PilotEdge Forums

Good day, folks!

I would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by a situation I had while flying online today and at the same time to seek an opinion of whether I made the right thing under the circumstances:

I (N217S) was on an IFR flight from KAVX to KSAN, on a downwind vector assigned by the APP controller for the LOC 27 approach into KSAN at 5000 ft. At sometime during that leg I realized there were no more voice COMMs on my main radio; I tried calling the APP controller several times: no response; I tried calling KSAN_TWR on my second radio: no response; I also tried several calls on guard frequency with no response. I was still connected to the network and the live map showed activity (including my a/c), so it wan't a global network issue. Reconnecting to the network didn't solve the problem.

So what I did was: I set sq 7600, maintained the assigned heading and altitude for as long as safe: until approx 27 DME on the localizer. When realizing I'll be unable to restore the comms, and there was a risk of flying into the rising terrain, I just turned for a short base and then onto the final course of the 27 LOC approach that I was told to expect and flew it as published, landing and taxiing-in to the ramp without re-establishing comms.

Eventually fully restarting the sim (X-Plane) solved the issue, but by that time the ATC service was split between 2 controllers: the new gnd/twr controller hadn't witnessed the end of my flight and the CTR/APP controller who served me until loosing comms sounded too busy to take it with him online. That's why I'm writing here: hopefully I didn't cause too much trouble for the rest of the traffic and too much ATC frustration. Sorry if I did.

1) Has someone experienced this issue when using the PE client with X-Plane? Is there anyway to prevent re-occurence? It's the first time it happens to me in approx 10 days of daily flying.
2) Did I do the right thing under the circumstances: from PE ethical point (probably I should have just disconnected?) and from RW practical aviation point?

Thanks!

Svilen

If it were VFR I would have 7600 and shot a visual approach.
If IFR, I would have 7600, climbed to the LOC27 MSA altitude, headed to an IAF and shot the approach.

2) I wouldnt disconnect. This can happen in real world and therefore- simulate the 7600 and practice it now so you know what to do in RW.

Kyle.Sanders wrote:If it were VFR I would have 7600 and shot a visual approach.

If you were VFR, you should not do that.

VFR with bad radios should just land at an uncontrolled airport. You certainly don't want to fly to a Bravo airport without radios if you're VFR.

You did just fine procedurally. I was nervous for you as you approached the mountains as there was nothing I could do for you. Unfortunately, your I-8 test was incomplete but you will get it next time.

Thanks a lot for the feedback, guys!

Kyle.Sanders wrote: If IFR, I would have 7600, climbed to the LOC27 MSA altitude, headed to an IAF and shot the approach.

Yeah, climbing to the MSA is a very valid point, I should have probably done that. The time for thinking was rather short, the idea of going to an IAF actually crossed my mind, but in this particular situation for this particular approach as a /A I couldn't go to LYNDI (no advanced RNAV) and going to the other IAF: RYAHH would have turned me north: away from the airport and from the LOC and I would have to maneuver to establish on the radial, which would have been probably unlogical and difficult for the ATC to predict and work around. I also considered holding somewhere, but the only published hold on that app plate is the missed app hold at SARGS and to get there I would need to turn back and criss-cross the entire APP vectoring area, most likely causing huge dismay and incovenience for ATC. With only a couple of minutes to make a choice turning base and then final seemed the most logical thing to do without completely destroying the airport ops. In retrospect I do regret not thinking about the MSA climb though, and then descending safely once established on the LOC and closer to the airport (further away from the terrain).

Marcus Becker wrote:You did just fine procedurally. I was nervous for you as you approached the mountains as there was nothing I could do for you. Unfortunately, your I-8 test was incomplete but you will get it next time.

Thanks, Marcus! I was quite nervous myself, although I was spared the look of the mountains from the cloud layers below and around me. I knew they were coming though, with the Mexican border also not far away along that track I should have probably made the turn earlier, but wasn't sure and spent time pondering. When I went past 25-26 DME on the LOC I also got scared that I'll lose the LOC signal, which expedited the decision to turn and join inbound. Also I thought, that as I had been squawking 7600 for 1-2 minutes prior to that, this would have hopefully given the ATC enough time to reorganize the arrival flow to accommodate my "deviation", No regrets about the I-8, this was a nice unusual experience/practice and I also rehearsed flying the descent steps on the LOC correctly, so we'll just wing it next time

For reference: here's the PEAware record of the track: http://peaware.pilotedge.net/flight.cfm?id=132967

Marcus Becker wrote:

Kyle.Sanders wrote:If it were VFR I would have 7600 and shot a visual approach.

If you were VFR, you should not do that.

VFR with bad radios should just land at an uncontrolled airport. You certainly don't want to fly to a Bravo airport without radios if you're VFR.

I meant if weather was VFR. Not the flight. I should have said "if VMC".

Marcus Becker wrote:

Kyle.Sanders wrote:If it were VFR I would have 7600 and shot a visual approach.

If you were VFR, you should not do that.

VFR with bad radios should just land at an uncontrolled airport. You certainly don't want to fly to a Bravo airport without radios if you're VFR.

Is that preferred on PilotEdge? I can see that making sense on the online network, but IRL situations, it may be advantageous and safer to land at a towered field.

I agree with Asad. At least at a towered field, you can get help with tower sequencing around you.

What type of airplane were you flying and is there a chance there was a low voltage situation? Did the plane have alternators or generators, and were they functioning and engaged? The X-Plane plugin monitors bus voltage to the radios. If it drops below a certain threshold, your comms will die.

The fact that you reconnected and still had the issue tells me this was the potential cause.

If you lose comms in IMC, continue to the original destination. If you reach visual conditions at any point, the regulations state that you should land at the nearest praticable field. It doesn't provide any guidance over towered vs non-towered afaik.

Hello Keith, thanks for the feedback.

I was flying the Carenado model of the BE33 Bonanza, enhanced with the Simcoders Reality Expansion Pack.

The plane does have an alternator that was engaged after the engine start and voltage was OK during the pre-takeoff checks. It didn't occur to me to actually check the electrical system after experiencing the lost comms issue: probably because the radio panels themselves were still lit and functioning, it's just that the audio was missing; also lights and later on flaps and gear operated normally. But now that you mention it, the expansion pack that I linked does add a/c persistence and non-random, pilot induced system failures due to improper handling and manipulation, and for example I'm guilty of shutting down the engine at least twice prior to that flight with the avionics switch still on, which could have caused damage (this bit is even documented in the Reality Pack manual). I could have also probably recycled the avionics switch after experiencing the issue, didn't think of it at the time. Anyway I'll watch out for this issue in the future and will be better prepared of what to check and try should it reoccur.

I was IMC, didn't break out of the clouds until at around 5-6 miles final to KSAN, and at that time it would probably make no sense to initiate a diversion to one of the nearby smaller fields.