Hold at fix due to frequency congestion

[Eric Pauley]

I filed IFR today to do an approach for currency. Because I was filing to my departure airport I added a nearby VOR as an enroute fix, just a few miles away: KUNV-PSB-KUNV.

Previously when I've done this, I've contacted center and either (1) gotten vectors, or (2) been cleared for the approach starting at this fix.

Today, I was climbing towards PSB and the frequency was pretty congested, so as I was nearing PSB center still had not given me further instructions. Clearly, my clearance limit was the airport, and under lost comms procedures I'd have squawked and followed the relevant approach.

In this case though, no communications were lost, just congested. At the last moment I received vectors, but am curious what would have happened if not. Questions:

1. Where was I cleared to? Clearly to KUNV, but does this imply a default route of flying back towards the airport in the absence of some other instruction?
2. If the clearance limit is PSB, should I have held at PSB? The approach in use today was RNAV 6, which has no published hold at PSB. ILS 24 has a PSB hold, are pilots expected to find and execute this published hold?
3. How do people file flight plans like this for practice approaches? Should I be picking a further away waypoint to reduce the risk of this happening? Perhaps the IAF of the procedure I'm looking for instead of a transition waypoint?
4. What exactly are the clearance requirements to hold? Clearly there can be times when a clearance requires a hold, but if in doubt is there always some default clearance to hold at a waypoint? I.e., can a pilot choose to hold at a waypoint without requiring a prior clearance? This seems unlikely as holding would affect separation with following aircraft.

 

[Larry in TN]

If you reach your clearance limit you enter a hold on your inbound course. But, as you said, the airport was your clearance limit.

A busy controller is not a lost comm situation. The controller knows that he's busy and he's prioritizing who he talks to first. When you reach the point that you're the one who needs to be talked to he'll talk to you. It sounds like that's exactly what happened.

 

[Eric Pauley]

When you reach the point that you're the one who needs to be talked to he'll talk to you.

Agreed. I think it's still worth thinking about what to do if further instructions weren't received, though. In the moment my thinking was to maintain present heading (and that's roughly what I ended up getting a vector for), but there was no real basis for this (for instance my assigned altitude was below the OROCA in the upcoming quadrant).

 

[PastZTL]

Did you ask the controller for vectors or did the controller initiate vectors a little later than you were used to?

As to your other questions, barring an approach clearance or vectors, I would expect you to fly PSB direct KUNV at your present assigned altitude and enter a standard holding pattern at KUNV on the inbound course.

 

[luvflyin]

Agreed. I think it's still worth thinking about what to do if further instructions weren't received, though. In the moment my thinking was to maintain present heading (and that's roughly what I ended up getting a vector for), but there was no real basis for this (for instance my assigned altitude was below the OROCA in the upcoming quadrant).

Like @Larry in TN said above, if the situation dictates holding and you haven’t been given holding instructions or the hold isn’t charted, you hold in right turns on the course you arrived at the fix on. The question here is should you have held. PSB was not your Clearance Limit. Given that you hadn’t been given it as a Clearance Limit, one logic would be that you would do the Approach. But if you had arrived at PSB at a steep angle that dictated you maybe should do some kind of ad hoc course reversal, than maybe you should. We’re in AIM 6-4-1 a. territory here. Read it. Now read it again.
To just continue straight ahead past PSB on the heading you arrived on it at, as if it was some kind of vector, is not a thing you probably should do. Like said above, and what ended up happening, is they’ll get to you in time.
OROCA’s don’t have quadrants. The location of PSB puts you very close to the intersection of 4 grids. 5000, 5500, 5300 and 5400. But they should not be pertinent here. The 4100 MSA is. There is no logical reason you should get beyond 25 NM from RW06 while dealing with this.

 

[luvflyin]

Did you ask the controller for vectors or did the controller initiate vectors a little later than you were used to?

As to your other questions, barring an approach clearance or vectors, I would expect you to fly PSB direct KUNV at your present assigned altitude and enter a standard holding pattern at KUNV on the inbound course.

KUNV is the Clearance Limit. It is an airport. When getting there you should get off of the Runway.

 

[bflynn]

Do you remember your clearance? You should have been cleared to somewhere. Tail #, location and time in Z for the atc recording?

 

[Eric Pauley]

Do you remember your clearance? You should have been cleared to somewhere. Tail #, location and time in Z for the atc recording?

As mentioned, KUNV was the clearance limit. Recording would be uninteresting, it was cleared as filed.

To just continue straight ahead past PSB on the heading you arrived on it at, as if it was some kind of vector, is not a thing you probably should do.
The 4100 MSA is. There is no logical reason you should get beyond 25 NM from RW06 while dealing with this.

For sure, I was pretty displeased with not having a good contingency plan for something 30 seconds out. Good point on the MSA.

I think another issue here was that the short leg gave me little time to clarify intentions to center during the congestion. I had requested vectors about 3 minutes from the fix but probably got stepped on. This probably wouldn’t happen on a longer flight.

 

[bflynn]

You said “clearly the clearance was the airport”, but never what the official clearance I agree, fly to your clearance limit, which was the airport.

 

[Larry in TN]

Agreed. I think it's still worth thinking about what to do if further instructions weren't received

In your case, there's no question what you should have done if no further instructions had been given. Continue to fly your cleared route which was to fly back to the airport.

At some point, the controller is going to want you to do something else and he'll call you. Until then, fly your cleared route. You can't randomly enter a hold at a mid-route fix because you were expecting to get vectors prior to that fix.

 

[Eric Pauley]

In your case, there's no question what you should have done if no further instructions had been given. Continue to fly your cleared route which was to fly back to the airport.

At some point, the controller is going to want you to do something else and he'll call you. Until then, fly your cleared route. You can't randomly enter a hold at a mid-route fix because you were expecting to get vectors prior to that fix.

Curious how you'd respond here in a lost comms situation (i.e., it is clear that radio communications have been lost before reaching). Technically the right thing would be to just continue as cleared to KUNV, then from there do an approach. But in this case the previous fix is a feeder fix to an approach. In this case would you really fly to the airport, or commence an approach from PSB?

This article (which I imagine many have already read) has some interesting discussion here, including about congestion: https://www.ifr-magazine.com/system/how-far-can-you-go/

 

[WDD]

M2C

No lost Coms:
If you're cleared as filed, you fly to the VOR and then fly to final clearance - your original airport. If you filed direct, then you fly that route. If ATC wants you do to something different, they'll tell you. Entering a hold that isn't published or requested doesn't make sense.

Lost Coms:
If you lose coms, you fly as far as you are cleared to start with - which was your airport. You land as soon a practicable if in VMC conditions. If there is another airport along the way in VMC, land there. If pass your clearance with no coms, you continue as filed. If your approach begins at the VOR, then begin your approach at the VOR.

• Route – ( An easy way to remember this is the acronym AVEF )
  • Assigned – By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received
  • Vectored – If being radar vectored, by the direct route from the point of radio failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance.
  • Expected – In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.
  • Filed – In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance, by the route filed in the flight plan.
• Altitude. – At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown
  • An easy way to remember this is the acronym MEA
    • Minimum IFR altitude – The minimum altitude for IFR operations
    • Expected – The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.
    • Assigned- The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;

 

[dtuuri]

The FAA doesn't understand their own lost comm rules because the people who wrote them are long gone and the people who interpret them aren't actual pilots or controllers and rely on guidance from other employees who are supposed to understand, but don't. When you see "clearance limit" in the regs, substitute "holding fix" and suddenly you will become enlightened. "Holding fix" is what used to be in the reg, not "clearance limit". The change was without any public discussion way back in the eighty's as part of an FAR 91 cleanup at the request of AOPA. Wasn't meant to change the meaning of lost comm rules. It was supposed to make it easier to understand in light of the fact IFR charts had icons for published holding fixes, however ATC can always assign a non-icon fix as a, wait for it... CLEARANCE LIMIT! They were afraid some dumb pilots would think they could only hold at fixes with icons. Imo .

 

[dtuuri]

Technically the right thing would be to just continue as cleared to KUNV, then from there do an approach.

Now that totally depends on what you put in your route description. If you happen to have RNAV and if you also put a waypoint above the airport (a rather ignorant thing to do, imo) then yeah, track there first before finding an IAF from which to conduct an approach. Chances are good though that you didn't put such a waypoint in your route description, so no need to fly over the airport, which maybe you couldn't do anyway due to equipment limitations (no RNAV), but would look the same on the flight plan as a plan with RNAV, i.e., both would have the last enroute route fix as PSB.

 

[luvflyin]

Curious how you'd respond here in a lost comms situation (i.e., it is clear that radio communications have been lost before reaching). Technically the right thing would be to just continue as cleared to KUNV, then from there do an approach. But in this case the previous fix is a feeder fix to an approach. In this case would you really fly to the airport, or commence an approach from PSB?

This article (which I imagine many have already read) has some interesting discussion here, including about congestion: https://www.ifr-magazine.com/system/how-far-can-you-go/

“…. The controller issued, “expect the RNAV RWY 35L approach, proceed direct JIDUK, descend and maintain 2000 feet….”

“….In his letter, he asked whether JIDUK was his new clearance limit. It was, replacing KDWH….”

That is flat out wrong. JIDUK did not become the Clearance Limit. I lost faith in what this guy had to say at that point.

 

[luvflyin]

The FAA doesn't understand their own lost comm rules because the people who wrote them are long gone and the people who interpret them aren't actual pilots or controllers and rely on guidance from other employees who are supposed to understand, but don't. When you see "clearance limit" in the regs, substitute "holding fix" and suddenly you will become enlightened. "Holding fix" is what used to be in the reg, not "clearance limit". The change was without any public discussion way back in the eighty's as part of an FAR 91 cleanup at the request of AOPA. Wasn't meant to change the meaning of lost comm rules. It was supposed to make it easier to understand in light of the fact IFR charts had icons for published holding fixes, however ATC can always assign a non-icon fix as a, wait for it... CLEARANCE LIMIT! They were afraid some dumb pilots would think they could only hold at fixes with icons. Imo .

Do you have a copy of the notice of proposed rule making from the Federal Register? Not the rule making itself where it said what was to be incorporated into FAR 91. But the ‘proposal’ where it explained what they planned on doing and the reasons for it.

 

[dtuuri]

Do you have a copy of the notice of proposed rule making from the Federal Register? Not the rule making itself where it said what was to be incorporated into FAR 91. But the ‘proposal’ where it explained what they planned on doing and the reasons for it.

I used to have everything on my website AvClicks.com under "Lost Comm", but I simplified the tutorial a while back and deleted the references. I'm hoping my webmaster still retained the files, but it would cost me $$$ to find out (not gonna spend it). So, here's some info you and anybody serious about tracking down what you request can use to relocate them, Maybe there's enough clues from this deleted slide of mine:

Background

On August 9, 1978, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to revise part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) to make the regulations simpler and more comprehensible.

In response to this petition, on January 11, 1979, the FAA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) No. 79-2 (44 FR 4572; January 22, 1979) consisting of a verbatim publication of AOPA’s proposal.

Several amendments to part 91 adopted since Notice No. 79-2C were published are reflected in the final rule...

Amendment No. 91-189 (50 FR 31588; August 5, 1985) removed references to "expect approach clearance time" in Sec. 91.127. This amendment took effect on September 4, 1985. Section 91.165 (sic) reflects this amendment.​

Note that back then lost comm was 91.127, but was renumbered 91.185. Of course, they had a typo and referred to 91.165 instead.

Maybe this link will get ya started: Revision of General Operating and Flight Rules (faa.gov)

​

 

[PastZTL]

I disagree with the author of the IFR Magazine article equating a congested frequency with a loss of communications. Every controller has been on position when the sector goes to crap. Sometimes a sector gets overloaded, or two sectors are combined that should have been split, or a bunch of other things that can happen to reduce the quality of service.

The questions in the original post are (to paraphrase), "What do I do when this happens?"

 

[WDD]

When you see "clearance limit" in the regs, substitute "holding fix" and suddenly you will become enlightened.

Got to go with what is written. Not with what might have been intended nearly 1/2 century ago.

 

[dtuuri]

Got to go with what is written. Not with what might have been intended nearly 1/2 century ago.

What "is" written means the same as what "was" written. You and a frustratingly lot of other people would rather try to do the impossible, like navigate to an airport location without RNAV equipment and complain about how the written word isn't what ATC expects in real life. In reality, the terms are the same. In fact, it was ATC who wrote amendment 91-189 in order to get planes on the ground and out of the air sooner. All way before RNAV and "direct to" existed in the modern vernacular. Changing "holding fix" to "clearance limit" wasn't even commented on in the NPRM anywhere I've been able to find. Maybe you would like to search for the comments too?

 

[Eric Pauley]

What "is" written means the same as what "was" written. You and a frustratingly lot of other people would rather try to do the impossible, like navigate to an airport location without RNAV equipment and complain about how the written word isn't what ATC expects in real life.

This seems like pretty clear evidence. It seems odd that there would be different expectations of rnav and non-rnav equipped aircraft, so the only consistent action is to continue the approach.

 

[luvflyin]

I used to have everything on my website AvClicks.com under "Lost Comm", but I simplified the tutorial a while back and deleted the references. I'm hoping my webmaster still retained the files, but it would cost me $$$ to find out (not gonna spend it). So, here's some info you and anybody serious about tracking down what you request can use to relocate them, Maybe there's enough clues from this deleted slide of mine:

Background

On August 9, 1978, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to revise part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) to make the regulations simpler and more comprehensible.

In response to this petition, on January 11, 1979, the FAA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) No. 79-2 (44 FR 4572; January 22, 1979) consisting of a verbatim publication of AOPA’s proposal.

Several amendments to part 91 adopted since Notice No. 79-2C were published are reflected in the final rule...

Amendment No. 91-189 (50 FR 31588; August 5, 1985) removed references to "expect approach clearance time" in Sec. 91.127. This amendment took effect on September 4, 1985. Section 91.165 (sic) reflects this amendment.​

Note that back then lost comm was 91.127, but was renumbered 91.185. Of course, they had a typo and referred to 91.165 instead.

Maybe this link will get ya started: Revision of General Operating and Flight Rules (faa.gov)

​

Thankyou.

 

[dtuuri]

Thankyou.

Note that neither AOPA nor FAA proposed changing "holding fix" in their Part 91 cleanup. In fact, they didn't want to change anything at all. ATC (ATO), on the other hand, was simultaneously working on amending the EAC (expect approach clearance) and EFC (expect further clearance) concepts to reflect recent changes to their procedures. In that process, without any fanfare, they slipped in "clearance limit" in lieu of "holding fix" and the rest is history. Here's their NPRM number: Notice No.Jl-1-2G (49 FR 46749) to amend § 91.127 of Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 eFR Part 91) 1.

Also, here's a link I dug up to ATC's Federal Register entry on Amendment 91-189: 08+05+1985.pdf (squarespace.com)

 

[luvflyin]

Got to go with what is written. Not with what might have been

FWIW, his relating the two terms, ‘holding fix’ and ‘clearance limit’ is a valid point when trying to use it to explain what’s going on. The old way could have used clearance limit and the new way holding fix and it would change nothing. Clearance limit has been around for just about ever. The holding fix will be at the clearance limit. If you do not get cleared beyond the clearance limit before reaching it you are going to hold there, ergo holding fix.
The thing that is causing this fiasco of should you hold at a point in space above the Airport if it is your Clearance Limit is the wording of 91.185 (c) (3) (ii). It was meant to say “If the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does not begin…” instead of “If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins…”
I think maybe they replaced ‘holding fix’ with ‘clearance limit’ because some of the ETA rules concerning Lost Comm could dictate that you wouldn’t enter holding there even if you had not been cleared beyond it.

 

[luvflyin]

Note that neither AOPA nor FAA proposed changing "holding fix" in their Part 91 cleanup. In fact, they didn't want to change anything at all. ATC (ATO), on the other hand, was simultaneously working on amending the EAC (expect approach clearance) and EFC (expect further clearance) concepts to reflect recent changes to their procedures. In that process, without any fanfare, they slipped in "clearance limit" in lieu of "holding fix" and the rest is history. Here's their NPRM number which I've not actually seen: Notice No.Jl-1-2G (49 FR 46749) to amend § 91.127 of Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 eFR Part 91) 1. Maybe you can find and post it?

Also, here's a link I dug up to ATC's Federal Register entry on Amendment 91-189: 08+05+1985.pdf (squarespace.com)
Happy hunting!

I’m going to look for it. Someone had found it for me awhile back but the file he sent me was corrupted and I didn’t want to bother him about it anymore. I remember the changes that came about when EAC was retired and it all became EFC. One thing that was done is when holding is given the controller must advise how many additional minutes of delay can be expected down the road with more holding.

 

[dtuuri]

I’m going to look for it. Someone had found it for me awhile back but the file he sent me was corrupted and I didn’t want to bother him about it anymore. I remember the changes that came about when EAC was retired and it all became EFC. One thing that was done is when holding is given the controller must advise how many additional minutes of delay can be expected down the road with more holding.

I made some edits after I located the links (above). Should cover it all.

 

[luvflyin]

I made some edits after I located the links (above). Should cover it all.

Thx