UK lost comms question to ATC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK lost comms question to ATC
I'm a pilot and also teach Groundschool and in the Sim ( Corporate )
We carry a laminated Jeppesen lost comms page in our cockpits but it's complicated and the majority of crews would not know what to do.
Example : If we took off from a London airport and had a comms failure on a step climb SID would you deem it acceptable to SQ 7600 and route to nearest VOR / NDB , join published holding pattern while crew try and contact ATC , Ops, handling agent by Sat phone ?
Thanks in advance for any guidance, comments.
We carry a laminated Jeppesen lost comms page in our cockpits but it's complicated and the majority of crews would not know what to do.
Example : If we took off from a London airport and had a comms failure on a step climb SID would you deem it acceptable to SQ 7600 and route to nearest VOR / NDB , join published holding pattern while crew try and contact ATC , Ops, handling agent by Sat phone ?
Thanks in advance for any guidance, comments.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Up North
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely not. I would expect the pilot to do the following.
if the failure occurs when the aircraft is following a notified departure procedure such as a SID and clearance to climb, or re-routeing instructions have not been given, the procedure should be flown
in accordance with the published lateral track and vertical profile, including any stepped climbs, until the last position, fix, or waypoint, published for the procedure has been reached. Then for that part
of the 7 minutes that may remain, maintain current speed and last assigned level or minimum safe altitude, if this is higher;
c) thereafter, adjust the speed and level in accordance with the current flight plan and continue the flight to the appropriate designated landing aid serving the destination aerodrome. Attempt to transmit position reports and altitude/flight level on the appropriate frequency when over routine reporting points;
in accordance with the published lateral track and vertical profile, including any stepped climbs, until the last position, fix, or waypoint, published for the procedure has been reached. Then for that part
of the 7 minutes that may remain, maintain current speed and last assigned level or minimum safe altitude, if this is higher;
c) thereafter, adjust the speed and level in accordance with the current flight plan and continue the flight to the appropriate designated landing aid serving the destination aerodrome. Attempt to transmit position reports and altitude/flight level on the appropriate frequency when over routine reporting points;
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you can laugh boys but I have been told something similar by an Eastern European TRE.
His method coming out of Manchester would have had us going through Rosun hold at FL90 going to take up the hold at MAN and going no where near POL.
Although to be honest if I was flight planned from a ickle regional airport down to Gatwick I would be very tempted to not go into London airspace with a radio failure and go somewhere else out the way, out of controlled airspace after doing the 7 min thing with 7600 on or return back to the point of departure.
To be honest that rule is great in theory but sometimes I think there would be a lot easier ways for all concerned better ways to do it. But its very hard to make a rule up which states go somewhere sensible which isn't gong to cause mayhem.
His method coming out of Manchester would have had us going through Rosun hold at FL90 going to take up the hold at MAN and going no where near POL.
Although to be honest if I was flight planned from a ickle regional airport down to Gatwick I would be very tempted to not go into London airspace with a radio failure and go somewhere else out the way, out of controlled airspace after doing the 7 min thing with 7600 on or return back to the point of departure.
To be honest that rule is great in theory but sometimes I think there would be a lot easier ways for all concerned better ways to do it. But its very hard to make a rule up which states go somewhere sensible which isn't gong to cause mayhem.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the London TMA - as long as you are squawking 7600, we would expect the unexpected and clear the way for you whatever you did. It would be nice if every one followed the exact radio fail procedure but experience has taught us that this is unlikely. Fortunately it is an extremely rare occurrence.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know where you coming from but...
I suggest no European reg aircraft is going to do what the rule says to do if their destination is Moscow or other such choice destinations. If it gets them home to destination and a maint base you have a chance. Other than that you might as well have a map and a dart to work out where they will go.
If the rule is being ignored more than its being followed you need a new more realistic rule.
I suggest no European reg aircraft is going to do what the rule says to do if their destination is Moscow or other such choice destinations. If it gets them home to destination and a maint base you have a chance. Other than that you might as well have a map and a dart to work out where they will go.
If the rule is being ignored more than its being followed you need a new more realistic rule.
Last edited by mad_jock; 2nd Nov 2014 at 12:41.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there would be a lot of different outcomes from different people all doing what they think is best and only some of them following the rules. Sometimes the rules may not be very close to hand or obvious either.
Experience says that when going into Biggin from the north we always get vectored towards LAM to leave on a heading (normally 180 or so). There are special lost comms procedures for Biggin however, which would probably create much more workload for us doing something different and probably be unusual for ATC too. I know a lot of people would lose the radio (assuming already in London airspace at the time) and just go direct LAM as usual to leave on 180 and do the ILS.
New rules would probably be good but it's one of those things which a blanket rule won't really work IMO.
Experience says that when going into Biggin from the north we always get vectored towards LAM to leave on a heading (normally 180 or so). There are special lost comms procedures for Biggin however, which would probably create much more workload for us doing something different and probably be unusual for ATC too. I know a lot of people would lose the radio (assuming already in London airspace at the time) and just go direct LAM as usual to leave on 180 and do the ILS.
New rules would probably be good but it's one of those things which a blanket rule won't really work IMO.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Completely unofficially I would mention that it is highly likely that someone on board would have a cell phone or similar device; and although this method might be totally inappropriate for normal ATC communications it would serve to open up a channel for some basic information exchange.
2. A recent one-off unofficial trial for data gathering was carried out on our unit with an airline with whom we have an excellent liaison process......in the event that no other method of communication was available it was possible to send an abbreviated message limited to 8 characters via the transponder mode S a/c call-sign identifier input. [This would only be of use within an area/unit that had the necessary equipment.]
2. A recent one-off unofficial trial for data gathering was carried out on our unit with an airline with whom we have an excellent liaison process......in the event that no other method of communication was available it was possible to send an abbreviated message limited to 8 characters via the transponder mode S a/c call-sign identifier input. [This would only be of use within an area/unit that had the necessary equipment.]
Question doubtless inspired by last week's events with an An24 getting escorted into Stansted, apparently having lost comms.
It does appear that they had a flight plan from provincial France to Birmingham, this routed overhead London at altitude. They are a regular on this route. They had no issue in France (given the French did not intercept them). They were following the flight plan. They were transponding correctly at assigned altitude and track; this we know because their flight track is even picked up quite OK on amateur FlightRadar 24, right through to Stansted.
And yet the first assumption is that they are a terrorist mob going to make an attack on somewhere. This on a dark evening when the cloudbase is down to a few hundred feet and London City is experiencing many go arounds due to weather. Presumably they were all (Antonov and fighters) IMC.
It does appear that they had a flight plan from provincial France to Birmingham, this routed overhead London at altitude. They are a regular on this route. They had no issue in France (given the French did not intercept them). They were following the flight plan. They were transponding correctly at assigned altitude and track; this we know because their flight track is even picked up quite OK on amateur FlightRadar 24, right through to Stansted.
And yet the first assumption is that they are a terrorist mob going to make an attack on somewhere. This on a dark evening when the cloudbase is down to a few hundred feet and London City is experiencing many go arounds due to weather. Presumably they were all (Antonov and fighters) IMC.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM
Agree with much f what you say, however it falls down here:
It is not unknown for French ATC to bandbox sectors and lose aircraft on frequency in doing so. It is also not unknown for them not to give a fig about a lost comms aircraft if its observed track is taking it away from French airspace. It is also not unknown for them not to mention any of this to UK ATC who are then faced with a situation with less intelligence data than they could have even though, as you say, it was a regular flight following its filed route.
Overkill by the military? Most definitely, but then again what else can they do given the history of 9/11 and the profile of the flights that were hijacked then?
Agree with much f what you say, however it falls down here:
They had no issue in France (given the French did not intercept them)
Overkill by the military? Most definitely, but then again what else can they do given the history of 9/11 and the profile of the flights that were hijacked then?
