Bold line on RNAV vs ILS

benyflyguy

benyflyguy

En-Route
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,755
Location
NEPA
Display Name
Display name:
benyflyguy
So was up flying practice approaches under the hood. Safety pilot who is working on his Instrument rating asks me a bit of a stumper today. When I fly SP for him one of the questions that he asks a lot is when to fly a procedure turn and how. For RNAV and VOR approaches I’m pretty good with that info.
So we are flying to a towered class D field. Approaching from opposite side of final course. The ILS does depict a bold line “race track” style hold (not missed hold) at the IAF. He asks me if we need to fly that course reversal or PT?? I say no because we are talking and being vectored onto the final approach course. But it got me thinking... when do I need to fly that bold line turn/hold??I could only come up that I would fly it if tower was closed and not getting vectored to final. I was going to ask the departure controller but they were a bit busy today

The RNAV procedure turn is easy no questions there.
 
This is called a holding pattern in lieu of a procedure turn (or as I like to call it Hold-in-loo).

If such a hold (or a teardrop) is depicted, you are obligated to use it as depicted for the course reversal unless you are vectored to final or cleared straight in from certain fixes. This is basic stuff. This is why instrument students should be getting instruction from a knowledgeable instructor rather than trying to pick it up on their own.

This comes from page 4-43 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook and 5-4-6.e.6 of the AIM.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
This is called a holding pattern in lieu of a procedure turn (or as I like to call it Hold-in-loo).

If such a hold (or a teardrop) is depicted, you are obligated to use it as depicted for the course reversal unless you are vectored to final or cleared straight in from certain fixes. This is basic stuff. This is why instrument students should be getting instruction from a knowledgeable instructor rather than trying to pick it up on their own.

This comes from page 4-43 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook and 5-4-6.e.6
Click to expand...

I figured as much. I guess I have never had to fly that HILPT for an ILS yet. I have had to do those for VOR and RNAV’s. Never really took notice to the ILS one for some reason
 
In real life, you'll almost never fly it.
 
I'd say that you rarely fly it in a radar environment. Lots of places in the world where approaches are flown outside of radar environments.

As instrument students, look up the IPH reference that Ron provided above.
 
benyflyguy said:
I figured as much. I guess I have never had to fly that HILPT for an ILS yet. I have had to do those for VOR and RNAV’s. Never really took notice to the ILS one for some reason
Click to expand...
The rules for flying or not flying a HILPT are exactly the same for flying any other procedure turn. Not any more complicated than that. If you think you know an approach which doesn't fit that mold, please post it.
 
benyflyguy said:
So was up flying practice approaches under the hood. Safety pilot who is working on his Instrument rating asks me a bit of a stumper today. When I fly SP for him one of the questions that he asks a lot is when to fly a procedure turn and how. For RNAV and VOR approaches I’m pretty good with that info.
So we are flying to a towered class D field. Approaching from opposite side of final course. The ILS does depict a bold line “race track” style hold (not missed hold) at the IAF. He asks me if we need to fly that course reversal or PT?? I say no because we are talking and being vectored onto the final approach course. But it got me thinking... when do I need to fly that bold line turn/hold??I could only come up that I would fly it if tower was closed and not getting vectored to final. I was going to ask the departure controller but they were a bit busy today

The RNAV procedure turn is easy no questions there.
Click to expand...
Before RNAV approaches were so common, it was not at all unusual to have to descend below radar coverage in Canada to fly a VOR or NDB approach, in which case you'd always fly the charted procedure turn or shuttle descent (descending hold), unless the IAP included a "No PT" transition, like a radial from another navaid. They're still around — I just did an NDB approach in VMC for practice yesterday, including the PT, but a nearby military heli pilot popped onto the radio and said it was the first time he'd heard anyone flying it in three years, even for practice.

I'm sure the same applies in the U.S. for smaller airports in places like northern Maine, where Boston Centre tends to lose you on radar below 6–7,000 ft.
 
David Megginson said:
I'm sure the same applies in the U.S. for smaller airports in places like northern Maine, where Boston Centre tends to lose you on radar below 6–7,000 ft.
Click to expand...
Happened to a student of mine on his IFR dual. Eastern Colorado. Cleared to the IAF and for the approach, he asked for vectors to final. The Center controller actually laughed.
 
The closest ILS to my field has a hold-in-loo. Yes, more often than not I'll get vectored to final, but I've been just cleared for the approach at the hold fix which obligates me to fly it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Ive been known to request the procedure turn because it’s faster than getting vectors.
Click to expand...
It can be faster than an RNAV T-approach, too, if you're coming from the opposite direction. A typical RNAV approach in that case will force you to fly 10 nm past the airport and 5 nm off to the side; with a PT, you just fly 5 miles past the airport to the FAF, then keep the PT tight (say, 2 nm past the FAF and 1 nm off to the side).
 
EdFred said:
I think you're looking for pilotsoftheworld.com. :D
Click to expand...
Or, PilotsWestOfTheRockies.com or PilotsOfAlaska.com.

Were you on the AOPA Forums a number of years ago when someone posted about his experience taking off from the Grand Canyon airport IFR and busting through the SFAR 50-2 airspace and No Fly Zone because he was expecting radar vectors and flew runway heading instead of his clearance? He had learned to fly, and had his instrument training, in the midwest where everything is radar vectors but his instrument rating was still good worldwide and he decided to venture to the great southwest, an area for which his CFII had not adequately prepared him.

Instrument pilots need to understand non-radar procedures, even if they normally fly in areas where radar service is the norm.
 
Larry in TN said:
Instrument pilots need to understand non-radar procedures, even if they normally fly in areas where radar service is the norm.
Click to expand...
...and practice them so as to be proficient in them.

One of the reasons a regular IPC can give value added, even if you’re always current based on flight activity.
 
David Megginson said:
It can be faster than an RNAV T-approach, too, if you're coming from the opposite direction. A typical RNAV approach in that case will force you to fly 10 nm past the airport and 5 nm off to the side; with a PT, you just fly 5 miles past the airport to the FAF, then keep the PT tight (say, 2 nm past the FAF and 1 nm off to the side).
Click to expand...

And, many GPS approaches with a HILPT at the IAF have NoPT TAA sectors, saving even more time if you are approaching the IAF from the right direction. It actually does simplify things, but you may have to remember to delete the hold from the approach sequence if approaching from a NoPT sector. I caught that little snafu on my GNS-430W the first time I flew a practice approach into my home field with the new HILPT. You wouldn't normally want to have to figure that out the first time you fly the approach in IFR conditions.
 
flyingron said:
This comes from page 4-43 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook and 5-4-6.e.6 of the AIM.
Click to expand...
Also 91.175(j):

Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies “No PT,” no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.​
 
Larry in TN said:
Or, PilotsWestOfTheRockies.com or PilotsOfAlaska.com.

Were you on the AOPA Forums a number of years ago when someone posted about his experience taking off from the Grand Canyon airport IFR and busting through the SFAR 50-2 airspace and No Fly Zone because he was expecting radar vectors and flew runway heading instead of his clearance? He had learned to fly, and had his instrument training, in the midwest where everything is radar vectors but his instrument rating was still good worldwide and he decided to venture to the great southwest, an area for which his CFII had not adequately prepared him.

Instrument pilots need to understand non-radar procedures, even if they normally fly in areas where radar service is the norm.
Click to expand...
Yeah this...

I have seen this lack of preparation not get corrected until guys make to the baby airline level. Truly disappointing when I had to spend time teaching this knowledge to ATP rated pilots but it’s not uncommon. Unfortunately.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Yeah this...

I have seen this lack of preparation not get corrected until guys make to the baby airline level. Truly disappointing when I had to spend time teaching this knowledge to ATP rated pilots but it’s not uncommon. Unfortunately.
Click to expand...
It’s truly scary what ATPs don’t know or can’t do sometimes.
 
David Megginson said:
It can be faster than an RNAV T-approach, too, if you're coming from the opposite direction. A typical RNAV approach in that case will force you to fly 10 nm past the airport and 5 nm off to the side; with a PT, you just fly 5 miles past the airport to the FAF, then keep the PT tight (say, 2 nm past the FAF and 1 nm off to the side).
Click to expand...

True. Also one does not need to fly the full distance on an RNAV hold (HILPT) unless specifically instructed by ATC to fly the full distance
 
Larry in TN said:
I've seen that as well. Nobody's perfect, but us ATPs should, at least, try to be.
Click to expand...
I assume that a few inadvertent stalls, losing control of the airplane a couple of times, and not having a clue what the speed limit is in a holding pattern or where to find it, and then saying, “but I didn’t do anything unsafe, right?” doesn’t qualify as “trying to be”. :rolleyes:
 
John Collins said:
True. Also one does not need to fly the full distance on an RNAV hold (HILPT) unless specifically instructed by ATC to fly the full distance
Click to expand...
It would be more likely to fly the full distance at some locations because of descent requirements. That would be up to the pilot to determine.
 
As IAPs with HILPTs are revised they will show the maximum as well as the minimum holding altitudes in both the plan and profile views:


PRB 19.jpg
 
aterpster said:
As IAPs with HILPTs are revised they will show the maximum as well as the minimum holding altitudes in both the plan and profile views:
Click to expand...
Are they all getting a maximum altitude, Wally? I've seen several of these but thought there was probably an overlying airspace reason applicable to the location of the specific approach.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Are they all getting a maximum altitude, Wally? I've seen several of these but thought there was probably an overlying airspace reason applicable to the location of the specific approach.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are. It's not an airspace issue. It is exceeding protected airspace if holding well above the maximum TERPs evaluated altitude (increased template size). This affects only some mountainous airports but the FAA decided to paint the entire house, so to speak.

Alamosa, Colorado (KALS) RNAV 20 is the poster child.
 
aterpster said:
Yes, they are. It's not an airspace issue. It is exceeding protected airspace if holding well above the maximum TERPs evaluated altitude (increased template size). This affects only some mountainous airports but the FAA decided to paint the entire house, so to speak.

Alamosa, Colorado (KALS) RNAV 20 is the poster child.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Without looking, let me guess. Blanca (a fourteener) is too damn close to the holding pattern when you get to higher altitudes with their higher max holding speeds.
 
flyingron said:
This is called a holding pattern in lieu of a procedure turn (or as I like to call it Hold-in-loo).

If such a hold (or a teardrop) is depicted, you are obligated to use it as depicted for the course reversal unless you are vectored to final or cleared straight in from certain fixes. This is basic stuff. This is why instrument students should be getting instruction from a knowledgeable instructor rather than trying to pick it up on their own.

This comes from page 4-43 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook and 5-4-6.e.6 of the AIM.
Click to expand...

Do you call NoPT 'skip to my loo':)
 
midlifeflyer said:
That makes sense. Without looking, let me guess. Blanca (a fourteener) is too damn close to the holding pattern when you get to higher altitudes with their higher max holding speeds.
Click to expand...

It's about Ground Speed. The higher you go, the faster the TAS, hence faster GS. The faster the GS, the wider the radius of turn. And length of leg if using minutes instead of DME. Sometimes the terrain is so steeply rising and right on the edge of protected airspace, that when you go up to larger 'protected airspace', the terrain sneaks from just outside to just inside.
 
aterpster said:
Yes, they are. It's not an airspace issue. It is exceeding protected airspace if holding well above the maximum TERPs evaluated altitude (increased template size). This affects only some mountainous airports but the FAA decided to paint the entire house, so to speak.

Alamosa, Colorado (KALS) RNAV 20 is the poster child.
Click to expand...

Wally is correct. Additionally, understand that in something like 99% or more of the cases there is no real reason for the maximum holding altitude.

Example - Bristow, OK, only because I know it well.

upload_2020-11-9_15-58-28.png

The holding is 2600-6000. Could you safely hold at 7000? Yes - this is Oklahoma. There is nothing to hit. It is not a terrain limitation, it is not an airspace limitation, it isn't even an ATC-desired restriction based on traffic or anything else.

Essentially, in those 99% of cases, the procedure developer, fairly arbitrarily, decided that some altitude was a high enough altitude and didn't bother evaluating above that. The development software requires SOMETHING be entered as a maximum altitude, so the developer chose 6000. So that 6000 also went on the form 8260-2, which documents fixes and holding patterns, and now gets put on the chart. But that "maximum altitude" has actually been put on the 8260-2 for decades, it just wasn't put on the chart. Often it was "17,500", but there was and still is no guidance on how to establish a maximum holding altitude, UNLESS as in the ALS case, terrain actually is a factor.

At Bristow, the developer could have decided that 4000 was high enough, or 5000, or 10,000 or some other number, and that would be charted. For this procedure, 6000 seems as good as anything since that's where the holding speed changes from 200 to 230 and the pattern evaluation size increases.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-11-9_15-52-48.png
    upload_2020-11-9_15-52-48.png
    48 KB · Views: 5
EdFred said:
I think you're looking for pilotsoftheworld.com. :D
Click to expand...
It seems some people still think that America is only the USA and forget that there's a whole lot more of America, including our neighbors to the north and south. And a whole other continent.
 
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.

For the ILS or LOC RWY 12, we'd always start the approach at the BZN VOR and complete the HILPT. Did that in icy low winter weather conditions just about every time.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2012/00059IL12.PDF

We'd also get the Bozeman Six departure (it probably wasn't on number six back then) and enjoy the race track pattern on the way up. Lots of turning.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2012/00059BOZEMAN.PDF

Anyway, point is, IFR flying still requires these skills, for sure, even in the United States.
 
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.

For the ILS or LOC RWY 12, we'd always start the approach at the BZN VOR and complete the HILPT. Did that in icy low winter weather conditions just about every time.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2012/00059IL12.PDF

We'd also get the Bozeman Six departure (it probably wasn't on number six back then) and enjoy the race track pattern on the way up. Lots of turning.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2012/00059BOZEMAN.PDF

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

It has Radar now. The City (I’m assuming the city owns it) funded the Radar rather than wait on the FAA to hopefully do it someday. Approach control is Big Sky in Boise.
 
luvflyin said:
It has Radar now. The City (I’m assuming the city owns it) funded the Radar rather than wait on the FAA to hopefully do it someday. Approach control is Big Sky in Boise.
Click to expand...
I believe that is correct. It may be a beacon interrogator. Those cost a lot less than full-up radar. BZN became radar several years ago.
 
Sluggo63 said:
It seems some people still think that America is only the USA and forget that there's a whole lot more of America, including our neighbors to the north and south. And a whole other continent.
Click to expand...
Old Amerigo Vespucci had no idea how much trouble he was causing when he lent his name to two different continents.
Portrait_of_Amerigo_Vespucci.jpg
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top