Lost Communications IFR Help

steviedeviant

steviedeviant

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
167
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Display Name
Display name:
StevieD
I am getting ready for a previously discontinued check ride due to weather and need some help regarding lost communications IFR. I have the MEA AVEF in front of me, but for some reason I can't seem to get this down quickly enough in case of a real life scenario to get through it without having to think to much about what is "next". Maybe some real examples would be helpful to understand the order.

Does anyone have something that would show examples of how lost communications would work for real life situations from a file flight plan? I want to really learn this because there have been a couple of times I lost communications on a VFR flight plan and would really hate to see that happen on IFR sitaution. I assume it can and does happen.

Along this same line, when you file IFR flight plan, do many of you file to a fix in the approach plate or to the airport itself? I am reading for lost communications it is good to have a fix on the approach in the flight plan, but wondering how this is really used in the real world for general aviation IFR pilots particularly in a situation where you may not know what runway is even being used? Am I over-thinking that? What if I file for runway 34 and they are using 16? Thanks in advance.

SD
 
I gave the "book" answer to the examiner and then explained the point Walboy makes above about getting down quickly. I do also have the interpretation that when the clearance limit is the airport (which it almost always is in this day and age), that there is no obligation to hold. Once I reach the clearance limit (my wheels on the runway), I can hold all they want.
 
^^^^
Yeah, that.

And just because you file an alternate, that does not mean you need to go to THAT alternate if something closer is available.
 
steviedeviant said:
Does anyone have something that would show examples of how lost communications would work for real life situations from a file flight plan?
Click to expand...
Slides 18 to 27: http://www.avclicks.com/Flash2/Gulfport_VOR_14/index.html


steviedeviant said:
Along this same line, when you file IFR flight plan, do many of you file to a fix in the approach plate or to the airport itself? I am reading for lost communications it is good to have a fix on the approach in the flight plan, but wondering how this is really used in the real world for general aviation IFR pilots particularly in a situation where you may not know what runway is even being used? Am I over-thinking that? What if I file for runway 34 and they are using 16?
Click to expand...
Remember the flight plan is YOUR plan, not ATC's. You don't plan to please THEM, you do it for you. You plan for your requirements in the event you lose communications, taking into consideration your airplane's performance and capabilities. After takeoff, you "approve" the amendments ATC makes to YOUR plan. Sometimes, rarely, you just can't accept what they want. Power-off gliding distance from shore comes to mind.
 
Walboy said:
I like your comment and the way you phrased it, especially the underlined bolded part. A paragraph like this should be included in the Instrument Flying Handbook. It's all about being Pilot in Command.
Click to expand...

I think is a good point. I have been told this in the past, but just sort of in passing. This hits home.
 
Why do people struggle with this regulation. It is not that difficult.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
^^^^
Yeah, that.

And just because you file an alternate, that does not mean you need to go to THAT alternate if something closer is available.
Click to expand...
The controller doesn't even necessarily know what your alternate is unless he takes the effort to go retrieve it.
 
Walboy said:
I think it's because students think about a flight with failed communications and the strict application of 91.185 (c) and scratch their head and wonder how it makes sense in some situations. A lot don't know about the amplifying remarks in the AIM where it basically says use of common sense is ok too.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is not what it says. The FAA is not going to write an AIM section that says just use common sense. You are expected to know and follow the reg.



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.

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t had lost comms before, but I’ve been shuttled around by ATC a few times in IMC for various reasons. Weather and other factors can change unexpectedly while enroute, especially on cross country flights. Here are a few scenarios…..

Based on the regulations...conceding that in real life some might utilize other options...

Let’s say you file a route direct from point A to C to E and E is your destination. For whatever reason while enroute (maybe weather) you might not be able to go from A direct to C and ATC assigns you to proceed on your own navigation from A to B to E, at least for now. ATC may indicate they can might be able to accommodate at least part of your originally requested route later, but for now you’re assigned A-B-E. So, if you lost comms, you’d follow the last assigned route of A-B-E and skip C. This kinda did happen to me when an airport to which I had filed for a practice approach (in actual IMC) was suddenly closed because of an aircraft incident on the runway. If in the last transmission ATC assigned direct to B then expect C and your originally filed route, then you’d go A-B-C-E.

You might be getting vectored (around weather or whatever) with a heading assigned by ATC in a roundabout way-direction that doesn’t take you directly to C and then you lose comms, well, then you proceed direct to C cause it was expected that you’d go to C next then E since no other assigned route was given by ATC. If in the last transmission, while being vectored, ATC indicated that, after being vectored, you can expect to proceed direct to E, well then you would proceed direct to E if you lose comms cause ATC is expecting you to skip C.

Lastly...filed is self explanatory.

My DPE also suggested I have a FAF in my flight plan so ATC might have an idea of which runway I would at least plan to use if I lost comms, based on the weather info obtained during the preflight briefing. ….granted the weather and plan could all change by the time I arrived at my destination. However, as of yet, I have not used a FAF in any of my filed IFR flight plans.
 
Walboy said:
I can't disagree with anything you've said as you have quoted it verbatim from the regs and the AIM. In that regard, I stand corrected.

That said, communication failure in IMC is an emergency which requires immediate action, adherence to regulations, and a dose of common sense. I'm going to deviate when it makes sense. I've yet to run into a professional CFII who teaches otherwise or an examiner who would take issue with that. I have not however heard from ATCers on the subject.
Click to expand...

If you ever fly where there is no radar coverage you may understand why that reg is written the way it is.
 
flyingron said:
I gave the "book" answer to the examiner and then explained the point Walboy makes above about getting down quickly. I do also have the interpretation that when the clearance limit is the airport (which it almost always is in this day and age), that there is no obligation to hold. Once I reach the clearance limit (my wheels on the runway), I can hold all they want.
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
^^^^
Yeah, that.

And just because you file an alternate, that does not mean you need to go to THAT alternate if something closer is available.
Click to expand...

^^^ those and...

And another good one to remember. Ask the examiner where better weather is or even better if they gave you a scenario with real weather and a turn to VMC is possible, do it.

They’re not just looking for the verbatim reg. They’re looking for judgement. And they’re supposed to be using scenarios. Most do.

This is one of those questions that because the reg also leaves room for some judgement and has to (weather is unpredictable), the old advice about not offering up more than asked can actually be a detriment.

“The regulation is this... however the scenario shows there’s VMC 20 miles to my right for 500 miles. I’m turning for X airport 30 miles south and I’ll call them on the ground when I’m there to close out the flight plan. Continuing IMC is not my safest or smartest option.”

Clip4 said:
If you ever fly where there is no radar coverage you may understand why that reg is written the way it is.
Click to expand...

Quite rare with the ADS-B fill in starting to happen in the combined systems. But yeah. Can happen in some places. More often caused by outages these days.

Most ATC facilities have essentially lost the ability they once had to truly continue on during radar outages. The system was engineered for it, but the traffic loads and shortcuts are too high now.

The recordings of facilities losing power really show this well. There’s a few out there including Miami and the Chicago TRACON one. Fallback to non-radar procedures isn’t as trained and expected as it once was.
 
Clip4 said:
Why do people struggle with this regulation. It is not that difficult.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your helpful comment. Really builds the confidence. I am not struggling with it...i was seeking clarity to understand it for a check ride to make sure I am applying it correctly. When I have been flying as long as you, I hope to provide the same advice to others.
 
Clip4 said:
If you ever fly where there is no radar coverage you may understand why that reg is written the way it is.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Of the five times I've had real lost commo, two of them were in a non-radar environment back when the Central Valley in California had spotty coverage.

It was actually kind of peaceful, not having to talk to anyone or read back those annoying clearances...
 
Greg Bockelman said:
^^^^
Yeah, that.

And just because you file an alternate, that does not mean you need to go to THAT alternate if something closer is available.
Click to expand...
91.185 does not cover going to an alternate or any airport other than the filed destination. Going beyond the destination is no longer 91.185; it is an exercise of emergency authority.
 
I have lost comms, and in controlled airspace. Best thing you can do is be predictable. Do what everyone expects. Continue on your clearance as long as you can, land at your selected airport if you can. A handheld comm is a dman good idea. You probably won't be able to reach ATC, but you can hit a tower once you're nearby and let them know what's going on.
 
During my checkride, I planned to arrive at a nearby VOR that was connected to an airway or some defined path to an IF. My DPE stated that I am required to proceed to the clearance limit (destination) and only leave it when I've reached my ETA based on departure time and ETE. The problem I have is this, if I proceeded at my planned altitude, I would have had to climb (waste fuel) in order to meet minimum altitudes to go to my destination (which may not have a navigational fix) then try to find some route to an approach fix or other airway with a known safe altitude, then hope I can make it to the approach from there and not go missed and have to climb again. Yeah, sorry, not doing that.

In my plan, I could proceed directly along an airway with a defined MEA to an IF for multiple approaches to more than one airport. There were navigational fixes and obstruction clearance all along the way and ATC could probably figure out what I intended to do (predictability is a very good thing, as said above). I just nodded my head in agreement and continued with the checkride. Lost comms, especially in IMC, is an emergency so don't be afraid to throw the FARs out the door and exercise your authority.
 
steviedeviant said:
Thanks for your helpful comment. Really builds the confidence. I am not struggling with it...i was seeking clarity to understand it for a check ride to make sure I am applying it correctly. When I have been flying as long as you, I hope to provide the same advice to others.
Click to expand...

You are not alone with check ride people who struggle with this reg. ATC can’t talk to you, so the reg provides you and ATC a plan for what should happen.

There are 6 elements.

VFR conditions - if you are in VFR conditions you can clear your own traffic, stay there and land.

Route - Fly the route you were cleared to fly.

Radar Vectors - Take a direct route from the point of radio failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance. This includes vectors for an approach.

Altitude - Fly your assigned altitude, but climb if when you need to maintain the minimum charted altitudes. If ATC advised you an altitude to expect, use that altitude when the time expires, (3000, expect 7000 in 10minutes). Do not leave your altitude early. See Clearance Limit.

Clearance Limit - if the clearance limit is a fix enroute, hold until EFC time expires.

If the clearance limit is your destination, upon arrival at the airport proceed to a fix from which any approach begins (your choice) 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. Hint, If you file an ETE that will be expired when you arrive, you never have to hold.

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.

Emergency - In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
If the clearance limit is your destination, upon arrival at the airport proceed to a fix from which any approach begins (your choice) 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. Hint, If you file an ETE that will be expired when you arrive, you never have to hold.
Click to expand...
If the clearance limit is the destination, why would you leave it at any time?
 
steingar said:
I have lost comms, and in controlled airspace. Best thing you can do is be predictable. Do what everyone expects. Continue on your clearance as long as you can, land at your selected airport if you can. A handheld comm is a dman good idea. You probably won't be able to reach ATC, but you can hit a tower once you're nearby and let them know what's going on.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Keep it simple. And if you encounter GOOD VFR, take that as an opportunity to land and get out of the system. A handheld COM should be in everyone's kit for emergencies. Unless you have an external antenna connection, you won't have much range, but might help once you are close enough to establish communications directly or via relay.
 
Clip4 said:
Are you flying a helicopter and can hover down or do you need to go out for an approach?
Click to expand...

So you'd fly to the airport and then back out to some fix to fly the approach?
 
Clip4 said:
Clearance Limit - if the clearance limit is a fix enroute, hold until EFC time expires.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the book answer says hold until your EFC expires. In the real world though, ATC would rather you get on the ground. Sitting and holding NORDO does nothing to help ATC, just ties up airspace and probably the airport while they wait to see what you are going to do. If they can see you on the scope, they will clear the way for you.

The key to this is FAR 91.3

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

Comm failure while IMC definitely meets the criteria of an emergency. I doubt you will find anyone that would argue otherwise (except on the internet)
 
tsts4 said:
So you'd fly to the airport and then back out to some fix to fly the approach?
Click to expand...

If you're still IMC yes (or if VFR but will need to go IMC to land). If not, as others have said, get VFR and land.
 
Pugs said:
If you're still IMC yes (or if VFR but will need to go IMC to land). If not, as others have said, get VFR and land.
Click to expand...

Not me. I'm going to pick an approach and fly it just like I would if ATC had issued it. I'm definitely not going to fly to the destination and then turn outbound on some roll your own route to get to an IF/IAF. YMMV...
 
midwestpa24 said:
You are correct, the book answer says hold until your EFC expires. In the real world though, ATC would rather you get on the ground. Sitting and holding NORDO does nothing to help ATC, just ties up airspace and probably the airport while they wait to see what you are going to do. If they can see you on the scope, they will clear the way for you.

The key to this is FAR 91.3

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

Comm failure while IMC definitely meets the criteria of an emergency. I doubt you will find anyone that would argue otherwise (except on the internet)
Click to expand...

Isn’t ATC the FAA? If the FAA wants you on the ground, they have the authority to change the regulation.

We fly in a system and the regulation considers that system. Now I have heard of some individual controllers say they want you out of their hair. So if you opt to not follow the reg and it all works all well everyone is happy. If you opt to not follow the reg and something bad happens the controller is still happy. That accident report will record you did not follow proper procedures and the controller will be held faultless.

Every communications failure is not an emergency. Every emergency does not require immediate action under 91.3. The regulation provides really good guidance. As the AIM states, it is impossible to write a regulation that covers all situations, but when the regulation does, follow it.
 
Last edited:
steviedeviant said:
I am getting ready for a previously discontinued check ride due to weather and need some help regarding lost communications IFR. I have the MEA AVEF in front of me, but for some reason I can't seem to get this down quickly enough in case of a real life scenario to get through it without having to think to much about what is "next". Maybe some real examples would be helpful to understand the order.

Does anyone have something that would show examples of how lost communications would work for real life situations from a file flight plan? I want to really learn this because there have been a couple of times I lost communications on a VFR flight plan and would really hate to see that happen on IFR sitaution. I assume it can and does happen.

Along this same line, when you file IFR flight plan, do many of you file to a fix in the approach plate or to the airport itself? I am reading for lost communications it is good to have a fix on the approach in the flight plan, but wondering how this is really used in the real world for general aviation IFR pilots particularly in a situation where you may not know what runway is even being used? Am I over-thinking that? What if I file for runway 34 and they are using 16? Thanks in advance.

SD
Click to expand...
I lost my whole avionics stack in IMC last spring, due to a failed avionics master switch (as I found out afterwards). Montreal Centre had already told me what approach to expect (RNAV A into CYRO), so using Garmin Pilot on my phone, I navigated directly to the closest IAWP in the approach, then flew it textbook (or as close as my phone would allow). I broke out of IMC fairly soon, but since I was NORDO in busy terminal airspace by then, I figured it was better to be 100% predictable rather than darting off sideways to a different field—Ottawa Terminal couldn't know I was in VMC, and wouldn't know what I was doing, and if I started flying unpredictably, they might have started diverting traffic to make space for me.

Since my destination airport was uncontrolled (under the terminal airspace shelf), when I hit circuit (pattern) altitude I switched to a standard VFR entry procedure instead of flying straight in, so that I'd be less likely to conflict with other VFR traffic.

Immediately after landing, I taxied off the runway, shut down, and called Montreal Centre on my cellphone (I didn't want to mess with trying to make a phone call in flight, navigating with a dark avionics stack, and I probably wouldn't have been able to hear anyway without a headset adapter). The first thing they did was ask whether I was OK, then they thanked me for calling, and said that because I followed the expected procedures, there wasn't any disruption to their other traffic. I found out later that they'd also called my airport, and someone from the dispatch desk was standing outside with a portable radio watching me, calling my downwind, base, and final for the other traffic.

I bought my Yaesu portable right after that. Here's the CADORS report, in all its brief, banal glory: https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?cno=2019O148&dtef=&dtet=2019-06-18&otp=-1&ftop=%3e%3d&ftno=0&ijop=%3e%3d&ijno=0&olc=&prv=-1&rgn=-1&tsbno=&tsbi=-1&arno=&ocatno=&ocatop=1&oevtno=&oevtop=1&evtacoc=3&fltno=&fltr=-1&cars=-1&acat=-1&nar=&aiddl=-1&aidxt=&optdl=-1&optcomt=&optseq=&optxt=&opdlxt=Results+will+appear+in+this+list&mkdl=-1&mkxt=&mdldl=-1&mdlxt=&cmkdl=C&cmkxt=&rt=QR&hypl=y&cnum=2019O1489
 
Last edited:
tsts4 said:
So you'd fly to the airport and then back out to some fix to fly the approach?
Click to expand...

You were cleared as filed XYZ direct to ABC at 9000. Your clearance limit is ABC. You are supposed to ABC then go to an approach fix of you choice for both the descent from 9000 and the approach. That’s what the reg tells you to do.

“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.”

If you were cleared XYZ WAYPP ABC and WAYPP is a fix where an approach begins or a feeder route, you are still required to go to ABC.
 
Last edited:
David Megginson said:
I lost my whole avionics stack in IMC last spring, due to a failed avionics master switch (as I found out afterwards). Montreal Centre had already told me what approach to expect (RNAV A into CYRO), so using Garmin Pilot on my phone, I navigated directly to the closest IAWP in the approach, then flew it textbook (or as close as my phone would allow). I broke out of IMC fairly soon, but since I was NORDO in busy terminal airspace by then, I figured it was better to be 100% predictable rather than darting off sideways to a different field—Ottawa Terminal couldn't know I was in VMC, and wouldn't know what I was doing, and if I started flying unpredictably, they might have started diverting traffic to make space for me.

Since my destination airport was uncontrolled (under the terminal airspace shelf), when I hit circuit (pattern) altitude I switched to a standard VFR entry procedure instead of flying straight in, so that I'd be less likely to conflict with other VFR traffic.

Immediately after landing, I taxied off the runway, shut down, and called Montreal Centre on my cellphone (I didn't want to mess with trying to make a phone call in flight, navigating with a dark avionics stack, and I probably wouldn't have been able to hear anyway without a headset adapter). The first thing they did was ask whether I was OK, then they thanked me for calling, and said that because I followed the expected procedures, there wasn't any disruption to their other traffic. I found out later that they'd also called my airport, and someone from the dispatch desk was standing outside with a portable radio watching me, calling my downwind, base, and final for the other traffic.

I bought my Yaesu portable right after that. Here's the CADORS report, in all its brief, banal glory: https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?cno=2019O148&dtef=&dtet=2019-06-18&otp=-1&ftop=%3e%3d&ftno=0&ijop=%3e%3d&ijno=0&olc=&prv=-1&rgn=-1&tsbno=&tsbi=-1&arno=&ocatno=&ocatop=1&oevtno=&oevtop=1&evtacoc=3&fltno=&fltr=-1&cars=-1&acat=-1&nar=&aiddl=-1&aidxt=&optdl=-1&optcomt=&optseq=&optxt=&opdlxt=Results+will+appear+in+this+list&mkdl=-1&mkxt=&mdldl=-1&mdlxt=&cmkdl=C&cmkxt=&rt=QR&hypl=y&cnum=2019O1489
Click to expand...

Good job.
 
Clip4 said:
If you ever fly where there is no radar coverage you may understand why that reg is written the way it is.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they have never updated the reg to something that makes sense for areas that have radar coverage. I think that's why they put the language in the AIM about it not being possible to write a reg that covers all possible situation. It seems like a lame excuse to me, given that radar coverage is the norm for IFR traffic in the contiguous US these days.
 
Clip4 said:
...If you were cleared XYZ WAYPP ABC and WAYPP is a fix where an approach begins or a feeder route, you are still required to go to ABC.
Click to expand...
That doesn't work so well for aircraft that aren't GPS-equipped. In 28 years of flying, I've never heard ATC give a clearance to such an aircraft that does not have the destination as the clearance limit, even when there is no on-field navaid.

Personally, I'll start worrying about this when the FAA starts issuing violations for not flying overhead the destination airport before flying an approach. Until then, I haven't seen any evidence that ATC really expects nordo pilots to do that, and doing things that ATC doesn't expect is not conducive to safety.
 
Palmpilot said:
That doesn't work so well for aircraft that aren't GPS-equipped. In 28 years of flying, I've never heard ATC give a clearance to such an aircraft that does not have the destination as the clearance limit, even when there is no on-field navaid.

Personally, I'll start worrying about this when the FAA starts issuing violations for not flying overhead the destination airport before flying an approach. Until then, I haven't seen any evidence that ATC really expects nordo pilots to do that, and doing things that ATC doesn't expect is not conducive to safety.
Click to expand...

What has been covered is that you have a pretty wide latitude once you squawk 7600. You'd have to goon it up pretty badly to get violated.
 
Palmpilot said:
That doesn't work so well for aircraft that aren't GPS-equipped. In 28 years of flying, I've never heard ATC give a clearance to such an aircraft that does not have the destination as the clearance limit, even when there is no on-field navaid.
Click to expand...
I was just about to chime in and make the very same point. "Destination airport" is on the ground. A "destination waypoint" is in the air and shouldn't be mistaken for terra firma. Those in the habit (bad one) of simply filing "direct" seem to confuse the two. Then that leads to all sorts of misconstructions about 91.185. You simply don't hold until ETA unless you have been given holding instructions that lack an EFC. If you mistake the ground for the air, though, that little nuance might escape you.
 
On my IFR checkride, my examiner had me “lose comms” right after leaving my class C airport. ‘What now?’

I gave the reg checklist of route, altitude, etc. He just sat there looking at me. Uhhhhh... He had his finger on the map 15 miles away from home. Uhhhh... I said, “well, I’d squawk 7600, navigate myself for an approach and come in. ATC will scatter airplanes out of my way”. He smiled, turned the page and moved on.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dtuuri said:
I was just about to chime in and make the very same point. "Destination airport" is on the ground. A "destination waypoint" is in the air and shouldn't be mistaken for terra firma. Those in the habit (bad one) of simply filing "direct" seem to confuse the two. Then that leads to all sorts of misconstructions about 91.185. You simply don't hold until ETA unless you have been given holding instructions that lack an EFC. If you mistake the ground for the air, though, that little nuance might escape you.
Click to expand...
I've had a VOR as a limit for a pop-up IFR clearance, but never on a planned IFR flight.
 
crash7 said:
On my IFR checkride, my examiner had me “lose comms” right after leaving my class C airport. ‘What now?’

I gave the reg checklist of route, altitude, etc. He just sat there looking at me. Uhhhhh... He had his finger on the map 15 miles away from home. Uhhhh... I said, “well, I’d squawk 7600, navigate myself for an approach and come in. ATC will scatter airplanes out of my way”. He smiled, turned the page and moved on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good plan. Does your transponder work if the entire radio stack just went dead? Can ATC see you on primary radar in the clouds at single engine altitudes when ATC is Center not a TRACON. Do they know if you descended when you weren’t supposed to?

If they can’t see you, is ATC supposed to scatter planes 360 degrees and all altitudes within the range of you airplane?
 
Clip4 said:
Good plan. Does your transponder work if the entire radio stack just went dead? Can ATC see you on primary radar in the clouds at single engine altitudes when ATC is Center not a TRACON. Do they know if you descended when you weren’t supposed to?
Click to expand...

If ATC is clearing out the airspace in front of you regardless of radar contact does it really matter if they know when you descend?
 
Clip4 said:
Good plan. Does your transponder work if the entire radio stack just went dead? Can ATC see you on primary radar in the clouds at single engine altitudes when ATC is Center not a TRACON. Do they know if you descended when you weren’t supposed to?

If they can’t see you, is ATC supposed to scatter planes 360 degrees and all altitudes within the range of you airplane?
Click to expand...

Simmer. I’m just relaying an IFR checkride scenario relevant to the op’s concern. Back then I didn’t even have Bluetooth headset. Now, I could simply call ATC if cell coverage allows.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top