Procedure for failing radio?

[splitter]

I recently flew a mission where my VHF AM radio randomly faulted. What would be the correct way to contact ATC in this case?

[nomdeplume]

There's no in-game procedure for this as far as I know. I don't know what real pilots would do, maybe get someone else to relay for them using one of their other radios? Or maybe there'd be emergency frequencies on different ranges for this kind of thing. But none of that is available in the game.

[Cibit]

Never heard of random radio failures before:huh:

 

your sure of your procedures?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1028737#post1028737 Check this out if your in any doubt:)

[EtherealN]

I don't know what real pilots would do, maybe get someone else to relay for them using one of their other radios? Or maybe there'd be emergency frequencies on different ranges for this kind of thing. But none of that is available in the game.

 

Squawk 7600 if your radio is out. This informs ATC that you are unable to communicate. If only transmission is broken they may try establishing a one-way communication channel through giving you ident commands - such as "if everything else works fine, squawk 1234 with ident". They'll typically do something like that if they see a 7600 to check if one-way comms can be established, and if this is the case they can use it to check if they should treat the situation as a mayday and clear the runways completely for an emergency landing.

 

That said, I don't know 100% if this is applicable to US aviation in general or US military aviation in specific. There's a lot of codes that have national uses and can mean the plane is deviating from flight plan for military operations in one country, yet be a standard VFR code in another... :P

 

For a plane like the A-10C though I'd expect the tower would have the capability to work with more than just the standard AM so you could probably fall-back to that. Jetliners I expect would have redundant radios so they can switch to a second radio. 7600 might therefore only be really common in private aviation since a Cub might not have the weight budget to include redundancies across the board. (And gliders might run out of battery for the radio, but they're generally N/A anyhow since at least here they usually do not even carry a transponder - they're about as visible to civil controllers as an F-22. :P )

[mvsgas]

Also keep in mind the tower can use both UHF and VHF in RL. One fails you have the other one. If both fail you are bad luck and I need you to stop flying aircraft :D

[Avilator]

***snipped***

 

You are pretty much correct. 7600 is the standard lost comms squawk here in the US. Inside of a tower's airspace, where a transponder doesn't matter as much(in visual conditions) light guns are used to communicate with aircraft: http://www.premierflightct.com/newsletters/Newsletter2010-04-10.html

[splitter]

Never heard of random radio failures before:huh:

 

your sure of your procedures?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1028737#post1028737 Check this out if your in any doubt:)

 

I thought it was something I'd done, but on checking the track log it actually had VHF AM failure.

[PhoenixBvo]

Squawk 7600 if your radio is out.

Do we have a functional Squawk transponder on board in the A-10C? And if yes, where are the controls for it and can I somehow see the codes of other A/C?

[Cibit]

I thought it was something I'd done, but on checking the track log it actually had VHF AM failure.

 

Nice one:thumbup: Thats quite a cool failure. Mine its generally the HUD or an engine:lol:

[Eddie]

Do we have a functional Squawk transponder on board in the A-10C? And if yes, where are the controls for it and can I somehow see the codes of other A/C?

 

No it's not functional as it forms part of the IFF system which is not modelled at present.

 

You can play with the switches if you like though, they just won't do anything. The IFF panel is on the left hand side next to the radios.

[PhoenixBvo]

Thanks Eddie, thought so. Would be a very cool addition, is it planned? I mean the IFF, and on what priority level/time horizon ;)?

[GGTharos]

I'm sure it's pretty far, far down the list.

[Eddie]

I'm sure it's pretty far, far down the list.

 

Indeed. If ever to be honest.

 

The issue is that while IFF mode 1-3 C & S are not classified in operation, they are integrated with mode 4-5. Mode 4 & 5 are not classified in the sense that what they do is well known, the problem is that IFF uses cryptographic encryption and no Military anywhere will even entertain the idea of so much as discussing crypto with anyone outside of those who need to know it (other military units and allies).

 

So while there is nothing really stopping ED modelling all the IFF modes, I highly doubt they would be able to do so in any sim module where they were using the cooperation of any countries armed forces to do so.

 

And of course, nevermind the above, you'd also have to work out what to do with the IFF information if the transponders were implemented in the sim. Yes mode 3/A codes which would operate as in civil aviation could be used by an AI ATC for example, what about 1,2,4 & 5 which are all military specific? Unless we had some sort of human/very good AI AWACS system or at least one fighter which had an IFF interrogator fitted (you'd be suprised how few do) it'd all be a bit pointless.

[GGTharos]

ED wouldn't simulate the crypto (there's really no need to do so at all, it's just a matter of set the code, if code equal to the emitter, the transmission = intelligible).

 

The problem is, like you said, what to do with the information - the AI needs to figure out what it means and what to do with it ... and then deal with situations when it isn't present.

 

It would be super-neat naturally, having to fly specific corridors etc and get checked out by friendly fighters to avoid being PATRIOTed or something similar if your IFF failed.

 

The AI is a /huge/ issue for IFF modeling, IMHO the biggest one bar none. It requires a lot of intelligence on part of the AI, and you could probably expect some friendly fire.

 

Personally, I'm totally in favor of 'square' meaning 'unkown' instead of 'confirmed bandit' as it is this day :)

[Eddie]

ED wouldn't simulate the crypto (there's really no need to do so at all, it's just a matter of set the code, if code equal to the emitter, the transmission = intelligible).

 

The problem is, like you said, what to do with the information - the AI needs to figure out what it means and what to do with it ... and then deal with situations when it isn't present.

 

It would be super-neat naturally, having to fly specific corridors etc and get checked out by friendly fighters to avoid being PATRIOTed or something similar if your IFF failed.

 

The AI is a /huge/ issue for IFF modeling, IMHO the biggest one bar none. It requires a lot of intelligence on part of the AI, and you could probably expect some friendly fire.

 

Personally, I'm totally in favor of 'square' meaning 'unkown' instead of 'confirmed bandit' as it is this day :)

 

Even if you don't simulate the crypto, good luck getting govt cooperation modelling the system. There is more than ample knowledge and information out there to model all IFF modes without it, but it might cause issue if ED wanted to do it in a project developed from one of the military projects. At least that's my opinion, I'd love to be proven wrong of course.

 

I tell ya what GG, if we ever do see realistic IFF modelling, I look forward to the look of dissapointment on people faces when they discover it isn't the magic bad guy/good guy system they thought it was.

 

And having to plan missions around air corridoors etc would be bloody awesome!! You've got me drooling now.

[Harzach]

light guns are used to communicate with aircraft

 

I was reading through this topic pretty quickly and parsed this incorrectly. Your link cleared things up pretty nicely, though!

 

/One tracer for "no", two tracers for "hell, no!"

[GGTharos]

IFF signals bouncing off of mountains, misident bandit as friendly because friendly in LOS, yaddata :D

Hello F-15 with NCTR, how I love you! :D (Although this one shouldn't be magical either)

 

Given certain things that I don't want to discuss in public, I think implementing IFF would be fine ... might not be exactly what you see in RL, but that would be for you to know and us to wonder about ;)

[Speed]

IFF signals bouncing off of mountains, misident bandit as friendly because friendly in LOS, yaddata :D

Hello F-15 with NCTR, how I love you! :D (Although this one shouldn't be magical either)

 

Given certain things that I don't want to discuss in public, I think implementing IFF would be fine ... might not be exactly what you see in RL, but that would be for you to know and us to wonder about ;)

 

So you think that ED might be able to give us some kind of IFF in DCS fighter? Or do you prefer not to say since people might think that what you say actually represents statements from the dev team?

[GGTharos]

Given what I know, and what has been discussed before publicly, and what should be reasoned from known things if you have these games - I think the odds are low, though I would like it very much - mind you, this is an educated guess. The dev team has surprised me before ;)

[Avilator]

/One tracer for "no", two tracers for "hell, no!"

 

That would make the situation in the traffic pattern quite interesting, no? :D

[Frostiken]

Well keep in mind that we don't have an aircraft with an IFF interrogator yet... which changes when we get DCS: Something With a Radar.

 

Even if you don't simulate the crypto, good luck getting govt cooperation modelling the system. There is more than ample knowledge and information out there to model all IFF modes without it, but it might cause issue if ED wanted to do it in a project developed from one of the military projects. At least that's my opinion, I'd love to be proven wrong of course.

 

I think there's a lot of room to doubt this claim - Mode 4 isn't actually classified, just the keys themselves.

 

Personally I'd love to see all IFF modes modeled in some fashion just to give the system some active use in the cockpit. I don't think anyone would mind a slimmed-down system, but whether you're switching Mode 4 A to B at midnight Zulu or putting the entire system in hold to retain emission limits... would be an excellent addition :)