Narrative:

While being vectored IFR for a visual approach into jyo, communications were lost with potomac approach. Last communication was 'airport 12 O'clock position, 6 mi, advise when you have the airport in sight.' I responded that I did not have the field in sight and continued on last assigned heading. No further communication was received and I was unable to raise approach control. While attempting to make further contact and trying different frequencys, I overshot the airport. Approximately 2-3 mi east of jyo, communication was briefly re-established with potomac approach and the controller advised that he had tried several times to raise me. I advised that I heard him (now) and asked for a vector to the airport. The controller advised, 'turn left to 270 degrees.' immediately upon completing the turn, the airport was sighted at my 12 O'clock position. Per procedure, I advised, 'airport in sight, cancel IFR,' and proceeded to land. Communication was lost again at that point. I think the circumstances around this event illustrate a potential safety issue. At the time of the approach, jyo was VFR and it was daylight with a coating of snow on the ground in the leesburg area. Leesburg is not a large facility, and given the lack of visual cues, and unfamiliarity with the airport, it was difficult to identify the airport from my position. This likely would not have been a problem if communication had not been lost, as I would have received additional vectors and distances to jyo. That was not the case, however. Since no approach procedure had been assigned, I was dependent on the approach controller for situational information. Once communication was lost and I believed I had passed the airport, it was not clear what procedure should have been used (there is no missed approach procedure for a visual approach, because it assumes continuous communications, and lost communications procedures inside the ADIZ are not clear). Given the VFR conditions, common sense dictated remaining VFR and locating the airport, which I did. I would suggest the following: 1) under IFR, when receiving vectors for visual approachs, procedures should be clarified regarding appropriate actions in the event the approach cannot be concluded or communications are lost. 2) lost communication procedures should be clarified for operations in the ADIZ. 3) VMC/VFR conditions in the air, do not necessarily mean ground targets can be seen with clarity. Controllers most likely assume that if it's VFR, the pilot has no problem seeing and identing things at ground level. Snow, flooding, and other natural phenomena can conspire to change the landscape. I would recommend that awareness of this be raised among the pilot and controller communities.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF BE58 EXPERIENCES INTERMITTENT COM WITH PCT WHILE OPERATING IN THE DC ADIZ. HAS DIFFICULTY FINDING JYO WHEN LANDSCAPE COVERED IN SNOW.

Narrative: WHILE BEING VECTORED IFR FOR A VISUAL APCH INTO JYO, COMS WERE LOST WITH POTOMAC APCH. LAST COM WAS 'ARPT 12 O'CLOCK POS, 6 MI, ADVISE WHEN YOU HAVE THE ARPT IN SIGHT.' I RESPONDED THAT I DID NOT HAVE THE FIELD IN SIGHT AND CONTINUED ON LAST ASSIGNED HDG. NO FURTHER COM WAS RECEIVED AND I WAS UNABLE TO RAISE APCH CTL. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE FURTHER CONTACT AND TRYING DIFFERENT FREQS, I OVERSHOT THE ARPT. APPROX 2-3 MI E OF JYO, COM WAS BRIEFLY RE-ESTABLISHED WITH POTOMAC APCH AND THE CTLR ADVISED THAT HE HAD TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO RAISE ME. I ADVISED THAT I HEARD HIM (NOW) AND ASKED FOR A VECTOR TO THE ARPT. THE CTLR ADVISED, 'TURN L TO 270 DEGS.' IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETING THE TURN, THE ARPT WAS SIGHTED AT MY 12 O'CLOCK POS. PER PROC, I ADVISED, 'ARPT IN SIGHT, CANCEL IFR,' AND PROCEEDED TO LAND. COM WAS LOST AGAIN AT THAT POINT. I THINK THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THIS EVENT ILLUSTRATE A POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE. AT THE TIME OF THE APCH, JYO WAS VFR AND IT WAS DAYLIGHT WITH A COATING OF SNOW ON THE GND IN THE LEESBURG AREA. LEESBURG IS NOT A LARGE FACILITY, AND GIVEN THE LACK OF VISUAL CUES, AND UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE ARPT, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO IDENT THE ARPT FROM MY POS. THIS LIKELY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROB IF COM HAD NOT BEEN LOST, AS I WOULD HAVE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL VECTORS AND DISTANCES TO JYO. THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, HOWEVER. SINCE NO APCH PROC HAD BEEN ASSIGNED, I WAS DEPENDENT ON THE APCH CTLR FOR SITUATIONAL INFO. ONCE COM WAS LOST AND I BELIEVED I HAD PASSED THE ARPT, IT WAS NOT CLR WHAT PROC SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED (THERE IS NO MISSED APCH PROC FOR A VISUAL APCH, BECAUSE IT ASSUMES CONTINUOUS COMS, AND LOST COMS PROCS INSIDE THE ADIZ ARE NOT CLR). GIVEN THE VFR CONDITIONS, COMMON SENSE DICTATED REMAINING VFR AND LOCATING THE ARPT, WHICH I DID. I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING: 1) UNDER IFR, WHEN RECEIVING VECTORS FOR VISUAL APCHS, PROCS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED REGARDING APPROPRIATE ACTIONS IN THE EVENT THE APCH CANNOT BE CONCLUDED OR COMS ARE LOST. 2) LOST COM PROCS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED FOR OPS IN THE ADIZ. 3) VMC/VFR CONDITIONS IN THE AIR, DO NOT NECESSARILY MEAN GND TARGETS CAN BE SEEN WITH CLARITY. CTLRS MOST LIKELY ASSUME THAT IF IT'S VFR, THE PLT HAS NO PROB SEEING AND IDENTING THINGS AT GND LEVEL. SNOW, FLOODING, AND OTHER NATURAL PHENOMENA CAN CONSPIRE TO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT AWARENESS OF THIS BE RAISED AMONG THE PLT AND CTLR COMMUNITIES.

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.