Would some more of you ATC Gentlefolk like to add your comments to those of your colleagues on this thread in the CRM forum?

Have just read the thread that this link refers to, what a great subject and huge can of worms this is.

My two main thoughts on the matter are;

1) Anything is better than the terrible procedures we had before!

2) I'm still hoping that most modern aircraft will be able to establish comms in another way if the worst happens.

But my opinion on the matter (as an Area ATCO) was similar to what GWH mentioned.

As I do the "Westend" sectors i'll substitute LAM for OCK if I may.
If you were cruising down L9 (G1 for you oldies like me!) at, say FL330, and were being vectored when your failure occured I would expect you to stay on the heading for 3 minutes before returning to the flight planned route (or that route that was given on first contact)
The last time I looked at the OCK STAR (many moons ago!) it mentioned a "published descent planning profile" which in this case is FL140 40 DME OCK. So I would expect you to maintain FL330 for 7 mins before descending to achieve that level.
What you do then becomes hazier to me (speak up TC boys!) but logic would dictate maintain FL140 until entering the OCK hold and then commence descent at not less than 500fpm to min stack level.

One final word of advice

Take your mobile phone with you!!!!!

As with the stats on engine failures in multis, I think you may be assuming independence where that is not justified.

I had an interesting one crossing from Duesseldorf to Amsterdam FIRs the other week in a light twin. On initial contact Amsterdam reported that I was carrier wave only. Naturally I switched boxes, only to find that I was carrier wave only on that box too. I went back to Langen -- no joy.

I was just about to try a different headset when I noticed the TX (or was it RX) indication on the GNS430 was continuously on when there clearly wasn't any transmission audible. So I switched off the GNS430, and all became normal again on COM2. When I powered it back up, there was no further problem with the GNS430, but it seemed to get itself into a mode where it was not only unusable but also interfered with the other box. I didn't get the handheld VHF out, so I don't know if that would have been affected too.

So I agree genuine comms failures are rare, but they are worth planning for.

Mike

I think you are right that it has been a long time since there has been a complete R/T fail of a large aircraft in the UK, however there have been a couple of fairly recent incidents of partial/intermittent failure (one at KK and one at SS). Even though we have HF and ACARS onboard, it can take a while just to find a useful frequency/address and in the meantime we have to do something on the flightdeck!

The new procedures are considerably better than the old ones and provide a good fall-back position whilst the crew attempt to establish another form of communication. I suppose different crews will interpret them differently, so I guess it falls on ATC to be vigilant for the unexpected!

You'all take care out there now!

G W-H