Approach question

[dweyant]

Have a question based in a flight last night.

I was flying into my home airport and my ETA was for about five minutes after the tower closed.

I was on an IFR flight plan and I had been recently cleared direct to the airport.

About 15 miles from the airport I got transferred over to approach.

I tried four times over several minutes to check in with no response. Other traffic on frequency, so they where likely busy.

So, I finally get through to them about four miles from the airport and still 5000agl.
Cancel my IFR and land.

My question is, what would you do if you couldn't get a response from them?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[GauzeGuy]

My question is, what would you do if you couldn't get a response from them?

I'd treat it as a lost comms scenario -- continue as cleared, land if in visual conditions. Cancel IFR with FS on the ground.

 

[Grum.Man]

I would transmit my intentions over the CTAF or Unicomm continue as filed and cancel IFR on the ground.

 

[frfly172]

Cancel the IFR on the ground.

 

[poadeleted20]

My question is, what would you do if you couldn't get a response from them?

With no response after several tries, go back to the last freq and ask them. If all else fails before you reach your clearance limit (the airport), do what it says in 91.185. Just don't leave 5000 or otherwise start an approach without a clearance to do so (other than per 91.185 if you determine you're lost comm). If the Approach controller hasn't answered quickly because s/he's on the landline or something, you could create a serious problem if you do otherwise. But if you hear them working other traffic, it's not "lost comm", and you don't deviate from your clearance without ATC's approval, even if that means entering a hold at 5000 over the airport on arrival. That said, squawking 7600 would probably get their attention, but I wouldn't do that lightly.

 

[dweyant]

With no response after several tries, go back to the last freq and ask them. If all else fails before you reach your clearance limit (the airport), do what it says in 91.185. Just don't leave 5000 or otherwise start an approach without a clearance to do so (other than per 91.185 if you determine you're lost comm). If the Approach controller hasn't answered quickly because s/he's on the landline or something, you could create a serious problem if you do otherwise. But if you hear them working other traffic, it's not "lost comm", and you don't deviate from your clearance without ATC's approval, even if that means entering a hold at 5000 over the airport on arrival.

That doesn't make sense Ron.

I most definitely was not lost comm. I could hear other traffic (including the controller), she just would not acknowledge me for whatever reason.

91.85 says if VFR go ahead and land VFR (It was). If she hadn't gotten back to me when she did I intended to do that.

So you are saying I should just do 360's over the airport at 5000 feet?

 

[Gucci Pilot]

I would have flown over the airport(which was probably my clearance limit), then turn to the IAF for the approach I wanted to fly and do the full procedure approach. Even in your case where I heard her but she wasn't responding.

Or you could just blindly transmitted over the frequency, "Cessna 12345 is commencing the approach" or "Cessna 12345 looking for a descent." Kind of a polite way to pimp the controller.

You can probably get a quality assurance number from the approach facility. Give them the date, time, and frequency you were on and they will use it as a lesson for what not to do in the future.

 

[John Collins]

That doesn't make sense Ron.

I most definitely was not lost comm. I could hear other traffic (including the controller), she just would not acknowledge me for whatever reason.

91.85 says if VFR go ahead and land VFR (It was). If she hadn't gotten back to me when she did I intended to do that.

So you are saying I should just do 360's over the airport at 5000 feet?

If approach isn't responding for 10 miles and it is VFR, I would have already done a demand call to ATC to respond. "Approach Bonanza 1234, do you read, over". If they are busy or on a land line, they will respond at least with a standby. After the demand call and a reasonable amount of time, say thirty seconds, I would broadcast in the clear, "Approach control is not responding, cancelling IFR, proceeding VFR" and then switch to the 1200 squawk.

 

[poadeleted20]

I most definitely was not lost comm. I could hear other traffic (including the controller), she just would not acknowledge me for whatever reason.

91.85 says if VFR go ahead and land VFR (It was). If she hadn't gotten back to me when she did I intended to do that.

That would be correct if you were lost comm, but you say you weren't, so 91.185 doesn't apply -- 91.123(a) does.

When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.

So you are saying I should just do 360's over the airport at 5000 feet?

If you were not lost comm but reached your clearance limit? Not 360's, but per the AIM,:enter either the published hold there if there is one, or if not, a standard hold at that fix on your arrival course. You wouldn't leave that altitude or fix without a clearance to do so unless you determined you were lost comm and were reverting to 91.185 -- but you say that wasn't the case.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would have flown over the airport(which was probably my clearance limit), then turn to the IAF for the approach I wanted to fly and do the full procedure approach. Even in your case where I heard her but she wasn't responding.

Good way to get in serious trouble if that causes a loss of separation, say, with another plane 1000 below you.

Or you could just blindly transmitted over the frequency, "Cessna 12345 is commencing the approach" or "Cessna 12345 looking for a descent." Kind of a polite way to pimp the controller.

Say what you want that you think will get the controller's attention, but if you aren't lost comm, do not commence an approach for which you have not been cleared. That's a straight-up violation of 91.123(a).

 

[poadeleted20]

If approach isn't responding for 10 miles and it is VFR, I would have already done a demand call to ATC to respond. "Approach Bonanza 1234, do you read, over". If they are busy or on a land line, they will respond at least with a standby. After the demand call and a reasonable amount of time, say thirty seconds, I would broadcast in the clear, "Approach control is not responding, cancelling IFR, proceeding VFR" and then switch to the 1200 squawk.

I'll buy that.

 

[AggieMike88]

I would broadcast in the clear, "Approach control is not responding, cancelling IFR, proceeding VFR" and then switch to the 1200 squawk.

Is there a reasonable expectation that ATC has the recording devices running and this will make the tape? Therefore providing you with appropriate CYA incase you were called on the carpet?

 

[John Collins]

Is there a reasonable expectation that ATC has the recording devices running and this will make the tape? Therefore providing you with appropriate CYA incase you were called on the carpet?

If your transmitter is working, it will be recorded unless that equipment fails which might be the case for a power outage, but that depends on what is backed up at the ATC facility by the emergency power.

 

[Velocity173]

Is there a reasonable expectation that ATC has the recording devices running and this will make the tape? Therefore providing you with appropriate CYA incase you were called on the carpet?

Unless the transmission was blocked by someone else on the freq, it'll be recorded. In a power outage the generators kick on and will still be recorded.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unless the transmission was blocked by someone else on the freq, it'll be recorded. In a power outage the generators kick on and will still be recorded.

I would point out that Captain Merrell's legal troubles began with a blocked readback and ended with a violation on his record.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4530.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4670.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4814.pdf
If you're going to do this, make sure you squawk 1200 so there is evidence of your cancellation besides a possibly blocked readback.

 

[Velocity173]

I would point out that Captain Merrell's legal troubles began with a blocked readback and ended with a violation on his record.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4530.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4670.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4814.pdf
If you're going to do this, make sure you squawk 1200 so there is evidence of your cancellation besides a possibly blocked readback.

No doubt problems will occur by not acknowledging on both sides of the freq.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is there a reasonable expectation that ATC has the recording devices running and this will make the tape? Therefore providing you with appropriate CYA incase you were called on the carpet?

There's a reasonable expectation that the devices are recording everything and ATC will have the communications from 5 minutes before the relevant communications started until 5 minutes after the last communication took place pulled and segregated if they plan to call you on the carpet.

 

[poadeleted20]

No doubt problems will occur by not acknowledging on both sides of the freq.

Captain Merrell did acknowledge the instruction, but the controller never heard it because the aircraft for which the instruction was actually intended also acknowledged, blocking Merrell's call -- and that's when the trouble started.

But short of having controllers acknowledge all readbacks, I don't know how to fix this, and I don't see that solution being implemented as a mandatory procedure. Heck, we don't even have mandatory readbacks for most instructions, even if most controllers tend to bug you if you don't say something. But even then, if the crew just rogers, how does the controller know the crew got it all right?

 

[BillTIZ]

That doesn't make sense Ron.

I most definitely was not lost comm. I could hear other traffic (including the controller), she just would not acknowledge me for whatever reason.

91.85 says if VFR go ahead and land VFR (It was). If she hadn't gotten back to me when she did I intended to do that.

So you are saying I should just do 360's over the airport at 5000 feet?

How do you know you were not lost comm? Do you know if you were transmitting? It could have been a one sided failure, you can hear but not transmit. Yes it's happened as quickly as changing frequencies. Check other aircraft for a comm check.

As Ron said, your clearance limit was 5000 to the airport. If you decide to descend VFR because ATC is not answering you, I would roll that 7600 code and wait a bit before descending. She may try to call you once she sees that 7600 code.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Captain Merrell did acknowledge the instruction, but the controller never heard it because the aircraft for which the instruction was actually intended also acknowledged, blocking Merrell's call -- and that's when the trouble started.

But short of having controllers acknowledge all readbacks, I don't know how to fix this, and I don't see that solution being implemented as a mandatory procedure. Heck, we don't even have mandatory readbacks for most instructions, even if most controllers tend to bug you if you don't say something. But even then, if the crew just rogers, how does the controller know the crew got it all right?

One good question is whether Merrell is still good law for the concept of no fault pilot responsibility for incorrectly mishearing an instruction.

Recall that the NTSB thought the FAA's interpretation was unreasonable and was overturned by the Court of Appeals, saying the enabling statue required the NTSB to defer to the FAA. It no longer has to under the Pilots Bill of Rights.

Obviously, no one is going to try to misread an instruction to try it out (that wouldn't work anyway) but the next case of an innocent mishearing coupled with an failed attempt to obtain ATC confirmation may well be decided differently.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Good way to get in serious trouble if that causes a loss of separation, say, with another plane 1000 below you.
Say what you want that you think will get the controller's attention, but if you aren't lost comm, do not commence an approach for which you have not been cleared. That's a straight-up violation of 91.123(a).

Sorry was referring to lost comm assuming I never got a response from ATC. Would lead me to believe I had a radio issue. If I knew it wasn't lost comm, I'd just cancel IFR and squawk 1200 or if you needed to stay IFR for weather, just enter a hold at the clearance limit and wait to get a word in to approach.

 

[James331]

I'd switch back to the last freq, check my intercom, try another radio, try a quick radio check with someone on CTAF or a tower if possible.

If you can receive but not transmit that's a failure IMO.

So if you can't get a transmission out for whatever reason I'd have zero hesitation going 7600.

Since the OP was VMC, is just stay VMC and land, make a phone call.

Seems easy to me

 

[poadeleted20]

One good question is whether Merrell is still good law for the concept of no fault pilot responsibility for incorrectly mishearing an instruction.

Recall that the NTSB thought the FAA's interpretation was unreasonable and was overturned by the Court of Appeals, saying the enabling statue required the NTSB to defer to the FAA. It no longer has to under the Pilots Bill of Rights.

Obviously, no one is going to try to misread an instruction to try it out (that wouldn't work anyway) but the next case of an innocent mishearing coupled with an failed attempt to obtain ATC confirmation may well be decided differently.

I believe the precedent stands until overturned by the same court which established it, i.e., the US Court of Appeals. I also note that the Merrell decision cited a lot of other precedents unrelated to that required deference rule when they made that decision, so I don't see any certainty that it would be overturned if re-adjudicated under the PBOR. However, I don't know whether or not it is possible to obtain a declaratory judgment from the US Court of Appeals on something like this rather than waiting for somebody to be hit with a violation of that section. Counselor?

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry was referring to lost comm assuming I never got a response from ATC. Would lead me to believe I had a radio issue. If I knew it wasn't lost comm, I'd just cancel IFR and squawk 1200 or if you needed to stay IFR for weather, just enter a hold at the clearance limit and wait to get a word in to approach.

Then I guess we're on the same page of 14 CFR Part 91 after all.

 

[mcmanigle]

I believe the precedent stands until overturned by the same court which established it, i.e., the US Court of Appeals.

That goes out the window if the law they are interpreting changes.

I also note that the Merrell decision cited a lot of other precedents unrelated to that required deference rule when they made that decision, so I don't see any certainty that it would be overturned if re-adjudicated under the PBOR.

Could very well be the case. That said, the new law seems to give deference to findings of fact by the NTSB (in the same way the "old model" gave deference to findings of fact by the initial Administrative Law Judge). Hard to guess.

However, I don't know whether or not it is possible to obtain a declaratory judgment from the US Court of Appeals on something like this rather than waiting for somebody to be hit with a violation of that section.

It's not.

Counselor?

I'm not.

 

[poadeleted20]

Could very well be the case. That said, the new law seems to give deference to findings of fact by the NTSB (in the same way the "old model" gave deference to findings of fact by the initial Administrative Law Judge). Hard to guess.

The Merrell case hinged solely on the interpretation of the regulation; the facts were well-established and agreed by both sides. So, I don't see the question of deference to findings of fact mattering in any future case regarding the interpretation of the regulation in question. The only question is whether the FAA's interpretation of the regulation is accepted (in which case a readback by ATC is no defense to getting the clearance wrong) or the NTSB's (in which case your uncorrected readback is a "get of jail free" card).

 

[Jaybird180]

Have a question based in a flight last night.

I was flying into my home airport and my ETA was for about five minutes after the tower closed.

I was on an IFR flight plan and I had been recently cleared direct to the airport.

About 15 miles from the airport I got transferred over to approach.

I tried four times over several minutes to check in with no response. Other traffic on frequency, so they where likely busy.

So, I finally get through to them about four miles from the airport and still 5000agl.
Cancel my IFR and land.

My question is, what would you do if you couldn't get a response from them?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Is there a regulatory obligation to maintain cruise speed while on D> Airport clearance?

 

[mcmanigle]

Is there a regulatory obligation to maintain cruise speed while on D> Airport clearance?

The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request:
. . .
(e) Change in the average true airspeed (at cruising altitude) when it varies by 5 percent or 10 knots (whichever is greater) from that filed in the flight plan.

Can't find it explicitly in the regs though, and the AIM language is "should" rather than "must". (Looks like if it were in the regs, it would be at 14 CFR 91.183, and it's not.)

 

[midlifeflyer]

I believe the precedent stands until overturned by the same court which established it, i.e., the US Court of Appeals. I also note that the Merrell decision cited a lot of other precedents unrelated to that required deference rule when they made that decision, so I don't see any certainty that it would be overturned if re-adjudicated under the PBOR. However, I don't know whether or not it is possible to obtain a declaratory judgment from the US Court of Appeals on something like this rather than waiting for somebody to be hit with a violation of that section. Counselor?

Declaratory judgment? Step back for a moment Ron, we're talking about an unintentional, inadvertent inability to receive readback confirmation, not a pilot planning to make a mistake. That's also not how declaratory judgments work in general.

I think you also misunderstand the use of precedent a little. When the statute on which the court holding is based changes substantively, the precedent value is lost.

Try this one: For many years, when right turns on red were illegal, there were many many court cases in many states upholding convictions and findings of responsibility for violating it. What's the value of the precedent once the law changed to permit right turns on red?

I think the way it will come up will be exactly the same way as Merrell came up - in a real situation, which the pilot's attorney arguing to the NTSB that the Court of Appeals decision doesn't apply because of the PBoR.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the way it will come up will be exactly the same way as Merrell came up - in a real situation, which the pilot's attorney arguing to the NTSB that the Court of Appeals decision doesn't apply because of the PBoR.

Thanks.