Theoretical Approach scenario

brcase

brcase

En-Route
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
2,826
Location
Boise, Idaho
Display Name
Display name:
Brian
Your inbound on Chins One Arrival to Seatac (KSEA)
You are expecting the ILS or LOC 34L approach and you lose radio communication.

As per the Chins One instructions you fly to the SEA vortac.

Then what do you do?
 
brcase said:
Your inbound on Chins One Arrival to Seatac (KSEA)
You are expecting the ILS or LOC 34L approach and you lose radio communication.

As per the Chins One instructions you fly to the SEA vortac.

Then what do you do?
Click to expand...

I'd maintain the last altitude for the segment I was on, continue to SEA and hold SE, on the SEA R-104. Then follow lost comm procedures from there.

Edit: If you are "expecting" that approach in the formal sense that ATC has told you to expect it (as opposed to your assumption based on common sense or general knowledge), then I'd proceed to HIPRO after AUBRN, and shoot the approach.
 
Last edited:
If I am in a jet(which I probably am based on the arrival and airport) I would proceed to CIDUG and shoot the approach(looking for a light gun signal). If I was in a piston, I'd go to SONDR and do the same thing.
 
I know it's Seattle, but it isn't always IMC there. 91.185 says to land VFR if possible.

That means left traffic for 34L.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
I know it's Seattle, but it isn't always IMC there. 91.185 says to land VFR if possible.



That means left traffic for 34L.
Click to expand...


Wrong, it is ALWAYS IMC here, traffic sucks, taxes are too high, weird people everywhere, the scenery sucks and we are surrounded by volcanoes. Please stay away for your own safety and don't even think about coming to see if I'm telling the truth.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Good point it is easy enough to attach the IAP...
 

Attachments

  • KSEAILS34.pdf
    409.5 KB · Views: 12
Gucci Pilot said:
If I am in a jet(which I probably am based on the arrival and airport) I would proceed to CIDUG and shoot the approach(looking for a light gun signal). If I was in a piston, I'd go to SONDR and do the same thing.
Click to expand...

That is the same answer I have come up with and what I would do until someone gives me a better answer.

Brian
 
red4golf said:
Wrong, it is ALWAYS IMC here,
Click to expand...
LOL! When I was living in Denver, I had a trip to Seattle. Figured it would be a good time to go up with a CFII and get some actual time. Needless to say, the was absolutely CAVU with the nearest cloud somewhere around San Francisco.
 
brcase said:
As per the Chins One instructions you fly to the SEA vortac.
Click to expand...
That is not what the CHINS ONE calls for, so I would not do that.

I would follow the instructions in that STAR and follow the SEA R104 to AUBRN, then (since I'm going to KSEA and they are landing North) depart AUBRN on a 250 heading and join the expected ILS final approach course.

Altitude is a bit trickier. If you ask AFS-400 (the folks responsible for the lost comm reg), they'll tell you to stick with the "highest of the three" rule unless you were cleared to "descend via" the STAR, and this one doesn't have a "descend via" option. That will not help you get on the ground in reasonable manner, but it's what 91.185(c) says to do. If you ask approach controllers (and I asked QA, supervisors, and line controllers at four TRACONs about lost comm on STARs), they'll tell you they expect you to descend per the altitudes on the STAR (i.e., 10000 to HUMPP then 7000 to AUBRN), join the final, and fly the expected approach as published from there.
 
Actually it does say...

LOST COMMUNICATIONS: After AUBRN proceed direct SEA VORTAC

Brian
 

Attachments

  • ChinsOneStar_c.pdf
    121.4 KB · Views: 3
  • ChinsOneStar.pdf
    206.6 KB · Views: 0
brcase said:
Actually it does say...

LOST COMMUNICATIONS: After AUBRN proceed direct SEA VORTAC

Brian
Click to expand...
DOH! Missed that. Then I expect that AFS-400 would tell you to go to SEA VORTAC, and upon reaching SEA:
(3) Leave clearance limit.
(i) 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 as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
(ii) 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.
Click to expand...
So, they'd say to go from AUBRN direct SEA at 7000 or your last assigned (whichever was higher), then (still at the higher of 7000 or last assigned) SEA direct to SONDR if you have a GPS, or fly the SEA R168 to CIDUG if you don't, and then fly the ILS 34L from SONDR/CIDUG as applicable.

But I'd still probably depart AUBRN on a 250 heading, use my GNS 530W to help vector myself to join the ILS 34L localizer, and then fly the approach from there, and I think any controller at SEATAC TRACON would probably be looking for me to do that even though it wasn't "by the book".
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
But I'd still probably depart AUBRN on a 250 heading, use my GNS 530W to help vector myself to join the ILS 34L localizer, and then fly the approach from there, and I think any controller at SEATAC TRACON would probably be looking for me to do that even though it wasn't "by the book".
Click to expand...
I think most folks generally agree that's the best course to take. Even without squawking 7600, ATC knows you are lost comm, watching, and clearing airspace.

OTOH the "just shoot an approach and get down" method is heavily based on the assumption that the communication failure is entirely at the airplane end.
 
My whole thought process is:

1. Do what you need to do to keep everyone safe
2. Do what you can to cover your ***

If for some reason I had to talk to the FAA/Air Force when I landed and they asked why I did what I did. It would just be easier for me to explain that I flew the "Lost Comm" procedures, than to justify doing the "Landing North" to stay predicable. They may say, "There are Lost Comm procedures on the STAR, why didn't you do that?" Whether you choose one over the other, either seems fine. I'm still going with the Lost Comm to avoid potential wasted breathe explaining myself later on.
 
Regarding any talking with the FAA regarding any possible violation of 91.185, the NTSB has said in past cases words to the following effect: "We are loath to second-guess the actions of a pilot in response to an emergency when that pilot honestly believes that his/her actions were the safest course at that point."

The only case I've ever seen where the FAA went after someone over lost comm was where the pilot of a 400-series twin Cessna continued several hundred miles in severe clear conditions bypassing a host of suitable airports and landing at a busy Class B primary airport, forcing controllers to scatter dozens of airliners left and right to clear a path for him. He was written up for violating paragraph (b), which says, "If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable." The result was an emergency revocation, which was not appealed further, probably because nobody could honestly argue that this pilot's chosen action was justifiable on safety grounds -- just a thoroughly misplaced sense of urgency to get his cargo to its destination. And no, it wasn't the serum going to Nome.
 
Continuing to SEA VOR would make more sense if the approach had a feeder route and course reversal to use for establishing on the approach from the SEA VOR. If you do continue to SEA VOR you're still going to have to improvise something to get from there to the approach.
 
Larry in TN said:
Continuing to SEA VOR would make more sense if the approach had a feeder route and course reversal to use for establishing on the approach from the SEA VOR. If you do continue to SEA VOR you're still going to have to improvise something to get from there to the approach.
Click to expand...

I think going from SEA to SONDR at 6000 should work out just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top