Checkride procedure turn question

[Paveslave53]

Ok, so I talked with 2 different controllers showed both the approach plate and told them the situation of being enroute and going lost com Coming from the NW. The first one said go 7600, straight in approach Get out of the way of everyone else. The second one said do the procedure turn as published an (mandatory per the approach because you were not cleared for the approach) to allow him time to move everyone if needed because you have a 30 min block behind you and you have time. He also said there are more cases then not people forget to sqwak 7600, so they get it a lot of the time. He also said its It depends on the airport and what there local procedures are, here where I am they have a local published procedure for lost com approaches. I can ask there supervisor today If I see her. But that’s what I got so far. The first controller works nights and the second during the day when its super busy so that’s also a consideration. Both said if you went straight in they would not be upset enough for a report by any means.

 

[John Collins]

You should maintain your last assigned altitude until reaching the IAF and then descend in the hold and fly the approach. Descending to the MSA does not comply with 91.185. The hold is to be flown if one of the exceptions does not apply. Since you are experiencing a two way radio communication failure, straight in does not apply.

Sec. 91.185 IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the rules of this section.
(b) VFR conditions. 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.
(c) IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if paragraph (b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the flight according to the following:
(1) Route.
(i) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(ii) If being radar vectored, by the direct route from the point of radio failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance;
(iii) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance; or
(iv) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance, by the route filed in the flight plan.
(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown:
(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in Sec. 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or
(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.
(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.

 

[Paveslave53]

OK I caught up with both managers they both said you better do the procedure turn and do it as published per the Approach plate. Lost coms is not an emergency to them,to go straight in and deviate however if you squawking emergency there’s nothing they can do about that and it’s your discretion to call it an emergency.In that case you can go straight in.This is not my opinion this is not my advice this is what I’m getting from 2 ATC managers.

 

[luvflyin]

OK I caught up with both managers they both said you better do the procedure turn and do it as published per the Approach plate. Lost coms is not an emergency to them,to go straight in and deviate however if you squawking emergency there’s nothing they can do about that and it’s your discretion to call it an emergency.In that case you can go straight in.This is not my opinion this is not my advice this is what I’m getting from 2 ATC managers.

Did they say what they’re going to do about that night watch guy?

 

[smv]

Lost coms is not an emergency to them,to go straight in and deviate however if you squawking emergency there’s nothing they can do about that and it’s your discretion to call it an emergency.In that case you can go straight in.

Did they say what they could do about it if you happen to not be squawking an emergency? What, they gonna shoot you down before you can land?

 

[aterpster]

OK I caught up with both managers they both said you better do the procedure turn and do it as published per the Approach plate. Lost coms is not an emergency to them,to go straight in and deviate however if you squawking emergency there’s nothing they can do about that and it’s your discretion to call it an emergency.In that case you can go straight in.This is not my opinion this is not my advice this is what I’m getting from 2 ATC managers.

Lost comm is normally not an emergency unless you have to miss, then proceed to your alternate. If your transponder is still functional you should be on 7600, not 7700.

 

[Paveslave53]

Lost comm is normally not an emergency unless you have to miss, then proceed to your alternate. If your transponder is still functional you should be on 7600, not 7700.

In most cases yes, Well assuming that it’s only lost comm. But it is the PIC’s discretion to declare an emergency whenever they want so yeah you would do 7700 if you felt it was an emergency. Let’s be honest there’s what the book says and then what’s really going on in real life is this guy tired ,task saturated,getting bounced around low on fuel, airports at minimums...... In my opinion there’s only one way to answer the hypothetical question and that is do the procedure turn and finish the approach. If you add an emergency is everything else changes.

 

[aterpster]

In most cases yes, Well assuming that it’s only lost comm. But it is the PIC’s discretion to declare an emergency whenever they want so yeah you would do 7700 if you felt it was an emergency. Let’s be honest there’s what the book says and then what’s really going on in real life is this guy tired ,task saturated,getting bounced around low on fuel, airports at minimums...... In my opinion there’s only one way to answer the hypothetical question and that is do the procedure turn and finish the approach. If you add an emergency is everything else changes.

That's why I qualified it with "normally not an emergency." The pilot in a given circumstance has to make the assessment.

 

[Doug Reid]

The OP states " complete radio failure". IMO, that could be quite a bit more exciting than just lost coms....

 

[MauleSkinner]

The OP states " complete radio failure". IMO, that could be quite a bit more exciting than just lost coms....

Kind of eliminates the possibility of an approach if you read it that way, so any procedure turn discussion would be a waste of time.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Lost comm is normally not an emergency unless you have to miss, then proceed to your alternate. If your transponder is still functional you should be on 7600, not 7700.

Given the high quality, reliability, and integration of today's avionics, I'd argue that an aircraft-side com failure is "normally" an emergency in 2020. Or, at least the signs of an impending one.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is a follow-up on my last post about lost com being more likely to be an emergency than not one.

So, has anyone here had a pilot-side lost com event? By "pilot-side," I mean the failure was on our end - our equipment, not an ATC equipment failure or being too busy. I'll start. I've had two. The first was on my first solo cross country in September 1990 in a Tomahawk. It was a loose wire. I was heading to my next stop, a towered airport, so I diverted to a nontowered one.

My second was about 20 years ago. Best way to describe it is the contents of the letter I wrote for the FSDO after our phone conversation (amazed I still have it):

I am writing in response to your request for a written report of the occurrence we discussed over the telephone on Tuesday, May 23, 2000.

On Sunday, May 21, 2000 between 9:30 AM and 10:00 AM local time, I was on a training flight in N767MG returning from the practice area to the southeast of APA. We had just listened to the ATIS broadcast and attempted to contact Tower. I received no response and it soon became apparent that although I was receiving communications, I was not transmitting.

I squawked 7600 and hit “IDENT” due to the radio failure (I have since learned that the transponder also failed). I entered Centennial’s Class D airspace above the traffic pattern and circled the tower briefly, hoping that my presence would generate a communication that I could respond to by rocking my wings. No transmission was received and in the interim we lost the ability to receive as well as transmit.

We soon lost our intercom also. The deteriorating condition made me concerned that we were dealing with an electrical problem, not merely a communications one. I decided that leaving Centennial for another airport would not be safe. The fact that the flight was an introductory flight with someone not familiar with aircraft added to my concern.

Having listened to ATIS and circled above the traffic pattern, I was aware of the flow of traffic. We flew to the vicinity of Parker Road, descended to pattern altitude and entered left downwind to Runway 17L. I maintained visual contact with the tower at all times and instructed my passenger to assist me in scanning the area for other traffic and watching the tower for light signals.

I saw no light signal, neither red nor green. The absence of even a red signal led me to think that the brightness of the day was making seeing any signal difficult. On short final, I thought I saw a green light coming from the tower, although I may have been mistaken. In any event, since I saw no conflicting traffic and was concerned with the condition of the aircraft and the safety of my passenger, I elected to treat it as an emergency and land.

I taxied off the runway and over to area Hotel. Once the aircraft was secured, I immediately telephoned Centennial Tower to identify myself and discuss the event.

If there is any additional information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to call me. It is probably best to reach me at work during normal business hours at ###-###-####.​

My logbook entry adds the note "DO NOT USE THIS AIRPLANE" ​

 

[midlifeflyer]

Kind of eliminates the possibility of an approach if you read it that way, so any procedure turn discussion would be a waste of time.

Not if one had an EFB and chose to use it in the event of an emergency.

 

[aterpster]

Given the high quality, reliability, and integration of today's avionics, I'd argue that an aircraft-side com failure is "normally" an emergency in 2020. Or, at least the signs of an impending one.

Agree. Even with the old stuff, it was unusual to be in a steady-state of nav and electrical but no comm transmit/receive capability. I saw it once on the airline early in my career. A jack box shorted out on a 707 descending into Boston. That short took out all five jack boxes, but nav was normal. There was no lost comm transponder code in those days (and only 64 codes, no Mode C). The captain was sharp. He self-vectored onto the ILS while occasionally squawking Ident. He talked to the tower on the phone after deplaning. They were happy. Approach control was the floor below the tower cab in those days.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not if one had an EFB and chose to use it in the event of an emergency.

True, but I’d argue that if you’re flying the approach with uncertified equipment, whether or not you fly a procedure turn doesn’t matter.

 

[SbestCFII]

RNAV (GPS) RWY 15 approach for KRME. Coming from the NW when enroute I have a complete radio failure. TURYN would appear to be the IAF to use.

Common sense says to just go straight in and do the approach without the PT. Why make more turns than needed when in the clouds?

Rules say always do the PT unless SHARPTT and ATC is also sequencing assuming that you WILL do the PT since it's required.

What would you tell the examiner?

What was your clearance before losing Comms?