Bold line on RNAV vs ILS

Ryan F. said:
Used to fly into Bozeman fairly regularly back in the day and it was non-radar there at the time... it may have changed, it's been years since I've been there.
Click to expand...
I've only been in there once, about two summers ago. They have some nice RNP approaches that, when used, eliminate the need for vectors, at least from the direction we arrived from. The RNAV (RNP) Z 12, IIRC, took us around the south side and and RF'd us back to Final for 12. The RNAV SID similarly had us in LNAV for the whole departure. Very easy. Very scenic arrival, too.

Anyway, point is, IFR flying still requires these skills, for sure, even in the United States.
Click to expand...
My point exactly.

Pilots don't understand The System anymore because their CFIIs only taught them the Tasks. They didn't teach them the bigger picture of how the IFR system works. Of course, those CFIIs probably don't know all that much about The System because their CFIIs didn't teach them, because their CFIIs didn't teach them, etc. At some point, somebody has to read the FARs, AIM, IFH, and IPH and actually pay attention to the things that aren't used in Indiana or Ohio flying.

If I were teaching today I'd have my instrument students read Don Brown's Say Again? columns on AvWeb. He read the FARs, AIM, and 7110.65 and he put that information together in a logical and easy to digest format. The first column in his series starts at the following link.

https://www.avweb.com/features/say-again-1a-wing-and-a-prayer/
 
A HILPT is a depicted hold (bold lines) on an approach chart. It is usually used as the form of procedure turn for RNAV procedures, but may also be used on conventional approaches. Its purpose is to provide the procedure designer a means of getting the aircraft established on the intermediate or final approach course. The HILPT or conventional PT must be flown if it is charted with 4 exceptions, you are being vectored to the final approach course, there is NoPT shown on the applicable segment used to join the procedure, you are Cleared straight in by the controller, or in the very rare case that timed approaches are being used. The PT only indicates the side of the course that the course reversal must be performed on, but the method is up to the pilot as long as one does not exceed the limit. A regular PT typically will usually be required to be accomplished within 10 NM, but this can vary. An HILPT will most of time take less airspace to complete because the maximum hold is often limited to 4 NM or so. You are not required to fly to the HILPT limit unless instructed by ATC to do so.
 
OK. Thanks. So for the PRB RNAV 19 approach the CHVAL, MBARI and FIKDU fixes specify NOPT. And since the HOVLI is unmarked the hold isn't required there either. So a HOLD is not required by default for any entry point for this procedure.
What do they even have to say NOPT anywhere on the chart for since one would assume it might be required if not so marked?
 
flyzone said:
Can someone help me with the difference between a HILPT and a PT and why we would see one over the other and how we need to treat each of them differently? I'm not quite following this.
Click to expand...

You don’t ‘treat’ them differently. The rules on ‘when’ you must fly them are the same. The rules on when you may not fly them are the same. The only difference is ‘how’ you fly them. The HILPT is self explanatory, You fly it exactly as depicted. You do not need to fly the ‘bold black line’ exactly as depicted when doing a PT. You must stay on the side indicated by the ‘Barb’ and you must remain within the number of miles, usually 10, indicated on the Chart. Other than that you can maneuver how you want to. PT’s require more airspace to be protected than HILPT’s. When obstructions are close enough by to prevent a PT, but still far enough away to allow an HILPT, an HILPT is used. It might also be done because of nearby airspace that a HILPT clears but a PT doesn’t. RNAV Approaches just use HILPT’s. That’s just how they decided to do it.
 
Last edited:
flyzone said:
OK. Thanks. So for the PRB RNAV 19 approach the CHVAL, MBARI and FIKDU fixes specify NOPT. And since the HOVLI is unmarked the hold isn't required there either. So a HOLD is not required by default for any entry point for this procedure.
What do they even have to say NOPT anywhere on the chart for since one would assume it might be required if not so marked?
Click to expand...
Perhaps "NOPT" is an internationally-recognised thing (ICAO or otherwise)? We have "NOPT" that on IAPs in Canada, too, while I've personally never seen "HILWP".
 
flyzone said:
OK. Thanks. So for the PRB RNAV 19 approach the CHVAL, MBARI and FIKDU fixes specify NOPT. And since the HOVLI is unmarked the hold isn't required there either. So a HOLD is not required by default for any entry point for this procedure.
What do they even have to say NOPT anywhere on the chart for since one would assume it might be required if not so marked?
Click to expand...

“And since HOVLI is unmarked.” ??? Not sure what you mean by that. HOVLI is an IAF. That is an entry point for the procedure. If that’s where you first ‘join’ the procedure then the HILPT is required unless ATC gives you ‘straight in.’ If you first join the procedure on one of the segment’s from the other IAF’s then it is not required. And not allowed unless getting authorization from ATC.
 
What do they even have to say NOPT anywhere on the chart for since one would assume it might be required if not so marked?
Click to expand...
Eh? The course reversal (HILPT in this case) is REQUIRED unless you enter via a NoPT route or sector, or you meet one of the few other exceptions (vectors to final, timed approaches, cleared straight in from an IF).

If you are told to proceed to PRB (VOR) and are cleared for the approach, you go to HOVII and do the hold.
If you are told to proceed to HOVII and cleared for the approach and they don't say straight in, you do the hold.
If you enter from CHVAL, MBARI, or FIKDU, you don't do the hold.
If you are vectored to final, you don't do the hold.

If you are doing timed approaches, you're probably holding there already, no point in further holding.
 
flyzone said:
OK. Thanks. So for the PRB RNAV 19 approach the CHVAL, MBARI and FIKDU fixes specify NOPT. And since the HOVLI is unmarked the hold isn't required there either. So a HOLD is not required by default for any entry point for this procedure.
What do they even have to say NOPT anywhere on the chart for since one would assume it might be required if not so marked?
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you get that no procedure turn is required if you are direct HOVLI.
 
flyzone said:
OK. Thanks. So for the PRB RNAV 19 approach the CHVAL, MBARI and FIKDU fixes specify NOPT. And since the HOVLI is unmarked the hold isn't required there either. So a HOLD is not required by default for any entry point for this procedure.
What do they even have to say NOPT anywhere on the chart for since one would assume it might be required if not so marked?
Click to expand...
What about PRB-HOVLI 12.4 miles, 4,000?
 
luvflyin said:
“And since HOVLI is unmarked.” ??? Not sure what you mean by that. HOVLI is an IAF. That is an entry point for the procedure. If that’s where you first ‘join’ the procedure then the HILPT is required unless ATC gives you ‘straight in.’ If you first join the procedure on one of the segment’s from the other IAF’s then it is not required. And not allowed unless getting authorization from ATC.
Click to expand...
I count four IAFs and one feeder fix.
 
PPC1052 said:
I am not sure where you get that no procedure turn is required if you are direct HOVLI.
Click to expand...

??? The two responses above to your post said it IS required if given direct HOVLI. Unless includes ‘straight in’ in the Approach Clearance

EDIT: see my post #63. I misinterpreted @PPC1052 ’s reply
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
??? The two responses above to your post said it IS required if given direct HOVLI. Unless includes ‘straight in’ in the Approach Clearance
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with them. Sorry if my post was not clear. A procedure turn is required, unless given the clearance for straight in. (I said, "I don't see where you get that no procedure turn is required.")
 
flyzone said:
Can someone help me with the difference between a HILPT and a PT and why we would see one over the other and how we need to treat each of them differently? I'm not quite following this.
Click to expand...
Second question: no difference in how we treat them except that a barbed PT allows us to do any kind of course reversal we want while remaining x miles from the fix while a HILPT requires us to do a hold entry/pattern.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Second question: no difference in how we treat them except that a barbed PT allows us to do any kind of course reversal we want while remaining x miles from the fix while a HILPT requires us to do a hold entry/pattern.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the case that a barbed PT requires a specific course to start while a HILPT has a more flexible entry?
(e.g. for a barbed PT for a straight in 30 approach you need generally need to be going 120 prior to the course reversal while if it were a HILPT you can come at it from almost any angle)
 
asicer said:
Isn't it the case that a barbed PT requires a specific course to start while a HILPT has a more flexible entry?
(e.g. for a barbed PT for a straight in 30 approach you need generally need to be going 120 prior to the course reversal while if it were a HILPT you can come at it from almost any angle)
Click to expand...
Not in Canada, at least. You just have to make the PT on the correct side of the approach within the protected area. For example, one of the PT types I learned was very similar to the parallel entry for a hold.
 
PPC1052 said:
Yes, I agree with them. Sorry if my post was not clear. A procedure turn is required, unless given the clearance for straight in. (I said, "I don't see where you get that no procedure turn is required.")
Click to expand...

You said “I am not sure where you get that no procedure turn is required if you are direct HOVLI.” I think where the misunderstanding is you are seeing that if you cross ZUGPO via CHVAL, or MEETL via FIDKU or MBARI, you are then direct to HOVLI. You kinda are, but you haven’t been cleared ‘direct HOVLI.’ In one case you are getting to HOVLI via the 238 degree course to, in the other via the 142 degree course to. But you haven’t been ‘cleared ‘direct’’ HOVLI. There is a difference. If you had been say out yonder to the Northwest and Center said “cleared direct HOVLI, cleared for the approach” you must do the HILPT(unless they said straight in.). If by coincidence you just happened to have crossed right smack dab over MEETL, that doesn’t change.
 
asicer said:
Isn't it the case that a barbed PT requires a specific course to start while a HILPT has a more flexible entry?
(e.g. for a barbed PT for a straight in 30 approach you need generally need to be going 120 prior to the course reversal while if it were a HILPT you can come at it from almost any angle)
Click to expand...

Not sure how “...barbed PT for a straight in 30 approach...” figures in. You’re either doing the PT or a straight in, one or the other. I haven’t seen that restriction on the angle you arrive at the beginning of the PT. If it is an ‘intersection’ there are limits to the angle of the radials that define the intersection. This also applies to HILPTS. For them it is 45 degrees I think. May or may not be the same for PT’s. That’s to establish the PT or HILPT in the first place. If it’s there on the Chart, I don’t think there is any restriction on what angle you arrive at it.

EDIT: I think I get what you were getting at now. Doing a straight in on an Approach that has a PT or HILPT if you can get it from ATC. For RNAV it’s 90 degrees. Used to be 120. Non RNAV 120 may be it. I’m not sure off hand. @aterpster ? @RussR ?
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
Isn't it the case that a barbed PT requires a specific course to start while a HILPT has a more flexible entry?
(e.g. for a barbed PT for a straight in 30 approach you need generally need to be going 120 prior to the course reversal while if it were a HILPT you can come at it from almost any angle)
Click to expand...
In both cases the first step is to fly to the fix. Then, here's what the AIM says. I guess which is more flexible depends on your point of view.

Barbed PT: "the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the tear-drop procedure turn, or the 80 degree ↔ 260 degree course reversal."

HILPT: "The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. For a hold-in-lieu-of-PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded."
 
luvflyin said:
You said “I am not sure where you get that no procedure turn is required if you are direct HOVLI.” I think where the misunderstanding is you are seeing that if you cross ZUGPO via CHVAL, or MEETL via FIDKU or MBARI, you are then direct to HOVLI. You kinda are, but you haven’t been cleared ‘direct HOVLI.’ In one case you are getting to HOVLI via the 238 degree course to, in the other via the 142 degree course to. But you haven’t been ‘cleared ‘direct’’ HOVLI. There is a difference. If you had been say out yonder to the Northwest and Center said “cleared direct HOVLI, cleared for the approach” you must do the HILPT(unless they said straight in.). If by coincidence you just happened to have crossed right smack dab over MEETL, that doesn’t change.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. My point is simply that HAVLI is an IAF, and if you are given a clearance to fly direct HAVLI, and cleared for the approach, you have to do the procedure turn unless you are cleared straight in.
 
PPC1052 said:
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. My point is simply that HAVLI is an IAF, and if you are given a clearance to fly direct HAVLI, and cleared for the approach, you have to do the procedure turn unless you are cleared straight in.
Click to expand...

Ah. I’m caught up now. I had thought you were replying to the two posts directly above the post where you said that. I see now that you were were replying to flyzone’s post #44. I read to fast, my bad.
 
PPC1052 said:
I am not sure where you get that no procedure turn is required if you are direct HOVLI.
Click to expand...

Well, that is what I thought before I started reading this post but its gotten kind of convoluted and perhaps I misread that someone said it wasn't. I'm upright again now.
 
aterpster said:
The bold line means it is both in the plan and profile views.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate. The bold line is used in the plan view from the IAF to the MAP. I was referring to distinguishing a HILPT from a MAP hold or an arrival hold when depicted on the approach chart, the former will be bold and the two latter will not be.
 
John Collins said:
That is not accurate. The bold line is used in the plan view from the IAF to the MAP. I was referring to distinguishing a HILPT from a MAP hold or an arrival hold when depicted on the approach chart, the former will be bold and the two latter will not be.
Click to expand...
You are correct as to FAA charts. You are incorrect as to Jeppesen charts.
 
flyzone said:
Well, that is what I thought before I started reading this post but its gotten kind of convoluted and perhaps I misread that someone said it wasn't. I'm upright again now.
Click to expand...

No worries. My post had a double negative. There is a reason why that's frowned upon by good writers.
 
luvflyin said:
Ah. I’m caught up now. I had thought you were replying to the two posts directly above the post where you said that. I see now that you were were replying to flyzone’s post #44. I read to fast, my bad.
Click to expand...

Well, as noted above, I am the one that created some confusion with a double negative. I thought about editing it before I posted it, but this one of the rare cases where I needed it to convey exactly what I meant.
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, as noted above, I am the one that created some confusion with a double negative. I thought about editing it before I posted it, but this one of the rare cases where I needed it to convey exactly what I meant.
Click to expand...

That’s not what got me off on my rant. I thought you worded it fine. I just didn’t pay close attention to which particular post you had replied to.:cheers:
 
aterpster said:
You are correct as to FAA charts. You are incorrect as to Jeppesen charts.
Click to expand...

The working assumption for GA pilots is FAA charts and all the examples posted were FAA charts. Professional pilots flying for hire are more likely to be using Jeppesen charts. Neither of us specified which chart producer we were talking about so we were talking past the other in our remarks. Thanks for the clarification.
 
aterpster said:
Thanks. Interesting. I haven't seen it anywhere else in the world. I have seen TAAs, though.
Click to expand...
Canada also uses TERPS (or our adaptation of it) rather than PANS-OPS. We're generally big on international standards and multilateralism — ICAO and IATA are both headquartered in Montreal — but I think we gave higher priority to alignment with the US on that because of the huge volume of cross-border flying (we also use the same units of measure in aviation for altimeter settings, visibility, etc — no altimeters in hPa or viz in metres :) ).
 
David Megginson said:
Canada also uses TERPS (or our adaptation of it) rather than PANS-OPS. We're generally big on international standards and multilateralism — ICAO and IATA are both headquartered in Montreal — but I think we gave higher priority to alignment with the US on that because of the huge volume of cross-border flying (we also use the same units of measure in aviation for altimeter settings, visibility, etc — no altimeters in hPa or viz in metres :) ).
Click to expand...
But you use metres instead of meters. ;)
 
aterpster said:
Thanks. Interesting. I haven't seen it anywhere else in the world. I have seen TAAs, though.
Click to expand...

What does the rest of the world use? Or do they just not recognize the concept of not doing a PT even if it’s not needed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top