Interesting topic you've raised, 5up. The 'book', in most places, is, I believe, out of touch with reality.
Anyone operating into Australia will have noted (of course you have!) that the Ozmates have a local radio fail procedure that differs from the standard procedure in one very important area. It is, in my opinion, an eminently more sensible approach to the problem than the standard procedure, which was probably written in the days of DC4s with crystal radios and 8,000 ft cruise altitudes.
The Australian procedure, amended in the mid eighties, differs from the standard ICAO in that it states:
DESTINATION PROCEDURES
Track to the destination in accordance with flight plan (amended by the latest ATC clearance acknowledged, if applicable). Commence descent in accordance with standard operating procedures or flight plan. Descend to the initial approach altitude for the most suitable approach aid in accordance with the published procedures. Carry out the approach to the prescribed circling minima.
Compare this with the Jepp procedure which has you maintaining cruising altitude to the initial approach fix and descending in the hold and attempting to land within 30 minutes of your EAT. (See Highspeed's link on page 1 for the complete procedure.)
The Australians recognise that the best way to fix a situation of a no comms aircraft in busy airspace is to get him on the ground asap. I'd make so bold as to say that in this day and age, with most aircraft having triple redundancies in just about everything, including radios, anyone with a total radio failure has probably got quite a few other problems on his hands as well a 'simple' radio failure. The last thing he needs is to be maintaining cruise level until overhead the IAP fix and then spending 15 or 20 minutes descending in the hold to commence an approach. At the very least, he might not want to be burning another 20 minutes of fuel in the cruise to reach the IAP at cruise level.
I attempted to have the book changed a year or two ago in my part of the world and was told by local ATC that they were unable to do so. I think the real problem is that most people believe the chances of a total radio failure these days are so slim that they ignore the problem the current procedures would present to most modern aircraft.
The incident that sparked this thread proves it can still happen. And I think most controllers would probably agree that it would cause them and everyone else airborne at the time considerably less grief if the MD83 had simply squarked 7600 and continued the approach and landed, (which I agree is not the standard procedure) rather than doing as he did.
I think it's time the rest of the world followed the Australians' lead in this one. I agree that given time, it's highly unlikely you'd be unable to make contact with ATC using one of the FA's mobiles, but the MD83 crew were too close to the ground to be messing around with something like that. They had to make a decision on the spot, probably without even time to drag out their Jepps. Why don't we have procedures in place that cover such situations, offering a solution that results in minimum disruption to the big picture?