RT Failure - do you know what to do?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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)
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)
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.)
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.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
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?
