New Comms failure procedures
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Comms failure procedures
The EMERGENCY section of our Jeppesen Text manual has just had a new Radio Comms failure procedure added in section 2. However the 'old' procedure remains published in section 6.
I think the 'new' procedure only refers to RVSM airspace...is that right?
Rather confusing now, having two completely different comms fail procedures. Any thoughts?
I think the 'new' procedure only refers to RVSM airspace...is that right?
Rather confusing now, having two completely different comms fail procedures. Any thoughts?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idunno
Good point. I had this very thought myself over last week. The new ICAO procedure has been published, whereby I take it that this new "seven minutes" procedure is now effective for all European countries since January 24th, replacing all the individual national differences to the previous ICAO guidelines.
But as you say, the new procedure is in place in the Jeppesen Text manual, yet all the national difference procedures are still listed in the EMERG section. I expected these to be deleted with the arrival of the new procs.
Does any one else have any input / knowledge / suggestion as to which one is currect?
Thanks in advance.
Good point. I had this very thought myself over last week. The new ICAO procedure has been published, whereby I take it that this new "seven minutes" procedure is now effective for all European countries since January 24th, replacing all the individual national differences to the previous ICAO guidelines.
But as you say, the new procedure is in place in the Jeppesen Text manual, yet all the national difference procedures are still listed in the EMERG section. I expected these to be deleted with the arrival of the new procs.
Does any one else have any input / knowledge / suggestion as to which one is currect?
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey!
Don't fret none...
Over here, we've a new set of "lost comm" procedures as well.. .It's called "Flaming Wreckage"...
According to the North American Air Defense Command, within minutes of ATC notifying them of a lost comm, or some poor schmuck who just sloshed his or her coffee into the transponder head, causing it to go besirk, you'll be met by a pair of F-16's and if you don't comply you'll be blasted into metallic mist, all in the name of Homeland Security.
Knowing my luck, I'll be IMC, knee deep in the soup with my time comes and I won't even see the poor fellow who pulls the trigger...
All in the name of Homeland Security, of course...
<img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Don't fret none...
Over here, we've a new set of "lost comm" procedures as well.. .It's called "Flaming Wreckage"...
According to the North American Air Defense Command, within minutes of ATC notifying them of a lost comm, or some poor schmuck who just sloshed his or her coffee into the transponder head, causing it to go besirk, you'll be met by a pair of F-16's and if you don't comply you'll be blasted into metallic mist, all in the name of Homeland Security.
Knowing my luck, I'll be IMC, knee deep in the soup with my time comes and I won't even see the poor fellow who pulls the trigger...
All in the name of Homeland Security, of course...
<img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If thats true Red Four, I'm even more confused than I thought. This is just what we need in the current circumstances...two General procedures, multiple specific procedures, and opt outs from individual member states.. .WIHIH???
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't the French and the Swiss sticking to their old procedures as well? My guess is to squawk 7600 and do what the nice man with his finger on the trigger says. Brushed up on your interception procedures lately?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got hold of an AIC the Irish IAA have issued on the subject.. .It says that the new procedure applies to any aircraft in Irish airspace and also any Irish aircraft operating in the airspace of any EU member state.. .So much for opt-outs!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't there some country a long time ago that decided to change the driving from RHS to LHS, and they implemented it by making all busses and lorries changeover on a Friday, followed by cars on Sunday, allowing for a smooth changeover by Monday.
Maybe the same logic is being used here, in the Changeover committee.
Still confused, and hoping I don't spill the coffee over the coming weeks.
Jazz.
Maybe the same logic is being used here, in the Changeover committee.
Still confused, and hoping I don't spill the coffee over the coming weeks.
Jazz.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and Gents. Be realistic, has a total comm's failure happened in recent years? Even in my antiquated RAF machines, I've only come close once in 16 years.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pub User.
Yes it has. My company had one a couple of years ago, from mid sector until arriving LGW. Both comm boxes, and the control head for both transponders, so no 7600 either.
CPB
[ 17 February 2002: Message edited by: Capt Pit Bull ]</p>
Yes it has. My company had one a couple of years ago, from mid sector until arriving LGW. Both comm boxes, and the control head for both transponders, so no 7600 either.
CPB
[ 17 February 2002: Message edited by: Capt Pit Bull ]</p>
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody hell, I sit corrected. What type was it? Presumably it was a common part that brought about the multiple failure. And I thought only the military messed around with such dodgy hardware!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correction to my last post. U.K. intends to adopt the new procedures, once the implications of the change are fully understood. To achieve this, a working group has been set up which is intended to report it's findings on 1st June 2002, after which a final decision will be made whether to adopt the new procedures within U.K. or not.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"And I thought only the military messed around with such dodgy hardware!"
No such luck. There have been a number of cases, for example, on 747-400's. Some related to newly introduced/designed Radio Control Panels.
All VHF/HF comms go via a single AMU (Audio Management Unit) on the 747-400. However, this box has different internal circuits/power supplies for each crew member (for redundancy). Even so, some airlines have gone a step further and have had a switch installed on the pedestal which allows a direct feed from the Captain's microphone to the #1 VHF Transceiver (bypassing the digital magic/confusion of the AMU).
Rgds.. .Q.
No such luck. There have been a number of cases, for example, on 747-400's. Some related to newly introduced/designed Radio Control Panels.
All VHF/HF comms go via a single AMU (Audio Management Unit) on the 747-400. However, this box has different internal circuits/power supplies for each crew member (for redundancy). Even so, some airlines have gone a step further and have had a switch installed on the pedestal which allows a direct feed from the Captain's microphone to the #1 VHF Transceiver (bypassing the digital magic/confusion of the AMU).
Rgds.. .Q.
