Macho-ism

[Jaybird180]

Groundschool week 3 (I love discussion)

We have a small class of 4 students. so we have time to discuss. Yesterday was a little remediation about lost comms. The discussion was about lost comms in IMC that transitions into VMC: Do you land or continue.

One pilot said, he'd definately land. I didn't comment, but my thoughts were, why the heck wouldn't you continue??? The IFR system was designed to be conducted sans communications; comms is an adjunct to the procedures. Might this be clue #1?

Next discussion: Losing vacuum in IMC. Do you declare 7700? The regs don't require it, pilots discretion. The instructor relayed a story of it happening to him. He declared. I don't fault anyone (who lived to tell the tale) for declaring, EVER! But I'm thinking, I'm supposed to be trained to fly without it if, I ASSUME something is going to break during my flight, at a high-workload time. Train for it!

I relayed the sentiment of the pilot of Cirrus s/n #16 who pulled because he lost his HSI and how the forums criticized his poor training.

Is it possible that I've injested an macho-pilot attitude, undeservedly!???

What are some of the other traits of a pilot who thinks more of his capabilities than he really should?

 

[ClimbnSink]

No. Everyone else is a sissy.

 

[dell30rb]

I'm pretty sure that if you are lost comm IFR - if you can land safely under VFR you should do it. Comes from the instrument flying handbook or something.

If I lost vacuum I would declare and this means I can get whatever I want out of ATC. Which would be immediate vectors to a no-gyro approach at the nearest airport with this capability. Assuming a low ceiling of course.

The pilot of the Cirrus was criticized (by me) for panicking (presumably due to his lack of partial panel training) and dive bombing at 2800fpm in an attempt to break out below the bases when he knew the ceiling was low. Imagine breaking out at 800 feet in a 2800 fpm descent. This is not acceptable unless the plane is on fire.

Being trained for something does not mean you don't treat it as an emergency when it happens.

 

[wabower]

After you land and call ATC, they will thank you profusely for landing and letting them use their airspace without clearing the way for you. BTDT.

 

[poadeleted20]

The discussion was about lost comms in IMC that transitions into VMC: Do you land or continue. One pilot said, he'd definately land. I didn't comment, but my thoughts were, why the heck wouldn't you continue??

Because 91.185(b) explicitly requires you to land if you reach VMC and can land VFR from there, and the FAA has fried pilots for violating that. The last thing in the world they want is you continuing through or landing in a busy terminal area lost comm when you could have landed somewhere VFR.

The IFR system was designed to be conducted sans communications; comms is an adjunct to the procedures. Might this be clue #1?

The system is not designed for that, and 91.185(c) was written long before we had the complexity of systems and airspace we have today.

Next discussion: Losing vacuum in IMC. Do you declare 7700? The regs don't require it, pilots discretion. The instructor relayed a story of it happening to him. He declared. I don't fault anyone (who lived to tell the tale) for declaring, EVER! But I'm thinking, I'm supposed to be trained to fly without it if, I ASSUME something is going to break during my flight, at a high-workload time. Train for it!

There are too many accidents in the records where the vacuum system was lost for a pilot not to be concerned about safety, and that is a textbook definition of an emergency.

I relayed the sentiment of the pilot of Cirrus s/n #16 who pulled because he lost his HSI and how the forums criticized his poor training.

Big difference between declaring an emergency and pulling the chute.

 

[JeffDG]

I'm pretty sure that if you are lost comm IFR - if you can land safely under VFR you should do it. Comes from the instrument flying handbook or something.

If you lose comms in IMC, then later encounter VMC (or actually if you lose comms under IFR in VMC), you are supposed to maintain VMC. If you can maintain VMC to your destination, fantastic, if not land somewhere else visually.

EDIT-Correction, per Ron's cite above, it says "Land as soon as practical" under VFR.

 

[Jaybird180]

There are too many accidents in the records where the vacuum system was lost for a pilot not to be concerned about safety, and that is a textbook definition of an emergency.

Might this be a flaw in the training and the execution of that training? Or is this a Macho question?

 

[Jaybird180]

Because 91.185(b) explicitly requires you to land if you reach VMC and can land VFR from there, and the FAA has fried pilots for violating that. The last thing in the world they want is you continuing through or landing in a busy terminal area lost comm when you could have landed somewhere VFR.

(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.

prac·ti·cal

/ˈpræk

tɪ

kəl/ [prak-ti-kuh

l] adjective
1. of or pertaining to practice or action: practical mathematics.
2. consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule.
3. of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work: practical affairs.
4. adapted or designed for actual use; useful: practical instructions.
5. engaged or experienced in actual practice or work: a practical politician.

I read this as a judgement call.

prac·ti·ca·ble

/ˈpræk

tɪ

kə

bəl/ [prak-ti-kuh-buh

l] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmladjective
1. capable of being done, effected, or put into practice, with the available means; feasible: a practicable solution.
2. capable of being used: a practicable gift.
3. Theater . (of a stage property or part of a set) designed or constructed for actual use; a practicable window; practicable water faucets.

Is this better?

 

[poadeleted20]

(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.


I read this as a judgement call.


Is this better?

The only judgment call is whether or not the next airport you encounter is suitable for landing. And there is plenty of case law on point.

 

[JeffDG]

1 question I've always had about that rule is:

How does one proceed VFR (and the rule talks about encountering VFR conditions - what I would call VMC - but instructs the pilot to continue under VFR - without reference to conditions, so I presume rules, not conditions) without cancelling their IFR clearance if they have lost-comm? Do you squawk 1200? What if lost-comm is related to a complete electrical failure, so no transponder?

I would think squawking 1200 would be useful to ATC, such that they now know that you're not proceeding with your previous clearance, but are proceeding VFR.

Just in case tone-of-voiceless communications is an issue, this is a genuine curiosity, not a snarky response!

 

[Jaybird180]

1 question I've always had about that rule is:

How does one proceed VFR (and the rule talks about encountering VFR conditions - what I would call VMC - but instructs the pilot to continue under VFR - without reference to conditions, so I presume rules, not conditions) without cancelling their IFR clearance if they have lost-comm? Do you squawk 1200? What if lost-comm is related to a complete electrical failure, so no transponder?

I would think squawking 1200 would be useful to ATC, such that they now know that you're not proceeding with your previous clearance, but are proceeding VFR.

Just in case tone-of-voiceless communications is an issue, this is a genuine curiosity, not a snarky response!

This also was a discussion point, which was not satisfactorily answered, but it was said the 'old' procedure was to squawk 1200 for 1 minute then back on code. This presumes that you have 1 radio and the unit itself is dead, not electrical failure (more likely in this day/ time).

 

[Ted]

Might this be a flaw in the training and the execution of that training? Or is this a Macho question?

There's a bit of both here. Yes, training means you should be able to handle all these failures. The reality is lots of people auger into the ground because they fail to handle an instrument failure properly. It is a degraded state and you should treat it accordingly.

Think about it like this. I'm a way more experienced pilot than you (not bragging, just a comparison of logbooks). I have lots of experience flying the 310 as well (and twins in general). I'd still like to put an AoA indicator in the plane with verbal warning. Have I ever come close to stalling a plane unintentionally? No. Do I think I will? No. Are my skills marginal? No. But it's not a crutch, it's an extra margin of safety. The same goes for using ATC.

When I had fewer hours, I tended to think more in that method of "I don't need no stinkin gizmos." What I've now evolved to is "I don't need those gizmos, but I do appreciate the safety benefits and I'll look to have and look to install the ones that are useful." With ATC I used to not want to bother them. I now have no problems bothering them and ask for what I need.

 

[JeffDG]

Might this be a flaw in the training and the execution of that training? Or is this a Macho question?

You are trained during your PP to handle an engine-out, but that doesn't mean that if it happens for real that it's not an emergency.

 

[Palmpilot]

Re: Machismo

1 question I've always had about that rule is:

How does one proceed VFR (and the rule talks about encountering VFR conditions - what I would call VMC - but instructs the pilot to continue under VFR - without reference to conditions, so I presume rules, not conditions) without cancelling their IFR clearance if they have lost-comm? Do you squawk 1200?

I don't think that's what the writers of the regulation intended. And I haven't seen anything that says 7600 is only for IFR.

The AIM says you are expected to exercise good judgment in lost comm situations, and I don't think it would be good judgment to set the transponder to something other than what the AIM recommends, in the hope that it would somehow communicate that you intend to cancel IFR.

You could also find that you were mistaken in believing that you could land in VFR conditions.

What if lost-comm is related to a complete electrical failure, so no transponder?

Then you don't have to worry about what to squawk.

I would think squawking 1200 would be useful to ATC, such that they now know that you're not proceeding with your previous clearance, but are proceeding VFR.

It might also make it more difficult for ATC to keep track of you.

 

[Fearless Tower]

You are trained during your PP to handle an engine-out, but that doesn't mean that if it happens for real that it's not an emergency.

Well said.

 

[Palmpilot]

Re: Machismo

By the way, I think the word for "macho-ism" is "machismo."

 

[Everskyward]

14 CFR, section 91.185, states: "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." It then differentiates between lost communications during visual flight rules (VFR) conditions versus instrument flight rules (IFR) 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." The AIM has a clarifying note that states: "However, it is not intended that the requirement to 'land as soon as practicable' be construed to mean 'as soon as possible.' Pilots retain the prerogative of exercising their best judgment and are not required to land at an unauthorized airport, at an airport unsuitable for the type of aircraft flown, or to land only minutes short of their intended destination." The courts clarified this for us by ruling that: "A pilot may not take advantage of this rule to continue his IFR flight in VFR conditions to an airport of his liking, bypassing other airports and leaving air traffic guessing what he or she is going to do."

In a case before the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB ), enforcement action was taken against an airline transport pilot's certificate when the pilot continued for approximately 25 minutes after losing his radios on an IFR flight but in VFR conditions, and landed at his destination. The NTSB found that the pilot did not adequately explain why he failed to land as soon as practicable, given that he passed several suitable airports in good VFR conditions.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atbarc/04-5.htm

 

[Jaybird180]

Re: Machismo

By the way, I think the word for "macho-ism" is "machismo."

Yes but Macho-ism implies the philosophy that creates machismo

 

[somorris]

I think you are being Macho. Poor judgment (besides the rules) if you encounter VMC not to land and let ATC know. You can always take back off VFR if the weather is okay. Also, if your radio goes on the fritz, why in the world would you not want to land if you hit VMC and find out what's wrong. It could be some kind of serious electrical problem and it is your butt up there.

My $0.02 worth.

 

[poadeleted20]

1 question I've always had about that rule is:

How does one proceed VFR (and the rule talks about encountering VFR conditions - what I would call VMC - but instructs the pilot to continue under VFR - without reference to conditions, so I presume rules, not conditions) without cancelling their IFR clearance if they have lost-comm? Do you squawk 1200? What if lost-comm is related to a complete electrical failure, so no transponder?

I would think squawking 1200 would be useful to ATC, such that they now know that you're not proceeding with your previous clearance, but are proceeding VFR.

Just in case tone-of-voiceless communications is an issue, this is a genuine curiosity, not a snarky response!

Squawking 1200 would be a good idea, but regardless, if you can safely land it VFR, the FAA requires that you do so. Since the whole purpose of IFR is separation of IFR aircraft from other IFR traffic, if you're in VMC, that square is filled as well as if you had started out VFR with no radios at all and had reached the same point. The other reason to land it and call is so they know you're on the ground, safe and sound, and they can stop worrying about you -- think Payne Stewart.

 

[Velocity173]

Yep, pretty much what Ron said.

The system isn't designed for extended 7600 flight. If you have suitable airports along the way you should choose one instead of continuing to your destination.

No way I'm going to do a x-country IMC with vacuum out. I've done X-countrys in the Velocity IMC with no autopilot but no AI or DG? No way. Declare. Unless of course you're VMC and you know you'll be VMC then just report and land as soon as practicable.

As far as a 1200 or 7600, ATC won't care. Once they see you're not continuing to your destination they should make the logical assumption that you're landing VMC as soon as practicable.

 

[azure]

No way I'm going to do a x-country IMC with vacuum out. I've done X-countrys in the Velocity IMC with no autopilot but no AI or DG? No way. Declare. Unless of course you're VMC and you know you'll be VMC then just report and land as soon as practicable.

It's worth pointing out that the consequences of a vacuum failure depend on what you have that depends on the vacuum system. Some planes have an electric backup AI and an electric DG to begin with, so it would be a non-event, the only thing lost would be redundancy. I do have a vacuum driven AI but since my DG is an HSI (electric), I would consider it more of an annoyance than an emergency. I would probably not declare, but would likely ask for a clearance to the nearest large field, and of course once on the ground I would have to get it fixed before flying again IFR.

 

[Jaybird180]

Squawking 1200 would be a good idea, but regardless, if you can safely land it VFR, the FAA requires that you do so. Since the whole purpose of IFR is separation of IFR aircraft from other IFR traffic, if you're in VMC, that square is filled as well as if you had started out VFR with no radios at all and had reached the same point. The other reason to land it and call is so they know you're on the ground, safe and sound, and they can stop worrying about you -- think Payne Stewart.

I think you are being Macho. Poor judgment (besides the rules) if you encounter VMC not to land and let ATC know. You can always take back off VFR if the weather is okay. Also, if your radio goes on the fritz, why in the world would you not want to land if you hit VMC and find out what's wrong. It could be some kind of serious electrical problem and it is your butt up there.

My $0.02 worth.

Okay, I will admit that prior to this thread, I thought landing VFR was optional. Since it is obligatory, that takes the decision out of the hands of the pilot. And based on the discusion lastnight, it's likely I was not alone in the errant understanding.

 

[Unbeliever]

Next discussion: Losing vacuum in IMC. Do you declare 7700? The regs don't require it, pilots discretion.

They don't require a full emergency, but they DO require that you report the failure to ATC and how that affects your ability to fly and how much help you need. (91.187)

--Carlos V.

 

[comanchepilot]

IMC - VMC Lost COMM: Land. Period. Get down - call ATC. If you can find a phone number. Honestly- thats the hard part in that situation. You can call flight service and ask them for a number and ask them to relay - but I NEVER NEVER NEVER rely on anyone for relays.

Lost Vacuum. So? Depends on the airplane. In my airplane, the only vacuum powered instrument I have is the Artificial Horizon which is probably the least helpful instrument in IMC. Plus, also - I have back up vacuum - all I need to do is pull the knob and I have vacuum again once I reduce the throttle 3" of MP off ambient. SO is it an emergency for me? No - its not. Is it a concern calling for notifying ATC and then landing at a suitable air field? Yes. but that might end being my destination. My autopilot is rate based so it does not even know I have a vacuum pump.

Squawk: If you are IMC and lose COMM squawk your assigned code. It will have all the necessary data for your tag like route and destination. . .

If you have an electrical failure causing loss of COMMS - and are in IMC and are more than 15-20 min from your destination and need electricity to land [as we all do] I would exercise my emergency authority, find an airport with an approach I can fly, and divert and land there - how are you going to land without electricity?

In this case you need to use your onboard alternative methods to find VMC or an approach. Using stratus/GPS and iPad or Garmin units are lifesavers in this situation since your compass and pitot instruments will still be working.

If you lost comms due to a antenna bird strike - ok - you still have power - and can continue - but if you lose COMMS due to fire, explosion, a mouse panicked and chewed through the cable etc etc etc and you still have AC control - you really should land. I

You can also use your little devices to find where the closest either VFR is or at least 1000' ceiling . . .

and once you buy an airplane, at your first annual install a jack so you can use a handheld COMM with your exterior mounted antenna and headset. 5 watts may not reach ATC in some parts of the country but you will reach other aircraft who can relay. . . and USE the damn MAYDAY call in that situation to shut everyone up.

 

[poadeleted20]

They don't require a full emergency,

What's the difference between a "full emergency" and any other "emergency" as the FAA defines the term? Or are you thinking about the difference between "distress" and "urgency," either of which constitutes an "emergency"? So, while a vacuum system failure in a plane without backup attitude/heading gyro systems shouldn't in and of itself be reason to holler "MAYDAY," I'm thoroughly convinced by both history and what I've seen giving instrument refresher training that it constitutes an "emergency" of the "urgency" sort -- "A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition," as the FAA puts it.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

My autopilot is rate based so it does not even know I have a vacuum pump.

This is a really important point that many don't understand about their A/Ps. We have an old-school Cessna 300A, and it pulls from either the AI/DG or the turn coordinator, depending on what mode it is in. In NAV/HDG mode, it uses the AI/DG pickups, in wing-leveler mode, it only uses the TC. I bet that many who fly with a 300A don't know the redundant-systems capabilities of this A/P.

Jeff

 

[snoboy]

(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.


I read this as a judgement call.


Is this better?

I read it as... landing IS the next item on the agenda not continuing on to your intended destination. Now if the next available safe landing strip happens to be your destination then I'd say your OK. But it's pretty clear what the instruction is.

 

[snoboy]

This is a really important point that many don't understand about their A/Ps. We have an old-school Cessna 300A, and it pulls from either the AI/DG or the turn coordinator, depending on what mode it is in. In NAV/HDG mode, it uses the AI/DG pickups, in wing-leveler mode, it only uses the TC. I bet that many who fly with a 300A don't know the redundant-systems capabilities of this A/P.

Jeff

The 182RG that I fly is the same. I can press on with the auto pilot with a vacuum failure but I still need to notify ATC.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

.....but my thoughts were, why the heck wouldn't you continue??? The IFR system was designed to be conducted sans communications; comms is an adjunct to the procedures. Might this be clue #1?

Meh, if you can land VFR, land, dont be that guy that the controller has to move traffic for due you being 7600 as you're flying along VMC, not cool.

..... But I'm thinking, I'm supposed to be trained to fly without it if, I ASSUME something is going to break during my flight, at a high-workload time. Train for it!

I woundnt go 7700, IMO it just aint a emergency, I WOULD request no gyro vectors to the nearest suitable airport, perhaps a PAR or ASR aprch depending.

 

[denverpilot]

Meh, if you can land VFR, land, dont be that guy that the controller has to move traffic for due you being 7600 as you're flying along VMC, not cool.

Because, you know... They don't do that every day of their lives... (Move traffic...) It's SUCH an inconvenience to have to key up and give vectors.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Because, you know... They don't do that every day of their lives... (Move traffic...) It's SUCH an inconvenience to have to key up and give vectors.

I agree, like back when I decided to shoot touch and goes in my nordo J3 cub during the middle of a Saturday at LAX, I was like "yo tower dude, chill with the funny colored light gun stuff, you move traffic everyday, leave me alone"

 

[denverpilot]

I agree, like back when I decided to shoot touch and goes in my nordo J3 cub during the middle of a Saturday at LAX, I was like "yo tower dude, chill with the funny colored light gun stuff, you move traffic everyday, leave me alone"

Cute. Retarded. But cute.

Some of us fly where an hour of NORDO there wouldn't be another airplane within 100 miles of us.

Loss of radar contact or comm even at MEA (no matter what the book says) is fairly common, often mentioned as "our remote radio up there has been dead for a while now... We'll pick you up again in 20 miles." (Every time I'm in ABQ Center's airspace. I swear.)

You think I'm going to land on some rancher's private dirt strip if the radio fails instead of flying another 100 miles to a (barely) civilized airport? No.

 

[Fearless Tower]

So, while a vacuum system failure in a plane without backup attitude/heading gyro systems shouldn't in and of itself be reason to holler "MAYDAY," I'm thoroughly convinced by both history and what I've seen giving instrument refresher training that it constitutes an "emergency" of the "urgency" sort -- "A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition," as the FAA puts it.

Minor trivial quibbling point but in radio terminology, Emergency and Urgency are two different things. MAYDAY = Emergency. The radio term for Urgency is 'PAN PAN'. For whatever reason, most aviation folks are only familiar with MAYDAY.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Cute. Retarded. But cute.

Some of us fly where an hour of NORDO there wouldn't be another airplane within 100 miles of us.

Loss of radar contact or comm even at MEA (no matter what the book says) is fairly common, often mentioned as "our remote radio up there has been dead for a while now... We'll pick you up again in 20 miles." (Every time I'm in ABQ Center's airspace. I swear.)

You think I'm going to land on some rancher's private dirt strip if the radio fails instead of flying another 100 miles to a (barely) civilized airport? No.

Nate, there is a big difference between temporary loss of comms due to reception range and atmospherics in an area where ATC expects it and having a radio failure.

 

[Palmpilot]

Re: Machismo

Minor trivial quibbling point but in radio terminology, Emergency and Urgency are two different things. MAYDAY = Emergency. The radio term for Urgency is 'PAN PAN'. For whatever reason, most aviation folks are only familiar with MAYDAY.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.​

Perhaps you should inform the FAA of their error.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Perhaps you should inform the FAA of their error.

They wouldn't listen. Look at how long it went before we adopted the internationally accepted 'line up and wait'.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Cute. Retarded. But cute.

Some of us fly where an hour of NORDO there wouldn't be another airplane within 100 miles of us.

Loss of radar contact or comm even at MEA (no matter what the book says) is fairly common, often mentioned as "our remote radio up there has been dead for a while now... We'll pick you up again in 20 miles." (Every time I'm in ABQ Center's airspace. I swear.)

You think I'm going to land on some rancher's private dirt strip if the radio fails instead of flying another 100 miles to a (barely) civilized airport? No.

If you have a radio failure (as in your stack goes tits up), don't land in a field lol, sometimes I forget some people don't have any damn common sense. What you SHOULD do is, in VMC fly to the nearest AIRPORT and call in on the phone.

 

[Palmpilot]

Re: Machismo

They wouldn't listen. Look at how long it went before we adopted the internationally accepted 'line up and wait'.

Apparently, my sarcasm was too subtle.

 

[poadeleted20]

Minor trivial quibbling point but in radio terminology, Emergency and Urgency are two different things. MAYDAY = Emergency. The radio term for Urgency is 'PAN PAN'. For whatever reason, most aviation folks are only familiar with MAYDAY.

Not so. MAYDAY=Distress, PAN-PAN-PAN=Urgency. Both=Emergency -- only difference is the severity of the emergency (distress vs urgency). That's clearly stated in the Pilot-Controller Glossary.