Help a US Controller Understand RAS...

[Say Again, Over!]

Drum roll.....

I got it!

Thanks for the clarification gentlemen. I guess the difference would be, here in Canada, that you cannot operate in IMC without some kind of a clearance, or, to be more precise, a valid clearance limit in the event of lost comms.

What would be the procedures for someone on an RAS after a radio failure? Try to return to VMC? Or is a clearance limit issued as part of the RAS?

Thanks again,

SAO

[bookworm]

What would be the procedures for someone on an RAS after a radio failure? Try to return to VMC? Or is a clearance limit issued as part of the RAS?

Enroute in class G, no clearance is required or issued. Any instructions are advisory in nature. Unlike an IFR flight in controlled airspace, where a comms failure contingency plan is required so that ATC can continue to provide separation, the IFR flight outside controlled airspace can do what it likes anyway as no separation is guaranteed. The pilot will take whatever action necessary to make a safe landing from a terrain- and obstacle-avoidance point of view.

In most circumstances, the pilot is likely to try to return to and maintain VMC. If that is not possible, continuing in accordance with the original FPL and executing an IAP outside controlled airspace is the likely choice.

If the flight planned to enter controlled airspace before landing, all bets are off. In principle, the comms failure procedures allow the pilot in IMC to continue in accordance with the flight plan (if one has been filed) even if that means entering controlled airspace. In practice, I think most pilots would avoid that if at all possible.

[Say Again, Over!]

Thanks bookworm! Understood.

SAO