I agree 100%; but FAA says I should have immediately left the Class C airspace because I should not have been in Charlie without working radios (despite I had been cleared into Charlie before radios went dead) and I disagree. Any thoughts on other resource materials which could provide guidance, other than arguing about what is the exercise of “good judgment? Perhaps reported decisions of violation hearings or similar.

Thank you for our thoughtful responses. Very much appreciated.
Click to expand...

I don't know much, but you don't need to be "cleared into Charlie," but rather just have established radio communications; you need to be specifically cleared into Bravo. As far as I know, once you've made your initial call and Approach has responded, that is "established" and you can enter Charlie airspace. Is it the FAA's stance that you did not establish radio communications prior to entering, or that your radio went dead prior to entering Charlie airspace? Any idea what caused your radio to cease functioning after entering Charlie?
 
Exactly. I just forgot to squawk 7600, but I was probably in view of the tower on downwind when the radios went dead. The plane is based at this field and the controllers know the plane and some know me.

The FAA wants remedial training, but if they want to educate me fine, but not waste my time debating whether I should have flown out of the Charlie or continued to land. Aggravating.
 
that's perplexing. on what grounds? you already had 2 way comm. you exercised your emergency authority if thats what it comes to. if i am supposed to go somewhere else when the radio fails why do we have light gun signals in the first place?
 
So the FAA wanted you to leave the vicinity of the airport (with a working tower) in which you intended to land just because your radio/s quit working after you entered Charlie? What regulation are they citing?
 
I've been in and out of class B fields with no radio and even no transponder when the primary radar was out (rendering me completely invisible). I agree, what part of the rules for loss of radio communication does the FAA think doesn't apply here.
 
Remedial training to re-teach you what? There is no reg that states you should have VACATED that airspace. Conversely what is stated in regs actually is IN your favor for taking the appropriate actions and judgment.

I am really curious to know what logic behind some desk jockey thinks the regs say in their interpretation.
 
Last edited:
i guess with all the people sitting at home.. FSDO has nothing better to do. if this was me, whenever they get in my plane for the remedial training...i will be sure to sneeze a few times as they "train" me :mad:
 
FAA is citing no Regs. Just said you should have left the airspace. They want me to sign a letter acknowledging a violation of Charlie airspace and then take Wings credits and attend in person Ground School 101(some type of ground school). The FAA stressed this would not go on my record as a formal "violation." I have neither time nor inclination for this so I need to choose whether to fight or accept the remedial action. On the one hand, I would prefer to fight them, but that might take more time and aggravation than taking the remedial action. I also do not trust the FAA about it not being a formal "violation" despite their representations that it would not be a formal "violation." Sad not to be able to trust them. Also, it is true I did not squawk 7600; but that does not appear to be a violation of the Regs; just not a conformance with preferred practice.
 
If i were you, i wont sign jack unless i talk to an aviation attorney / AOPA, if you sign you just acknowledged a violation that doesnt even exist and i wont even trust a bit that it wont go on records. on the other hand fighting this could be a long running effort, they will drag all log books and review them and i am sure will find something dumb to site you with. man this is hard.

i am not an attorney, but I would hire one if i were you before signing something, especially with FAA (or any of their 3 letter sisters)

b/w how the hell did FAA know about this? is tower supposed to report if someone's radio fails and they got their light guns out after a decade?
 
Can you get the tapes prior to your radio failure? Maybe LiveATC.com?
 
I sympathize with your cause. But, if you are asking on an internet forum, you are looking for a "sea lawyer" as we said in the Navy. You need a real aviation lawyer to help you through this (IMHO) administrative overreach, given the details you have presented here. Otherwise, suck it up, buttercup.
 
There was a follow me truck on landing which lead me to the T hangar and the driver said"call the tower." Probably should have ignored the directive but just thought i would thank them for the green light. They did mention they diverted other traffic to deal with me and warned I might hear from the FSDO. But so what, I did nothing wrong.
 
Deviating from the expected actions after you were obviously established in the pattern would cause more confusion and make ATC deal with not knowing your intentions and where you are going...

FAA can stuff it...
 
sounds like someone in FSDO trying to make himself feel important.. if all the accounts of this is correct. complete BS
 
Good idea about the tapes. If I demand them I am sure the FAA would be obligated to produce them.

Never heard of the term "sea lawyer." I am not looking for free legal advice because I have a friend who is an aviation lawyer if I choose to involve him. I posted a question as to the proper procedure a PIC should follow in my situation and to draw upon the collective knowledge of a large number of pilots, perhaps the majority who are much more experienced than I am. I truly appreciate the feedback which validates the situation was handled properly and it is now my decision whether to fight the FAA or take some wings credits. I'll make that decision and proceed accordingly. Thanks to all.
 
Bob Brown said:
Good idea about the tapes. If I demand them I am sure the FAA would be obligated to produce them.

Never heard of the term "sea lawyer." I am not looking for free legal advice because I have a friend who is an aviation lawyer if I choose to involve him. I posted a question as to the proper procedure a PIC should follow in my situation and to draw upon the collective knowledge of a large number of pilots, perhaps the majority who are much more experienced than I am. I truly appreciate the feedback which validates the situation was handled properly and it is now my decision whether to fight the FAA or take some wings credits. I'll make that decision and proceed accordingly. Thanks to all.
Click to expand...

pls keep us posted on whatever you decide and the outcome. good luck
 
Did you file a NASA report afterward? Even if you think you did nothing wrong, it's not a bad idea.

If the FAA is taking any action against you, you should have received a certified letter detailing what specific regulations [they allege] you violated.

Don't sign anything.
 
Bob Brown said:
... I was probably in view of the tower on downwind when the radios went dead.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to the last communication you had with the approach controller. I would think if you were downwind you would have already been switched to tower for instructions.

Dale
 
Bob Brown said:
Good idea about the tapes. If I demand them I am sure the FAA would be obligated to produce them.

Never heard of the term "sea lawyer." I am not looking for free legal advice because I have a friend who is an aviation lawyer if I choose to involve him. I posted a question as to the proper procedure a PIC should follow in my situation and to draw upon the collective knowledge of a large number of pilots, perhaps the majority who are much more experienced than I am. I truly appreciate the feedback which validates the situation was handled properly and it is now my decision whether to fight the FAA or take some wings credits. I'll make that decision and proceed accordingly. Thanks to all.
Click to expand...

You should have received a pilot's bill of rights letter. You can obtain a copy of the ATC recordings through a FOIA request. Make sure you request tapes of any inter/intra facility ATC conversations such as those between tracon and tower. Also, request the phone conversation between you and the ATC facility that you called.

There is nothing wrong with letting them know that you'd like to hear the recordings before signing anything. If the offer is time limited, negotiate with them to extend that on order to get the recordings.

It sounds like you lost radio communications under VFR before entering class C airspace, in which case you violated 91.130(c). Had you landed, called up ATC by phone and gotten a deviation you'd been okay. Did approach give you specific instructions, such as instructing you to join a leg of the pattern?

It sounds like ATC had to rearrange things to accommodate you, so it got reported. The inspector is offering remedial education which isn't a certificate action and won't affect your insurance. Definitely sounds like the path of least resistance.

In fairness to you, this doesn't happen very often, and lost comms procedures can be confusing. But if there is evidence of a violation, the compliance program allows remedial education to close out an investigation, particularly in a situation such as this when there is evidence the airman may not be completely understanding of the regulations.
 
@Brad Z per op - (despite I had been cleared into Charlie before radios went dead) and he was on downwind.

usually if i am on downwind I am already handed over to tower, but guess situation could always be different.
 
WannFly said:
@Brad Z per op - (despite I had been cleared into Charlie before radios went dead) and he was on downwind.

usually if i am on downwind I am already handed over to tower, but guess situation could always be different.
Click to expand...
Nope, that doesn't help. He says he was "cleared" into Charlie (which means presumably that he established radio contact and the controller did not ask him to remain outside C) and he said was downwind when he lost his radio, but did not explicitly state that he was in communication with ATC inside of class C, or that he had been instructed by ATC to join the downwind. Again, need more information.
 
WannFly said:
usually if i am on downwind I am already handed over to tower, but guess situation could always be different.
Click to expand...

it depends on the airport and the operations. Downwind means a lot of things. At an airport with lots of high speed or commercial traffic, downwind may be 5 miles away front the airport, and start 15 miles away.
 
Bob Brown said:
I agree 100%; but FAA says I should have immediately left the Class C airspace because I should not have been in Charlie without working radios (despite I had been cleared into Charlie before radios went dead) and I disagree. Any thoughts on other resource materials which could provide guidance, other than arguing about what is the exercise of “good judgment? Perhaps reported decisions of violation hearings or similar.

Thank you for our thoughtful responses. Very much appreciated.
Click to expand...

That is absurd. A radio failure on a flight requiring radio is, at a minimum, an urgent situation. You should be landing then and there, not faffing about looking for some other airspace to fly around, endangering others.

If you are an AOPA member and have their services, use them. If not, find a lawyer. I wouldn't sign anything stating I had committed a violation.
 
I will be very interested to hear how this turns out.

I can see @Brad Z ‘s point that if the timing of the radio transmissions and the flight track show the failure occurred and then the plane entered Class C, this might be considered a violation by a strict reading by the FAA.

I am curious what the FAA really wants a pilot to do under these circumstances. I can see that they may not want NorDo planes flying into controlled airspace. Do they generally consider loss of radio a threat to the safety of flight and worthy of an emergency? (if the transponder had been set, then the argument that the pilot was declaring would be stronger, but I gather it was not).

Obviously an aviation attorney can advise on prior interpretation letters and administrative cases which might apply. Of course, this may be one of these not previously adjudicated somewhat nebulous situations from a regulatory perspective. Then the OP will have to decide if he has the time, resources and stomach to be the test case.
 
If the FAA wants NORDOs to stay out of (or exit) class C, they should say that in the AIM.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the FAA wants NORDOs to stay out of (or exit) class C, they should say that in the AIM.
Click to expand...

Exactly, even more so when 2 way comm has been established and tower / approach knows my intention, read close to airport/ on downwind etc. if I suddenly go nordo then exit the airspace they have no idea where I am going, I would think that’s a bigger hazard for them. There are other scenarios as well, a few weeks back my main bus died, thankfully on the ground, if it happened in the air, and I am close to landing, and if I suddenly start going elsewhere , not only I am not talking to them, now they only have my radar return and have no idea what I am doing / what my intentions are.

And there is a whole another discussion related to this scenario and IR lost comm. I am on IAF, radio dies, what am I suppose to do, say I am in VMC. Go elsewhere?
 
WannFly said:
And there is a whole another discussion related to this scenario and IR lost comm. I am on IAF, radio dies, what am I suppose to do, say I am in VMC. Go elsewhere?
Click to expand...


That exact scenario is indeed laid out in the regulations...the going lost coms after entering Charlie VFR per the OP's case however is not. What the FAA is claiming the OP should have done is exactly counter to what the regs say to do had you been IFR...which has all of us baffled.
 
Perhaps the OP doesn't want to share to many details on a public forum at this point, but I hope he comes back at some point and shares a few more details...what airport he was at, where he was when he lost comms, what instructions he had, etc., if for nothing else, to help educate others. As it stands, there really isn't enough information to say whether his actions were appropriate.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the FAA wants NORDOs to stay out of (or exit) class C, they should say that in the AIM.
Click to expand...

They do in in 91.130(c)(1). Whether it necessarily makes sense is a different story.

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.
 
Brad Z said:
They do in in 91.130(c)(1). Whether it necessarily makes sense is a different story.

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of examples where the AIM repeats things that are in the regs. More to the point, however is that in the opening post, he wrote, "...you have communicated with approach control, are lawfully in the class C airspace, but have not been handed off to the tower, and you lose your radios as you are approaching to enter downwind to the active runway..."

If the order of events is as he stated them, then he had already met the entry requirements in that reg. In post #5 he further writes, "...FAA says I should have immediately left the Class C airspace...." If an equipment failure makes it impossible to comply with the requirement to maintain communications after entry, it's not obvious from the text of the reg how the FAA wants the pilot to remedy the situation. If the FAA really wants VFR aircraft to EXIT the class C in those circumstances, that needs to be published somewhere.

I agree that the way the reg is worded means that he should not enter the class C if the comm failure was discovered prior to entry unless he had some reason for exercising the authority in 91.3(b), but given the difference in wording between the class C reg and the class D reg, it wouldn't hurt to highlight that difference in the AIM, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
They do in in 91.130(c)(1). Whether it necessarily makes sense is a different story.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The regulation says that you must 'maintain' but is silent of what to do if you are unable to 'maintain'. You are assuming that you must then exit but that isn't included in the reg.

The AIM does give guidance for lost comm situations that aren't covered specifically in regulations.

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).
​
The lost communication regulations and guidance is established to avoid having the NORDO aircraft do something that ATC doesn't expect. An arriving airplane receiving radar service suddenly turning to exit the CCA is certainly unexpected and could cause other problems. Continuing with the current clearance, and expected arrival and runway, would certainly be the exercise of good judgement under AIM 6-4-1 a. I do not see how doing something completely unexpected would be defended as 'good judgement'.

I think the key here is if the airplane was already inside the CCA when the loss of comm was discovered. If not, divert. If so, continue. You must also consider the probability that ATC discovered the loss of comm at a different time than the pilot discovered it. Neither one knows exactly when the failure happened.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are plenty of examples where the AIM repeats things that are in the regs. More to the point, however is that in the opening post, he wrote, "...you have communicated with approach control, are lawfully in the class C airspace, but have not been handed off to the tower, and you lose your radios as you are approaching to enter downwind to the active runway..."

If the order of events is as he stated them, then he had already met the requirements of that reg. In post #5 he further writes, "...FAA says I should have immediately left the Class C airspace...." If the FAA really wants VFR aircraft to EXIT the class C in those circumstances, it needs to be published somewhere.
Click to expand...
It says you have to maintain communications in class C airspace. He did not do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top