RT Failure - do you know what to do?

[5milesbaby]

This morning at LHR, during a very busy rush hour, an AZA MD83(?) was cleared off BIG after about 20 mins of holding. 4 miles north of the stack, the aircraft went Radio Failure, and selected 7600. From what I could see, the a/c proceeded to intercept the ILS 27R, still at FL70, flew down to 5 miles, before turning left 180degs. He then flew out to around 20 miles, then turning back on and descending. I heard that contact was re-established, but unsure when, but can imagine the smell on LHR app and in the cockpit wasn't good for a while.

Congratulations to all involved both on the ground and in the air, although increasing the delays by another 5 minutes, the incident seemed to flow very well, and could have been much worse.

My question for everyone else is to see what sort of training you get for handling RTF's, and what would you have done in the AZA's position. I believe he would have had an EAT, and the point he was at when it happenned was probably the worst place you'd ever want to be to lose contact.

[Bally Heck]

Standard radio failure drill.

Select box 2

If no joy

Select box 3

If still no joy

Set 7600 and look up the Jepps R/T failure page.

Don't use the Jepp pages much!

[Manflex55]

That's why I always take my handheld GPS-COM & a spare battery with me on each flight, whether flying SE pistons or jets. It saved the day several times, including the time the GPS system failed in a Citation : we flew the rest of the trip (KORD - KMIA)using the informations provided by my small GPS screen & it worked just fine !!

MF

[m&v]

After 7600,don't forget the telephones in every other pax seat,and the F/a's Mobile.
But in Canada one's expected to follow the Star route!!

[BOAC]

Doesn't Switzerland have a sensible approach to it?
'In event of a radio failure ring...' etc etc.
Very neat!

[Haulin' Trash]

C/mon 411A - we're all dying to hear your opinion!

[Herod]

ICAO procedure, as modified by national/local procedures?

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

I keep a copy of the instructions in the emergency procedures section of the Jeps just in case, as all countries have different procedures to follow in this event.

[5milesbaby]

m&v - correct me please if I'm wrong, but STAR's terminate at the holding fix for the airfield, in this case BIGGIN, what would you do then, once brought off for final vectoring as today?

C'mon peeps, I'm not looking for text book answers, I genuinely want to know what you would have done so we know in future what we can expect should it happen again. This pilot today had less than 3 minutes to react before screaming through the departures north and eastbound, and the other stacks. How do you interpret the procedures, and could you be as cool as today's jockeys?

[Max Angle]

5miles,

The laid procedure for this situation says to "continue visually or by using an alternative approach aid is possible, if not proceed to the appropriate fix.....blah blah"
Personally in the situation you describe I would have continued with the approach with 7600 set. As far as route and heading goes I guess I would try to establish on the procedure radial and use the published levels. If that was not possible then I would complete the approach using the "normal" vector path and levels (local knowledge required of course). To turn the question around, what would you like us to do?.

[411A]

Haulin' Trash---
Well, since you asked, has been mentioned here, look in the Jeppesen for the correct local procedure. It does change from place to place in Europe (unlike in the USA). It would be helpful of course to have available that fellow from bygone years, so very useful in situations such as this.....the FLIGHT ENGINEER.
These guys are only appreciated by us senior types, and the junior guys will most likely never know the benefits that a professional F/E made to the SAFETY of the flight.

[HotDog]

We experienced R/T failure approaching EGCC once. It was caused by the F/O's microphone shorting out the keying line. Found it by pulling out all the mikes and plugging them back in one by one before we carried out the R/T failure procedures. As 411A pointed out, this very simple troubleshooting procedure is rarely practiced in two man crew airplanes.

[DouglasDigby]

Depending on the fault, HF 'phone patch has worked before! Shame Portishead is no more though. Also, how many ILS facilities have a voice-transmission system? Used to be quite a few some years ago.

[HighSpeed]

5milesbaby,

i'd just scanned the relevant sections from jeppesen emergency section. do take a look cos it would most likely answer all your questions. i'd scanned it in pdf format so you will need adobe acrobat reader to view them. there's 2 files, one's the original scan and it's large (1.2mb) while the other one is converted to text. it's only 190kb but doesnt guarantee to be mistake free as i dont know how accurate the ocr software is.

loss_comm_text.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/mapa.geo/loss_comm_text.pdf) (190kb)

loss_comm.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/mapa.geo/loss_comm.pdf) (1,160kb)

HS

note: strange! they dont seem to work when i clicked on them but them worked okay when i right-clicked and select Save Target As...

[This message has been edited by HighSpeed (edited 29 June 2001).]

[5milesbaby]

Thanks for that everyone, and definately good to see what you have to look at High Speed.

To answer you Max, I'm an Area radar guy so have no real interface with this particular type of RT fail. However if you were way back with me, I would expect you to continue on the route given, following the STAR exactly, and if on a radar heading, resume to the next fix on the route. If initial descent had been given, descend immediately (assuming the first action was to select 7600) to the acknowledged level at 500ft/min, or remain at cruise level if no descent given all the way to the final stack. When there, within 20 mins of ETA, or EAT, descend to min stack level at 500ft/min, and leave on a procedural appraoch. You then have 30 mins to land, returning to the stack and starting again if a missed approach executed, and leave the vicinity and CAS if a landing not possible.

These procedures are my interpretation of what we are taught to learn verbatum from the Air Pilot, and I would believe the Approach guys have their local procedures drilled in too. Is this any different to what you thought??

[Lucifer]

There's a number to ring in the Aerads from a mobile/inflight phone.

[reroute]

I remember being taught for recognizing an RT failure on radar ( if the a/c wasn't SSR equipped ) it would fly an anti-clockwise triangle pattern. Does this still apply ?

[Odi]

5miles - the same sort of idea applies up in my sector for helis landing on oil rigs. If given descent they continue all the way down, but if the fail occurs before descent I would expect them to stay at cruise level until overhead the rig then commence a full rig radar procedural approach. Like you say, pulled straight out of the AiP.

The only difference might be that, because of the inhospitable part of the world we operate in, I would consider very strongly taking alerting action in case of further problems with the heli that the pilot cannot now tell me about.

[410]

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?

[Alpine Flyer]

Our "training" for RT failure is that we're required to fill a form for every airport self-briefing which contains RT fail procedures for the area overflown and the destination. This forces you to read the Jepps and try to make sense of it.

Due to a change of airplane type and new destinations I have just done a number of thes familiarisation forms and the different procedures all over Europe are actually a nightmare. Every country has different ideas on how to "supplement" or even "enhance" the ICAO standard procedure, probably because it IS outdated and fit for DC-6es only.

Most "additions" deal with radar vectors although Britain has a very practicable addition that requires a vector off course and a climb outside controlled airspace. I have no idea how the powers in control decided I should locate uncontrolled airspace on my Jepps while somewhere over, let's say, southern England....

A common and sensible European policy on this would be helpful. I also share the impression that all this is rather theoretical as nobody really expects radio failures and ATC thinks they can vector other A/C away anyway. Radar AND Comm failure would be a double and so we don't have to think about it.....

I should think that I don't bend the truth if I say that more than 50% of us don't know the exact radio fail procedure for the actual phase of flight all the time. Reading the Jepps when the comm doesn't work anymore is quite late, and even HF comm takes quite some time if you have to get a phone patch. Portables without external antenna usually have a very poor range.

[Gonzo]

If I may introduce another factor into this thread.....

I was in the tower (departures) when the AZA radio fail came in (we were all very interested to see how he was going to get from FL70 to the threshold in 6 miles...thankfully he broke off and went back for another try<g> ). The only action taken was to get a Follow-Me out to the runway to lead him to stand. Nothing was 'put on' in anticipation of the a/c landing, neither a Local Standby nor a Full Emergency, and I recall someone saying in the background that if there was anything else wrong he would squawk 7700.

Is this fair? IIRC during my time at CATC I'm sure I used to put on a F. Emergency for complete radio fail, just in case there's anything else wrong.

In these days of glass cockpit a/c is this being too 'belt and braces'?

Thoughts?

Gonzo

[MTOW]

Over-reaction for ATC to go into full emergency mode for a radio failure, Gonzo? Not at all. I agree that unless it's finger trouble, it's probable that the crew have a more serious problem on their hands to suffer total radio failure. Some would say he'd be squarking 7700 in that case, but who's to say his squark will be working anyway? And even if it's finger trouble, the last thing you want is a two man crew troubleshooting the problem or digging into the Jepps close to the ground.

I don't have any problems with the initial departure failure procedures, but I think it's rather debatable whether there's any merit in taking a widebody with 450 people on board off its already defined flight plan in search of uncontrolled airspace(!). (A quick question for widebody international operators: how many of you would actually do that in VMC?)

It's time we made a push, maybe all of urging our individual Flight and Flight Safety Departments to write to ICAO demanding a change of ICAO procedures to something sensible and simple that fits current circumstances. (Am I being too optimistic to think that a revamped simple and sensible procedure might lead to fewer local variations so there'd be a chance we'd all have that one common procedure clear in our minds should the unthinkable occur at the worst possible time - as Sod's Law says it certainly will?)

In my humble opinion, the best thing to be done in the event of a total failure would be to stick with the original flight plan as closely as possible. Of course, on departure, continue climb only after an 'n' minute delay at the last assigned level or LSA to give ATC time to sort themselves out. That way, everyone would know exactly what you're doing. On arrival, surely, the best bet would be the Australian local procedure - get the aircraft on the ground as soon as possible, minimising the time where the no comms aircraft is causing confliction to other traffic.

I think 410 hit the nail on the head. Most senior people at ICAO in a position to make the long overdue changes to the current procedures are too far removed from day to day ops to see how patently silly is an instruction is to maintain F370 or higher to over the top the initial approach fix. That would involve burning anything up to 3000kgs more than planned before you even start descent. I don't know about your company, but my company's fuel policy doesn't frequently leave me with that much for 'mum and the kids' at the end of a long flight. All the current procedure does is further restrict the pilot's options, making life even more difficult in what could be a ticklish situation where he might well be approaching his destination without the latest weather report.

[5milesbaby]

Thanks for all the replies. I have to agree 410 that the Aussie way sounds very much more up to date and practical. On our STAR charts we have printed the standing agreements ie. Expect FL160 Lvl Tiger; it would be very useful for RT failed a/c to still meet these and get down on the ground, and I know from previous chats that some say they would actually do this. This is why I posted the thread due to the ambiguity of how the 'rules' are interpreted.

I would have thought at least a Local Standby would be appropriate in this case Gonzo, because as you said, College taught us there may well be further problems we don't know about. Rest assured MTOW though, if you lose the Squalk AND don't communicate, and then try a procedural approach, it will definately be considered a full emergency, and every man and his dog will be following your progress both in the tower and on radar, including D&D.

Also, to add to the 'outside CAS climb', I would highly agree with any pilot who used his own initiative and didn't do this in the area I do, and further west, as most of it is Danger Areas, normally highly active with either lots of high speed dogfights, or live firing. Although we would phone the agency to cancel immediately all activity, this still can take some precious moments to find the right one, normally being a phone number, we only have a few 'direct dial' buttons.

And just a pedantic question for you to try and answer, in UK airspace,how do you climb outside CAS to your flight planned FL, when that level is above FL245? (to aid those not familiar, its all Class B within the entire FIR)

[MTOW]

Gonzo, could I suggest that you, as an ATCO, post a draft submission here on what you'd like to see replace the existing mess? If you did, I'm sure there'd be a few suggestions from the pilot fraternity offering variations.

I'd just like to see something in print that reflects what we'd actually like to do - and what you guys on the ground would like us to do.

(Something like this, by the way, is what Pprune used to be all about and should still be all about, rather than the slanging match it's become on all too many threads.)

[m&v]

In view of the fact that the radar vector handoff fix is situ downwind,discussions with the terminal people feel they would appreciate a 76 squark? and you square off the approach and intercept,rather than have you go the approach fix/beacon and start all over again!!

[410]

m&v, I think we all agree that that's exactly what both we as pilots and you as ATCOs would prefer be done to minimise the grief a no comms aircraft is going to cause everyone in a busy terminal area.

So why doesn't someone try to get the standard Emergency Procedures changed to reflect that? I approached the Australian authorities in 1985 with that argument and they saw the sense in it and changed their procedures, (which amazed me at the time). I tried the same thing last year in my current location and was told it was impossible and that ICAO is happy with the current procedures. I'm not, and it would appear quite a few others out there aren't either.

The chances of most modern aircraft suffering a total radio failure must be one in ten million or so. But the incident that triggered this thread proves that it can happen, (and as someone else said, you can be sure if it does happen, it will be at the worst possible time). Like offset tracking, is this yet another case where someone will have to die, or get a very bad fright (or very bad publicity) before the bureaucrats get their bums into gear and do something about it?

[Gonzo]

MTOW,

I'm flattered by what you say, but as I only work in the tower, I'm afraid I'm not as au-fait with the existing procedures/expectations/things to consider than some of my radar colleagues would be. I'd hazard a quess that they'd be better suited to tackle this! We get the easy bit; "Get airfield ops to send a Leader vehicle out!" is (hopefully) more or less our intput.

From a general ATC view, I'd agree that the sooner the RT fail gets on the ground, then the better for everybody, and the existing bumph in the AIP doesn't really help in that regard.

Gonzo

[kennedy]

Interesting topic

I fly a Turbo prop puddle jumper out of BHX and have never understood the radio failure rules in the UK, My original licence is very Ozzie, like their system much better.

I will also apologise to all ATC in advance, If I lose comms, 7600 comes down, and I will follow the flight plan route (inc STAR) to the most sensible Approach, on breaking visual visual, I will look for the green light at the tower and land! If it's red 'going round time' back to the hold for 10 minutes and try again.

I hope that the ATC will see the 7600 and clear the airspace, cause a little disruption but I hope that they want me out of their airspace asap.

So far had 3 r/t failures (EGGD, YBBN and YBMC). Got comms back on 2, used my mobile for the third, got a great clearance. thanks guys.

[7x7]

Kennedy, I think your way of attacking the problem, wrong tho' it be if going strictly 'by the book', would be the way everyone 'on the coal face', both tin pushers and tin pushees, would like to see it done. It's pretty well the way I think I'd go about it if faced with a dead tx/rx in a busy terminal area, 'cos it adheres to the best dictum I've ever heard in aviation - when things start going titzup, the best thing to do is sit on your hands and count to ten. (Or in this case, stay on flight plan/profile as much as possible.)

As others have said above, isn't it a shame those who write the procedures can't be made to understand that rules that Blind Freddie can see simply don't work are bad rules which should be amended.

Maybe someone could post the URL for this thread to someone who might be in a position to do something about it? I've seen some authorities now publish phone numbers to contact in case of loss of comms. Be nice to see that introduced world wide - ASAP.

[CaptSensible]

I have in front of me here a copy of the British Airways safety journal 'Flywise' dated November 1999. It contains an article on Communications Failures between Sept 1st 1998 and August 31st 1999 (12 months).
The article states there were a total of 207 reports of comms failure in that period on BA a/c alone!

OK, some of the incidents were not what I'd personally call true comms failures (e.g. ATC advising wrong handover frequency...easily cured by reverting to last freq), but many others were serious failures.

Interestingly ACARS was the cause of 18 'jamming' incidents, of which 6 were on the A320 fleet.

So it's not the remote occurence we'd like to think.

Excellent thread btw. Wouldn't it be great if the powers that be actually listened?

[This message has been edited by CaptSensible (edited 04 July 2001).]

[Code Blue]

reroute:

Canadian AIP (SAR 4.5) describes a radar alerting manoeuvre for a/c in distress or lost and without comms.
a) squawk 7700
b) monitor emergency frequencies
c) fly triangular pattern 2 min legs (if<300K TAS) 120 deg turns: to left if Tx and Rx u/s, to right if Rx operating.

Came up for discussion here recently when a cessna lost all electrics at night and ended up landing the wrong way on an already occupied runway in Quebec.

[reroute]

Thanks code-blue. I was beginning to think I was imagining things !

[scanscanscan]

Yes,
A FAA inspector pilot flew this triangle ( left for none left)and some hours later( right for receiving on 121.5) for several hours as a test in a usa faa radar area in the 1960/1970 period,far as I know he is still awaiting intercept and a follow me aircraft.

------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?