RT Failure - do you know what to do?
Guest
Posts: n/a
RT Failure - do you know what to do?
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?.
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?.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 (190kb)
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).]
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 (190kb)
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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??
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??
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.