Departing IFR, unable to contact departure, TFR ahead, RWY heading

[GolfChuck]

In a true lost comms I would fly to TTT and begin the JPOOL4, assuming of course that I am IMC

Regarding the obstruction as mentioned above, I don't see the similarity. Regardless of clearance I will never be cleared to fly through an obstruction, i could be cleared through a TFR

You've never been put on a heading that, if you went nordo and continued ad infinitum that your flight would never be in danger? What if you ran out of fuel?


From the AIM:

6-4-1. Two‐way Radio Communications Failure
a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations associated with two‐way radio communications failure. During two‐way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action contained in 14 CFR Section 91.3(b).
b. Whether two‐way communications failure constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances, and in any event, it is a determination made by the pilot. 14 CFR Section 91.3(b) authorizes a pilot to deviate from any rule in Subparts A and B to the extent required to meet an emergency.
c. In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185 quoted below:
1. General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two‐way radio communications failure when operating under IFR must comply with the rules of this section.
2. VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot must continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.
NOTE-
This procedure also applies when two‐way radio failure occurs while operating in Class A airspace. The primary objective of this provision in 14 CFR Section 91.185 is to preclude extended IFR operation by these aircraft within the ATC system. Pilots should recognize that operation under these conditions may unnecessarily as well as adversely affect other users of the airspace, since ATC may be required to reroute or delay other users in order to protect the failure aircraft. However, it is not intended that the requirement to “land as soon as practicable” be construed to mean “as soon as possible.” Pilots retain the prerogative of exercising their best judgment and are not required to land at an unauthorized airport, at an airport unsuitable for the type of aircraft flown, or to land only minutes short of their intended destination.
3. IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if subparagraph 2 above cannot be complied with, each pilot must continue the flight according to the following:
(a) Route.
(1) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(2) If being radar vectored, by the direct route from the point of radio failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance;
(3) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance; or
(4) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance by the route filed in the flight plan.
(b) Altitude. At the HIGHEST of the following altitudes or flight levels FOR THE ROUTE SEGMENT BEING FLOWN:
(1) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;
(2) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or
(3) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.

It may be ATCs job to keep you clear of airspace and obstructions, but that does not mean that you won't be directed in the direction of a mountain, active warning area, or TFR with the intention of being turned before violation of physics or airspace occur.

 

[Ajax]

You've never been put on a heading that, if you went nordo and continued ad infinitum that your flight would never be in danger? What if you ran out of fuel?

I'm well aware of the nordo procedures. Which is why I said that if I couldn't establish comms I would proceed as assigned. I don't see why you feel you must quote in the AIM, if you want to insult my understanding just do it in a more direct manner.

In the OP I described a scenario and proposed a what if accordingly. More or less, the real topic at hand was discussing whether or not the RWY heading to 2000ft constitutes a clearance through the TFR. No need to take something so far as to insinuate that I would maintain heading throughout the flight. Silly, actually.

 

[GolfChuck]

I'm not trying to insult anyone. I am not familiar with this particular TFR, but I do know that contact with ATC is a requirement to enter the TFRs that do allow for aircraft to enter. You can't get violated for following the FARs. You can get F-15s scrambled on you for violating a TFR without contact with ATC, and that would have to be reported to the DEN.

 

[TripSix]

I'm well aware of the nordo procedures. Which is why I said that if I couldn't establish comms I would proceed as assigned. I don't see why you feel you must quote in the AIM, if you want to insult my understanding just do it in a more direct manner.

In the OP I described a scenario and proposed a what if accordingly. More or less, the real topic at hand was discussing whether or not the RWY heading to 2000ft constitutes a clearance through the TFR. No need to take something so far as to insinuate that I would maintain heading throughout the flight. Silly, actually.

The instruction is a clearance, and it authorizes penetration of the TFR. In the past, when pilots have deviated from that clearance (for the sole purpose of avoiding the TFR) it has resulted in a pilot deviation - as a self initiated turn puts the aircraft in too close of a proximity to other aircraft.

YMMV...

P.S. If you would rather not be "shot down the pipe" - advise ADS tower that you would like the standard instrument departure (LT 050, maintain 2000), as the runway heading is a coordinated agreement to expedite aircraft out of the metroplex.

 

[Ajax]

The instruction is a clearance, and it authorizes penetration of the TFR. In the past, when pilots have deviated from that clearance (for the sole purpose of avoiding the TFR) it has resulted in a pilot deviation - as a self initiated turn puts the aircraft in too close of a proximity to other aircraft.

YMMV...

P.S. If you would rather not be "shot down the pipe" - advise ADS tower that you would like the standard instrument departure (LT 050, maintain 2000), as the runway heading is a coordinated agreement to expedite aircraft out of the metroplex.

Excellent, thank you. That was my understanding as well...never thought to ask tower about a different departure heading. I will note that for next time.

 

[GolfChuck]

The instruction is a clearance, and it authorizes penetration of the TFR. In the past, when pilots have deviated from that clearance (for the sole purpose of avoiding the TFR) it has resulted in a pilot deviation - as a self initiated turn puts the aircraft in too close of a proximity to other aircraft.

YMMV...

P.S. If you would rather not be "shot down the pipe" - advise ADS tower that you would like the standard instrument departure (LT 050, maintain 2000), as the runway heading is a coordinated agreement to expedite aircraft out of the metroplex.

I am sorry, but I don't see being given a heading as a clearance through a TFR unless that is explicitly stated. In the situation listed by the OP, assuming his radio went dead and IFR conditions the proper procedure is to squak 7600 and turn to the first fix of the departure route, not continue on the heading. The FARs spell that out pretty clearly. At my local airport, if I go nordo after departure and continue on rwy heading in certain configurations I am sure to penetrate class B. No way I am knowingly doing that unless my cleared routing has me cleared into the Bravo. It is up to the controller to recognize the nordo situation and clear other aircraft out of the way. In this exact situation, if I am visual and it is just approach not answering, I switch back to tower and advise them I can't raise approach and that I will turn while maintaining visual to avoid the TFR I know I am about to violate.

 

[FM_Weasel]

Why would you worry about entering class B airspace on an IFR clearance?

In a true lost comms I would fly to TTT and begin the JPOOL4, assuming of course that I am IMC

Reading this gave me chills. Hope Regional Approach is on their A-game because you're heading straight for DFW airport.

 

[TripSix]

I am sorry, but I don't see being given a heading as a clearance through a TFR unless that is explicitly stated. In the situation listed by the OP, assuming his radio went dead and IFR conditions the proper procedure is to squak 7600 and turn to the first fix of the departure route, not continue on the heading. The FARs spell that out pretty clearly. At my local airport, if I go nordo after departure and continue on rwy heading in certain configurations I am sure to penetrate class B. No way I am knowingly doing that unless my cleared routing has me cleared into the Bravo. It is up to the controller to recognize the nordo situation and clear other aircraft out of the way. In this exact situation, if I am visual and it is just approach not answering, I switch back to tower and advise them I can't raise approach and that I will turn while maintaining visual to avoid the TFR I know I am about to violate.

NOTAM #9/2934

The airspace within this area has been classified as "National Defense Airspace" and pilots are not allowed to fly within this area up to 1,500 feet AGL if they do not have authorization from ATC.

The OP's radios weren't dead, and he wasn't in IMC. The OP inquired about deviating around this TFR when his IFR clearance included "fly runway heading, maintain 2,000."

That is authorization. So is being cleared for an ILS/LOC/GPS/RNAV approach to RWY 33 - because they all take you right through it.

Hell, "resume your own navigation straight in, RWY 33" is authorization.

Deviating from a clearance, citing the TFR as the sole reason, ends bad - and that's all I was attempting to get across.

I'm not talking about being in IMC (he wasn't), I'm not talking about being NORDO (he wasn't). I'm specifically referencing the "oh, there is a TFR here. Imma turn...right into the DAL finals..." while deviating a clearance to do so. (NOT saying the OP did that, or thought to do that, or would ever do that - but people have.) It ends badly.

 

[GolfChuck]

TripSix I am sorry but my understanding of the original point of the thread was, "What if I hadn't made contact with departure?" Obviously, under normal circumstances you abide by your clearance, but that is not what the OP was asking. It sounds like this TFR is a routine occurrence at this airport, but if it wasn't, or I was unfamiliar with the field, I would probably still confirm with the controller. From that side of the mic I hate being questioned too, but the pilot is the one ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight, the questions I get usually involve aircraft wanting to know why they have to descend and don't take "due to traffic" as an acceptable answer.

 

[Ajax]

My real question, as poorly constructed as it was, was does the RWY heading to 2k constitute clearance through the TFR. My understanding is that it does, and I told my student that. I wanted verification in the event that I was wrong so that not only do I learn but that I can relay to my student that what I said was incorrect.

 

[Ajax]

Why would you worry about entering class B airspace on an IFR clearance?



Reading this gave me chills. Hope Regional Approach is on their A-game because you're heading straight for DFW airport.

Boy do I understand that, but in a true IMC nordo situation, with that being my clearance what other options do I have short of declaring and causing another Charlie Foxtrot everywhere I went

 

[GolfChuck]

Why would you worry about entering class B airspace on an IFR clearance?

You wouldn't, if your IFR clearance put you into the Bravo. But, say your cleared route clearance had you turn at some point prior to the Bravo, but you went nordo having only been cleared to fly runway heading. At the point you realize you're nordo, you should turn to the next fix on your route clearance-- as per the regs-- not continue on a heading into a TFR, which was probably never ATCs intention to begin with. If you don't realize you are nordo prior to the TFR, you probably won't get violated, but being assigned a heading that takes you through ATC assigned airspace does not constitute a clearance into ATC assigned airspace. I meant no offense to Ajax BU, I quoted the AIM as a way to cite my source. I have yet to see anyone show me the rule or reg which states that a simple heading constitutes a clearance into ATCAA without explicitly saying so.

 

[TripSix]

TripSix I am sorry but my understanding of the original point of the thread was, "What if I hadn't made contact with departure?" Obviously, under normal circumstances you abide by your clearance, but that is not what the OP was asking. It sounds like this TFR is a routine occurrence at this airport, but if it wasn't, or I was unfamiliar with the field, I would probably still confirm with the controller. From that side of the mic I hate being questioned too, but the pilot is the one ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight, the questions I get usually involve aircraft wanting to know why they have to descend and don't take "due to traffic" as an acceptable answer.

Gotcha. Do I fly around the TFR and What if I go NORDO are two different things - and I was just trying to keep them distinct

 

[FM_Weasel]

I have yet to see anyone show me the rule or reg which states that a simple heading constitutes a clearance into ATCAA without explicitly saying so.

I thought that was more of a concern for VFR pilots on an ATC issued vector, but I'm not instrument rated so I don't know how it specifically affects IFRs.

 

[TripSix]

You wouldn't, if your IFR clearance put you into the Bravo. But, say your cleared route clearance had you turn at some point prior to the Bravo, but you went nordo having only been cleared to fly runway heading. At the point you realize you're nordo, you should turn to the next fix on your route clearance-- as per the regs-- not continue on a heading into a TFR, which was probably never ATCs intention to begin with. If you don't realize you are nordo prior to the TFR, you probably won't get violated, but being assigned a heading that takes you through ATC assigned airspace does not constitute a clearance into ATC assigned airspace. I meant no offense to Ajax BU, I quoted the AIM as a way to cite my source. I have yet to see anyone show me the rule or reg which states that a simple heading constitutes a clearance into ATCAA without explicitly saying so.

In this example, at this airport, with this TFR - that heading/altitude (which goes through the TFR) is EXACTLY the intent.

I wouldn't bet the AIM, that is not regulatory, against the local FSDO - when debating whether to turn away from this TFR when you've been given a heading/altitude/approach clearance that puts you through it.

Again, not referring to anything to do with lost com - as there are procedures (and the applicable protection) in place for that. Solely referring to the "should I turn?" part.

 

[GolfChuck]

In this example, at this airport, with this TFR - that heading/altitude (which goes through the TFR) is EXACTLY the intent.

I wouldn't bet the AIM, that is not regulatory, against the local FSDO - when debating whether to turn away from this TFR when you've been given a heading/altitude/approach clearance that puts you through it.

Again, not referring to anything to do with lost com - as there are procedures (and the applicable protection) in place for that. Solely referring to the "should I turn?" part.

I am not disputing the fact that while operating on an ATC clearance one is authorized to operate in a TFR. That being said, as a PIC responsible for a flight, if I went nordo in this situation, in actual IMC, I would turn direct TTT, and may do so earlier than under normal circumstances, knowing that the TFR is there.

I may have quoted the AIM, but the AIM quoted FAR 91.185 (regulatory). In my opinion, I don't think flight standards would violate a pilot for taking the appropriate lost com procedures, whether the aircraft violated the TFR or not. If I were NOT nordo, I would abide by the ATC clearance, but that is not what Ajax asked.

If we weren't able to get ahold of departure our assigned heading would have put us inside the TFR. However, if we would have veered off course to clear the TFR we would have deviated from our clearance. My student asked me what I would have done if I wasn't able to get in contact with departure and I told him that I would have maintained my last assigned heading and altitude until given further clearance.

Is this correct, and what is your opinion on this? I want to make sure that if this ever happens I do (and teach) the safest and best course of action.

My specific response to this is that no, this is not correct. If you are not in contact with anyone, how will you receive further clearance? At some point, lost coms procedures should be implemented and you should continue on the route you were cleared, not maintain runway heading (if IMC) or just remain VFR in the pattern and land (if VMC). That is my opinion of what the best course of action would be to take. I am trying to learn as well, not be confrontational. I have consulted several of my colleagues and they are in agreement. Hope this clarifies things.

 

[TripSix]

I am not disputing the fact that while operating on an ATC clearance one is authorized to operate in a TFR. That being said, as a PIC responsible for a flight, if I went nordo in this situation, in actual IMC, I would turn direct TTT, and may do so earlier than under normal circumstances, knowing that the TFR is there.

I may have quoted the AIM, but the AIM quoted FAR 91.185 (regulatory). In my opinion, I don't think flight standards would violate a pilot for taking the appropriate lost com procedures, whether the aircraft violated the TFR or not. If I were NOT nordo, I would abide by the ATC clearance, but that is not what Ajax asked.



My specific response to this is that no, this is not correct. If you are not in contact with anyone, how will you receive further clearance? At some point, lost coms procedures should be implemented and you should continue on the route you were cleared, not maintain runway heading (if IMC) or just remain VFR in the pattern and land (if VMC). That is my opinion of what the best course of action would be to take. I am trying to learn as well, not be confrontational. I have consulted several of my colleagues and they are in agreement. Hope this clarifies things.

Understood. However, in the case the aircraft would be IMC from surface to 4,000 (thus, running ILS approaches into DAL) it is highly likely that the aircraft would not have been given that departure (RWY heading, 2,000) anyway - as that's a really crappy place to have to protect for a NORDO when they cannot maintain VFR and return to the airport and land.

 

[GolfChuck]

Understood. However, in the case the aircraft would be IMC from surface to 4,000 (thus, running ILS approaches into DAL) it is highly likely that the aircraft would not have been given that departure (RWY heading, 2,000) anyway - as that's a really crappy place to have to protect for a NORDO when they cannot maintain VFR and return to the airport and land.

I would imagine that in actual, adjacent runway procedures would have to apply somehow, however I have only a basic knowledge of that because I have no adjacent runways to deal with. Definitely not a good situation to be in, that is for sure.

 

[Ajax]

My specific response to this is that no, this is not correct. If you are not in contact with anyone, how will you receive further clearance? At some point, lost coms procedures should be implemented and you should continue on the route you were cleared, not maintain runway heading (if IMC) or just remain VFR in the pattern and land (if VMC). That is my opinion of what the best course of action would be to take. I am trying to learn as well, not be confrontational. I have consulted several of my colleagues and they are in agreement. Hope this clarifies things.

Valid points, I guess it kind of turns into a question of what constitutes a lost comm situation.

I did a quick foreflight measure of it, so of course it may not be terribly accurate, however it is somewhat usable. The measurement showed 4.0 nm from the center of the airport and 3.3 nm from departure end as charted. Assuming a ground speed of 80kts that puts you inside the TFR at 3minutes and 2:15 min accordingly. Honestly, I think given the proximity I would have been cleared into it if the situation arose, if it were a case of 10-15nm then it is a much different scenario.

The times until you enter the TFR would fluctuate dramatically--a 2,000ft climb happens quickly and the plane would then speed up. Also, the time from TWR handoff to departure contact can lower your effective time to try to reach departure before entering the TFR. I only put those in there as a means of reference.

I understand that you aren't trying to be confrontational, I wanted a dialogue about this, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it here.

I think issues like this are fascinating, personally. As you have talked to your colleagues, so have I and mine are somewhat split down the middle.. Two DPEs agreed with me, my boss agreed with you, a freight dog disagreed with me but later agreed after hearing my justification, and a controller friend of mine agreed with me.

 

[GolfChuck]

Valid points, I guess it kind of turns into a question of what constitutes a lost comm situation.

I did a quick foreflight measure of it, so of course it may not be terribly accurate, however it is somewhat usable. The measurement showed 4.0 nm from the center of the airport and 3.3 nm from departure end as charted. Assuming a ground speed of 80kts that puts you inside the TFR at 3minutes and 2:15 min accordingly. Honestly, I think given the proximity I would have been cleared into it if the situation arose, if it were a case of 10-15nm then it is a much different scenario.

The times until you enter the TFR would fluctuate dramatically--a 2,000ft climb happens quickly and the plane would then speed up. Also, the time from TWR handoff to departure contact can lower your effective time to try to reach departure before entering the TFR. I only put those in there as a means of reference.

I understand that you aren't trying to be confrontational, I wanted a dialogue about this, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it here.

I think issues like this are fascinating, personally. As you have talked to your colleagues, so have I and mine are somewhat split down the middle.. Two DPEs agreed with me, my boss agreed with you, a freight dog disagreed with me but later agreed after hearing my justification, and a controller friend of mine agreed with me.

I have since went back and looked at the sectional and DP. I guess I didn't make it clear to begin with, but I don't think you would have been violated in either case as long as you could back up your reasoning, which I believe you have. Not knowing the local procedures, I would highly doubt you would ever be vectored to TTT departing rwy 15 from that field, but from what you remembered of the clearance and what the regs say, that is what you should. It sure doesn't leave the controller a lot of time to adapt his/her traffic flow for aircraft landing DAL. If you were given a fix downstream on the DP it might change the whole picture too, for instance "On departure fly runway heading climb and maintain 2000, expect vectors to NELYN JPOOL4.ACT..."