Comms failure

[Spitoon]

A recent thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=323535) asked whether a pilot with a comms failure during the approach should have landed. The discussion showed a range of opinions and I offered some thoughts from the ATC perspective....but it got me thinking about comms failure more generally.

I'd be interested in what criteria a crew use to decide that they have a comms failure and, apart from following the appropriate RCF procedure, what actions might be taken. I'd be particuarly interested in when and by how much these criteria might change when there is relatively little time to make the determination that there is a comms failure (as was the case on approach mentioned in the other thread or, perhaps, if the aircraft has been stopped off at a nominally terrain unsafe level during the climb or maybe on base leg in a busy TMA environment).

[Dream Land]

Didn't look at the last thread but this is what happened to me, while on base leg to the ILS at St. Louis I had comm failure, (single pilot King Air 200), neither comm produced results, don't remember what the problem was, I was IMC, I intercepted the ILS and squawked the appropriate codes, when I broke out I was concentrating on seeing some lights from the tower, received the lights for landing and also for crossing another runway to the ramp.

Fairly easy process for me, I already knew which runway I would be receiving, I figured it would create far more problems to continue flying around considering the traffic and busy class B.

[Spitoon]

Interesting.

The other post revolves around the question 'a B767 during the final approach crossing 1000 feet, the tower did not response to their requests of landing clearance, so the captain assumed failure communications , with the runway in sight and clear of traffic he proceeded to land. Wast this the right thing to do?'

There were a good number of replies, most of which can be summarised as yes, good decision.

From an aerodrome controller's perspective landing without a clearance and without a good reason is just about the most heinous act possible. Now I recognise that from 1000ft there is very little time from the pilot to make the decision but, on the basis of the original post, this decision was made on the basis of not getting a reply from the tower. From my ground-based viewpoint this is not a good decision. And assuming comms failure just because there is no reply does not seem, to me, to be justified.

This is why I asked what criteria a crew use to decide that they have a comms failure? I find it rather surprising that although a fair few pilots are happy to land without a clearance if they have a comms failure, no-one appears to want to describe what has to happen before they make such a significant decision!

But thanks anyway.

[james ozzie]

"And assuming comms failure just because there is no reply does not seem, to me, to be justified."

Without getting into hair splitting, does not a lack of reply constitute a comms failure anyway? The radio is bust/the controller is asleep/the pilot is off frequecny - these are all comms failures, si?

[411A]

Approaching Cairo one rather poor weather day, we were turned onto the 23L ILS and cleared for approach, only to find that the ILS tripped off, the VOR went away, and all comms with approach control/tower seemed failed as well.
A JCB had just sliced through a big electrical cable, I was told later.
The Honeywell HT9100 GPS (dual installation, L1011 aircraft) found the runway quite nicely, so I called Cairo ground, and requested landing clearance.
A very weak ground, from an emergency vehicle, replied....LN202, 23R, cleared to land.
The approach clearance was for the 23L ILS, however, the proceeding aircraft, who had landed on 23L had two deflated tires, and still occupied the runway...and with 800 meters vis, I hardly think we would have seen him for adequate separation.

Land without a clearance...sometimes expect rather large problems.
Them's the facts.

[Stan Woolley]

Hi Spitoon

From 1000' you would have enough time to try a couple of other frequencies, if no reply in that time I would assume a problem and make a decision.

(767 case) I too would probably have landed with good VMC and a clear runway, at least at my home airport and many others I am familiar with.

Going around into busy airspace without comms could be a nasty scenario too at least IMO so from your side it looks like a no-brainer to Go Around but from my viewpoint you might well have to make the same approach and subsequent decision twenty minutes later with significantly less fuel.I would still have to satisfy myself that the runway was clear before landing.

What about the 747 in Africa that received a confirmed clearance to land on a blocked runway after querying the clearance?(Hydro Air was it?)

411A you must have the best memory/thickest logbook in the world?Or maybe just a good imagination? :8