What is the difference between a PT and a HILPT?

[iamtheari]

HILPT? How would you do a hold without a holding fix?

"N1234A. Proceed direct wherever. Hold west of whatever on the 080 degree inbound course. Maintain 3,000. Expect further clearance at..."

I should have written “named fix” rather than “fix of some kind.” Are there HILPTs of the form “hold west of the 10 DME”? I would guess not but it was a point of curiosity given the discussion here about the differences between performing a PT within 10 nm of a fix and performing a hold in lieu of a PT within 4 nm of a fix.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Are there HILPTs of the form “hold west of the 10 DME”? I

I doubt it.

 

[RussR]

I should have written “named fix” rather than “fix of some kind.” Are there HILPTs of the form “hold west of the 10 DME”?

Not for many years. There was a time when DME fixes were not necessarily named, but that rule changed over 15 years ago at least. The last time I saw an unnamed DME fix had to be 10 years or more ago, and part of the project was to change it to a named fix (sometimes there are stragglers when rules change, and they seem to last forever, as procedures typically aren't amended JUST for rule changes).

 

[luvflyin]

OK, So I am having trouble figuring out the difference since the actual flight procedure seems identical.

For example RNAV (GPS) X Rwy 27 @ KYKM has a HILPT on the plate. Let's say I am given "fly direct OPISE, cleared for approach" from somewhere in the northwest. I'd fly over OPISE and probably fly a teardrop entry - fly outbound on 124 for 1 minute, turn left to go inbound, intercept and continue the approach at OPISE inbound. Standard tear-drop.

Compare to ILS or LOC Rwy 16 @ KONP. In this case say I am inbound from the southeast and am given "direct BUHRS, cleared for approach". I fly to BUHRS, turn outbound to 342, fly for 2 minutes, left to 297, fly for 1 minute, right to 117, intercept and continue inbound on the approach. Again ... just another standard tear drop flying the barb as charted.

In both cases I flew over a fix and flew a teardrop course reversal to reorient inbound. What I fly is the same other than a charted PT gives me a specific course to fly while a HILPT allows me to choose how I want to reverse course as long as I remain in the protected area and initiate the entry procedure over the hold fix.

These two procedures often get presented as something dramatically different. And the "traditional procedure turn" is often described as "providing a bit more flexibility". As I read it the PT is actually more restrictive - giving me an charted course for all three legs of the entry procedure. A HILPT allows me to essentially pick what I want.

What am I missing here? What's the point of a PT instead of a HILPT since both assume a reversal maneuver performed on the same side of the Final Approach Course?

PT's are usually Remain within 10 NM. HILPT's usually have shorter legs. It's 5 miles from OPISE on the YKM Approach. ATC may request that a HILPT be used instead of a PT to keep the plane more 'contained' because of other traffic, but I believe the usual reason is because of obstructions that you'd get to close to going 10 miles out.

 

[Eibwen]

PT's are usually Remain within 10 NM. HILPT's usually have shorter legs. It's 5 miles from OPISE on the YKM Approach. ATC may request that a HILPT be used instead of a PT to keep the plane more 'contained' because of other traffic, but I believe the usual reason is because of obstructions that you'd get to close to going 10 miles out.

Yeah, this I understand and agree.

In the end it all seems that the only differences are the same ones we find if we are to compare ANY procedures. In fact there is no uniform difference between PTs and HILPTs. PTs are sometimes "within 5 miles" and HILPTs sometimes have a 10nm hold. Neither is more or less restrictive than the other. Both allow essentially the same variability in how we choose to reverse course as long as we turn on the barbed or holding side. Some have a fix where we commence the procedure and some simply require us to get it done in a certain distance. When all is said and done ... read the plate and do what it says dummy...

It's all very simple ... until we ask anyone else for an opinion or read a textbook description...

 

[flyingron]

Thanks for the discussion y'all. My takeaway is that there isn't much real world difference. There are charted specifics for each approach but little that is universally different between the two categories. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

What can you do on a barbed PT that you can't do on a HILPT?

You're free to do any reversal on the depicted side within the distance. A hold-in-lieu says you have to go to the hold fix do a reversal inbound back to the fix. It's more restrictive.

 

[Eibwen]

You're free to do any reversal on the depicted side within the distance. A hold-in-lieu says you have to go to the hold fix do a reversal inbound back to the fix. It's more restrictive.

Fair enough I can see that. thanks.

I realize the OP may seem pedantic to some but I appreciate the discussion. It helps clarify.

 

[Flying Keys]

Not to throw gasoline on this fire, but don’t forget the direct entry to the HILPT or the reversal to get to the reversal of a PT when you’re aligned with the final approach course (or close to it) but haven’t received a straight-in approach clearance. Of course, you could just ask.

 

[luvflyin]

Yeah, this I understand and agree.

In the end it all seems that the only differences are the same ones we find if we are to compare ANY procedures. In fact there is no uniform difference between PTs and HILPTs. PTs are sometimes "within 5 miles" and HILPTs sometimes have a 10nm hold. Neither is more or less restrictive than the other. Both allow essentially the same variability in how we choose to reverse course as long as we turn on the barbed or holding side. Some have a fix where we commence the procedure and some simply require us to get it done in a certain distance. When all is said and done ... read the plate and do what it says dummy...

It's all very simple ... until we ask anyone else for an opinion or read a textbook description...

Can you give some examples of 5 NM PT’s and 10 mile leg HILPT’s.

 

[RussR]

Can you give some examples of 5 NM PT’s and 10 mile leg HILPT’s.

They're both really rare.

5 nm PTs - you will only find these on procedures that are limited to Cat A, which is very rare in itself. And then the design would have to involve a PT as well. I've only ever seen one or two. None come to mind off the top of my head.

10 nm HILPTs - since the primary factor in the leg length of a holding pattern is altitude, you have to have a pretty high holding pattern to get a 10nm leg length. There is one at Leadville, CO, LXV, on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16. For a 10 nm leg length the holding altitude must be above 14000 (so for all I know, LXV might be the only one). The other way to have a long leg length is if a higher maximum airspeed is needed, as with Cat E approaches. So there are likely some military bases with 10 nm HILPTs out there too (look for holding above 6000).

There are also 15 nm PTs. These are not as rare as 5 nm PTs - again look at military bases, since Cat E will warrant a 15 nm PT. See SPS ILS OR LOC/DME Y RWY 33L.

 

[John Collins]

HILPT generally consumes less airspace than a standard PT. It also supports being both an IAF and an IF, allowing entry from any direction into the course reversal maneuver. The only time I recall seeing a PT used on a GPS type approach was early on when there were overlay approach procedures, where the procedure was somenting like a "VOR or GPS" since this was an update to an existing approach adding the "or GPS". The HILPT also supports a hold if you need to buy more time, lose more altitude, or wait your turn. A PT pretty much needs to be aligned with the final approach course provided by the conventional Navigation facility, that is you fly the VOR radial, NDB bearing or Localizer course, whereas the HILPT does not need to be aligned with the final approach course, if that makes sense from a terrain, obstacle, or traffic pattern point of view.