Narrative:

While on a training flight to practice instrument approachs, radio communications with ATC were lost during the outbound portion of the cmi VOR 4L approach, resulting in violation of far 91.185(a)(B). The problem arose when I switched radios to communication #2 because of excessive static on communication radio #1. At this time, radio contact was lost, and our last instruction from ATC was to expect the full VOR 4L approach, maintain 4000 ft upon crossing the cmi VOR, and to expect lower. In the absence of radio contact, we established on the outbound portion of the approach and proceeded with the procedure as published. It was discovered that communications had been lost at the completion of the approach when no reply was given to our missed approach report. Corrective action was taken thereafter by successfully regaining communications on communication radio #1 to report the missed. Failure to comply with far 91.185(B) was the result of executing the missed approach as opposed landing as soon as practicable. One factor contributing to the violation was having not enough familiarity in make and model of aircraft, as well as poor performance of avionics equipment installed on aircraft. Being on an instrument flight plan in VFR conditions also was a factor in the sense that the communications failure was not immediately recognized as serious of an emergency as compared to loss of communications in instrument conditions. Upon landing at our home base airport, we immediately contacted the cmi tower via telephone as requested by ATC.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA CONTINUES AN INST APCH AND MISSES THE APCH. THE WX WAS VFR AND RADIO COM HAD BEEN LOST.

Narrative: WHILE ON A TRAINING FLT TO PRACTICE INST APCHS, RADIO COMS WITH ATC WERE LOST DURING THE OUTBOUND PORTION OF THE CMI VOR 4L APCH, RESULTING IN VIOLATION OF FAR 91.185(A)(B). THE PROB AROSE WHEN I SWITCHED RADIOS TO COM #2 BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE STATIC ON COM RADIO #1. AT THIS TIME, RADIO CONTACT WAS LOST, AND OUR LAST INSTRUCTION FROM ATC WAS TO EXPECT THE FULL VOR 4L APCH, MAINTAIN 4000 FT UPON XING THE CMI VOR, AND TO EXPECT LOWER. IN THE ABSENCE OF RADIO CONTACT, WE ESTABLISHED ON THE OUTBOUND PORTION OF THE APCH AND PROCEEDED WITH THE PROC AS PUBLISHED. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT COMS HAD BEEN LOST AT THE COMPLETION OF THE APCH WHEN NO REPLY WAS GIVEN TO OUR MISSED APCH RPT. CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN THEREAFTER BY SUCCESSFULLY REGAINING COMS ON COM RADIO #1 TO RPT THE MISSED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FAR 91.185(B) WAS THE RESULT OF EXECUTING THE MISSED APCH AS OPPOSED LNDG AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE. ONE FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE VIOLATION WAS HAVING NOT ENOUGH FAMILIARITY IN MAKE AND MODEL OF ACFT, AS WELL AS POOR PERFORMANCE OF AVIONICS EQUIP INSTALLED ON ACFT. BEING ON AN INST FLT PLAN IN VFR CONDITIONS ALSO WAS A FACTOR IN THE SENSE THAT THE COMS FAILURE WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED AS SERIOUS OF AN EMER AS COMPARED TO LOSS OF COMS IN INST CONDITIONS. UPON LNDG AT OUR HOME BASE ARPT, WE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED THE CMI TWR VIA TELEPHONE AS REQUESTED BY ATC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.