Hold/PT approach procedures

[Arob16]

Hi all -

I am having a discussion on another forum and wanted to get this message board's thoughts on the topic of hold-in-lieu (HILPT) procedures. Specifically, I was flying actual IMC yesterday and was given an RNAV approach clearance that, by the book, required me to perform the published hold to get lined up for final. The controller thought otherwise and wanted to know why I didn't fly straight-in...

Anyway - I'm curious to know if this has happened a lot to others? I know it's much easier on pilot/controller to fly straight in, however wouldn't assume to do it without meeting the straight-in requirements.

 

[tsts4]

Did he clear you for straight in or were you on vectors? If not, you did right IMO based upon the 4 exceptions for skipping the HILPT:

1. Vectors to final
2. NoPT route
3. Cleared "straight in"
4. Already in the hold at the fix at the altitude on the chart for that hold (the "prescribed altitude")

Personally if I was in position and altitude to skip it and it was not part of my original clearance I'd have just asked could I get the straight in.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It happens, and it has happened for a long time. I received an IPC from a CFII/Controller more than 20 years ago who insisted you were supposed to go straight in when cleared to an FAF at a "reasonable" course and altitude. Anything else was wrong.

Only solution is to make sure you and the controller are on the same page and both of you know what will take place.

So, which approach and what was the clearance?

 

[Radar Contact]

*Disclaimer: Not an expert on pretty much anything.

Without having the actual approach in front of me or knowledge of where you were in relation to the approach when you received your clearance it's a little tough to help much.

With that said, in general if you were cleared off an IF/IAF and your heading to that fix is 90 degrees or less (intercept angle), the controller is probably expecting you to do the approach straight in. However, as long as the segment you are on doesn't specifically state that the PT or HILPT is NA then from my understanding, you can do both. Most controllers I know, myself included, will specify straight-in in the approach clearance if they really want you to do the straight-in and it's questionable as to what you will do. This is why the "T" approaches are preferred by ATC and myself as a pilot. Hope that helps.

 

[Arob16]

Thanks for quick reply guys. Yes I agree that best thing to do is get on same page with controller by asking/clarifying.

I was flying the RNAV 17 in KGVT (LINK HERE). My route was KADS - TRISS - KGVT. I was cleared direct CIPEX from the general vicinity of TRISS, so I was on greater than 90 degree from the final approach path. Also was not given "cleared straight in" verbiage. Once over CIPEX I initiated the hold entry, was asked 'what are you doing sir?' and she eventually re-cleared me for the approach with the hold.

 

[Arob16]

Sorry, I should add that I was 'cleared for RNAV 17 approach, maintain 4,000 until established....' about 5 miles from CIPEX.

 

[Radar Contact]

Again, just my 2 cents.

If TRISS (I didn't take the time to look it up) is south of a line between IKOYA and UCECE (steeper than 90 degree turn to the final approach course) then you did the correct thing. Matter of fact, my understanding is given what you said the controller couldn't legally clear you for the straight in. Additionally, I wouldn't include holding in the approach clearance if that's the only legal way for you to shoot the approach. It would just be "cleared RNAV RWY 17". This approach has the "T" so I don't understand why, if she didn't want you to complete the hold, she didn't just clear you off the closest IAF I mentioned above. That's the entire purpose for putting those fixes on the approach. Controllers are people too and are not all created equal.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I looked at the approach and the route from TRISS. The controller was simply wrong on this one, and it has nothing to do with the old "is a PT optional" argument.

@Radar Contact is absolutely right. On both counts. A straight in would have been an improper instruction for ATC to give, and why the instruction wasn't some derivative of "direct IKOYA, cleared for the approach" is beyond me.

 

[James331]

Thanks for quick reply guys. Yes I agree that best thing to do is get on same page with controller by asking/clarifying.

I was flying the RNAV 17 in KGVT (LINK HERE). My route was KADS - TRISS - KGVT. I was cleared direct CIPEX from the general vicinity of TRISS, so I was on greater than 90 degree from the final approach path. Also was not given "cleared straight in" verbiage. Once over CIPEX I initiated the hold entry, was asked 'what are you doing sir?' and she eventually re-cleared me for the approach with the hold.

With that angle, I would have made a turn in the hold too.

Sounds like the controller made a mistake, humans and all, remember it's a team effort, when in doubt zero reason not to talk to ATC about your concerns.

Good call on making the turn in the hold and not trying to yank it over.

 

[azure]

And if your route to CIPEX had been from the NW instead of the SW, I would have asked the controller if she didn't clear me straight-in, since there is no TAA with NoPT sectors on this T-style approach and "unnecessary because of angle" isn't one of the exceptions tsts4 listed. With a sharp angle to final like that? I wouldn't even have asked, a turn in the hold to get lined up should be expected.

Agree that the controller was in the wrong.

 

[Radar Contact]

And to take what James331 said a step further...

If ATC gives you this clearance, or one similar, and tells you straight in, I wouldn't accept it. Tell them you can accept IKOYA, the holding turn or vectors for the straight in. Don't ever let ATC put you in a bad position. I, unfortunately have witnessed and misinformed controller give a GA aircraft a very unsafe clearance which they accepted in low IMC which resulted in their demise.

 

[Bill Watson]

Agree that the straight in was inappropriate whether given or assumed. I'd guess that the 'error' was allowing the pilot to get within 5 miles of CIPEX before giving the clearance, which is also inside of IKOYA @ 8.5 miles. At that point, a PT/Hold is needed.

On a good day, the clearance would have been given just after TRISS with IKOYA being used as the IAF.

Depending on your speed and exact position, I can imaging an AP commanding a pretty steep turn to get on the final approach course and perhaps rolling out above the glide path.

Stuff happens, hope it was a practice approach.... whoops, it was actual.

 

[aterpster]

Sounds like the controller made a mistake, humans and all, remember it's a team effort, when in doubt zero reason not to talk to ATC about your concerns.

You are being charitable. With that angle, it is far more likely that the controller needs a lot more training. Had it been me I would have made a nice phone call to the center's QA office.

 

[Fearless Tower]

And if your route to CIPEX had been from the NW instead of the SW, I would have asked the controller if she didn't clear me straight-in, since there is no TAA with NoPT sectors on this T-style approach and "unnecessary because of angle" isn't one of the exceptions tsts4 listed.

But it is one of the exceptions.

If you are coming from the NW and being vectored to final in a radar environment, you go straight in unless you specifically arrange with the controller to do the hold.

 

[RussR]

But it is one of the exceptions.

If you are coming from the NW and being vectored to final in a radar environment, you go straight in unless you specifically arrange with the controller to do the hold.

This wasn't a vector to final, it was a clearance direct to a fix on the procedure. So even from the northwest, the words "straight-in" are necessary.

 

[Fearless Tower]

This wasn't a vector to final, it was a clearance direct to a fix on the procedure. So even from the northwest, the words "straight-in" are necessary.

IF that is how the final clearance was given.

Even RNAVs I'm always getting a final vector to the fix with a clearance for the approach.

Again, in a radar environment that is typically how I've seen it go down.

 

[Arob16]

IF that is how the final clearance was given.

Even RNAVs I'm always getting a final vector to the fix with a clearance for the approach.

Again, in a radar environment that is typically how I've seen it go down.

I would have definitely asked for straight-in if I was at a better angle.

I'm wondering if the practice of straight-in without getting the actual clearance is a broadly accepted activity? (i.e. Pilot and controller not aware they are doing this against the allowed procedure).

 

[Radar Contact]

This wasn't a vector to final, it was a clearance direct to a fix on the procedure. So even from the northwest, the words "straight-in" are necessary.

Not exactly necessary. Only necessary if the controller doesn't want the uncertainty of whether or not the pilot will do the straight-in. If that is what you meant, my apologies.

d. Intercept angles greater than 90 degrees may be
used when a procedure turn, a hold-in-lieu of
procedure turn pattern, or arrival holding is depicted
and the pilot will execute the procedure.

e. If a procedure turn, hold-in-lieu of procedure
turn, or arrival holding pattern is depicted and the
angle of intercept is 90 degrees or less, the aircraft
must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach
if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure
turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.

The way I understand this from the NW and I want the straight in, I tell you. If I don't care you get cleared for the approach and can do either. A controller should only care if there is possible conflicting traffic.

 

[Bill Watson]

IF that is how the final clearance was given.

Even RNAVs I'm always getting a final vector to the fix with a clearance for the approach.

Again, in a radar environment that is typically how I've seen it go down.

Did you mean vector to the final course?

What I expect to get is either "Fly direct UCORE, at or above 3,000 and you are cleared for the RNAV 24 approach" or
"Turn heading 210 to intercept the final course, cleared for the RNAV 24 approach"

I'm thinking I never get a vector to an RNAV approach fix but I could be wrong. Just asking for clarity.

 

[James331]

I would have definitely asked for straight-in if I was at a better angle.

I'm wondering if the practice of straight-in without getting the actual clearance is a broadly accepted activity? (i.e. Pilot and controller not aware they are doing this against the allowed procedure).

Let's set aside the rules, they are a distant 3rd in the importance of things.

Big issue.
Looking at the altitudes and the turn the plane would have to make to execute the approach as you were cleared, the controller ether didn't have a picture in their head of what they were actually directing you to do, or really didn't understand aviation/aircraft.

It's the difference of not clearing a plane because that was because "it says so", and actually understanding WHY. As someone who flys IMC a good bit, I'd expect a controller to be at the WHY level.

 

[midlifeflyer]

IF that is how the final clearance was given.

Even RNAVs I'm always getting a final vector to the fix with a clearance for the approach.

Again, in a radar environment that is typically how I've seen it go down.

"If" is correct. We have to know if we are talking apples or oranges. Coming from the northwest on this approach (as opposed to the OPs' situation), "vectors to the final approach course" and "proceed direct CIPEX. Cleared for the approach" are two completely different instructions. In vectors to the final approach course, the pilot is not permitted to do the PT without specific clearance. In "proceed direct..." ATC can clear straight in, but it has to be stated, not assumed.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Did you mean vector to the final course?

What I expect to get is either "Fly direct UCORE, at or above 3,000 and you are cleared for the RNAV 24 approach" or
"Turn heading 210 to intercept the final course, cleared for the RNAV 24 approach"

I'm thinking I never get a vector to an RNAV approach fix but I could be wrong. Just asking for clarity.

It may be the areas I fly, but I don't know that I've ever gotten turned loose with a 'direct to the fix' on an RNAV approach. Seems like they are vectoring them just like it was an ILS with a final heading vector to the fix and min altitude until established.

 

[azure]

IF that is how the final clearance was given.

Even RNAVs I'm always getting a final vector to the fix with a clearance for the approach.

Again, in a radar environment that is typically how I've seen it go down.

According to the OP, the clearance was direct CIPEX, thus, not vectors to final.

I've received the same clearance many times on the RNAV 9 into KVLL, and vectors to final only rarely. It all depends on where you are, some approaches vectors is the rule, others the exception.

 

[Arob16]

According to the OP, the clearance was direct CIPEX, thus, not vectors to final.

I've received the same clearance many times on the RNAV 9 into KVLL, and vectors to final only rarely. It all depends on where you are, some approaches vectors is the rule, others the exception.

Yep - same here. Plus as someone stated earlier, if she was to provide vectors to the final approach course, she'd have to vector me north a ways... otherwise I'd be cutting it in tight from where I was positioned.

 

[azure]

The way I understand this from the NW and I want the straight in, I tell you. If I don't care you get cleared for the approach and can do either. A controller should only care if there is possible conflicting traffic.

It is best, though, if everyone is on the same page. According to the rules, the HILPT is mandatory for the pilot if not cleared straight-in, even if coming from the NW, when cleared to a fix (as opposed to VTF). Unless you tell him, the pilot has no way of knowing that you don't care whether he goes straight in or not.

If I was coming from the NW on this approach, cleared direct CIPEX and for the approach, I'd ask the controller if I could go straight in. I certainly wouldn't assume that he doesn't care.

 

[aterpster]

It is best, though, if everyone is on the same page. According to the rules, the HILPT is mandatory for the pilot if not cleared straight-in, even if coming from the NW, when cleared to a fix (as opposed to VTF). Unless you tell him, the pilot has no way of knowing that you don't care whether he goes straight in or not.

If I was coming from the NW on this approach, cleared direct CIPEX and for the approach, I'd ask the controller if I could go straight in. I certainly wouldn't assume that he doesn't care.

I'd get a clearance to one of those IAFs so I don't have to engage the controller about straight-in since he didn't offer it.

 

[Bill Watson]

It may be the areas I fly, but I don't know that I've ever gotten turned loose with a 'direct to the fix' on an RNAV approach. Seems like they are vectoring them just like it was an ILS with a final heading vector to the fix and min altitude until established.

I agree it's dependent on the places you fly. Class B/C and busier Class Ds seem default to vector to final ILSs and tend to vector to final RNAVs as well. At uncontrolled airports I noticed that the default now is to clear you direct to an IAF, where a few years ago they would try to do a vector to final.

I just did one into Morgantown WV KMGW and noticed that the ILS and RNAV share a common IAF. "Proceed direct JOHNB cleared for the (ILS/RNAV)18 approach" seemed to be a grooved swing for that tower. I don't know how common that is.

 

[Arob16]

I agree it's dependent on the places you fly. Class B/C and busier Class Ds seem default to vector to final ILSs and tend to vector to final RNAVs as well. At uncontrolled airports I noticed that the default now is to clear you direct to an IAF, where a few years ago they would try to do a vector to final.

I just did one into Morgantown WV KMGW and noticed that the ILS and RNAV share a common IAF. "Proceed direct JOHNB cleared for the (ILS/RNAV)18 approach" seemed to be a grooved swing for that tower. I don't know how common that is.

Did you perform the course reversal/hold?...

 

[Bill Watson]

Did you perform the course reversal/hold?...

Ha! No, didn't even occur to me.

But I did purposely delay my diversion to Morgantown until I was north of JOHNB so that I could be vectored to final or cleared to JOHNB straight-in without a lot of vectoring. The existence of the hold was never acknowledged, straight-in was assumed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[roncachamp]

I was flying the RNAV 17 in KGVT (LINK HERE). My route was KADS - TRISS - KGVT. I was cleared direct CIPEX from the general vicinity of TRISS, so I was on greater than 90 degree from the final approach path. Also was not given "cleared straight in" verbiage. Once over CIPEX I initiated the hold entry, was asked 'what are you doing sir?' and she eventually re-cleared me for the approach with the hold.

Given direct CIPEX from the general vicinity of TRISS the course reversal is called for. If she didn't want you to fly the HILPT she should have cleared you via IKOYA or vectored you to the FAC between CIPEX and POCNI.

 

[roncachamp]

This wasn't a vector to final, it was a clearance direct to a fix on the procedure. So even from the northwest, the words "straight-in" are necessary.

Necessary in the minds of the folks who write the AIM, but not necessary in reality.

 

[aterpster]

Necessary in the minds of the folks who write the AIM, but not necessary in reality.

Necessary in the minds of the ATO managers who wrote the RNAV direct-to-the-IF procedures and coordinated it with industry for over a year. Disregarding the AIM, the procedures are clearly set forth in 7110.65, as you well know. Are you implying the controllers can cherry pick which 7110.65 procedures to follow?

 

[PPC1052]

According to the OP, the clearance was direct CIPEX, thus, not vectors to final.

I've received the same clearance many times on the RNAV 9 into KVLL, and vectors to final only rarely. It all depends on where you are, some approaches vectors is the rule, others the exception.

I'm not /G, so please forgive my ignorance. What would the phraseology be if it was a vector to "final." In my /U, I hear the instruction to "fly heading x, maintain y altitude, intercept the localizer, cleared for the Z ILS approach." But on a GPS approach, there is no "localizer" to intercept. So what do they say instead? Why would it not just be "direct CIPEX, cleared for the GPS 17 approach"?

 

[roncachamp]

Necessary in the minds of the ATO managers who wrote the RNAV direct-to-the-IF procedures and coordinated it with industry for over a year. Disregarding the AIM, the procedures are clearly set forth in 7110.65, as you well know. Are you implying the controllers can cherry pick which 7110.65 procedures to follow?

I'm saying the maneuver is not necessary when a course reversal is not needed to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm not /G, so please forgive my ignorance. What would the phraseology be if it was a vector to "final." In my /U, I hear the instruction to "fly heading x, maintain y altitude, intercept the localizer, cleared for the Z ILS approach." But on a GPS approach, there is no "localizer" to intercept. So what do they say instead? Why would it not just be "direct CIPEX, cleared for the GPS 17 approach"?

"...until established on the final approach course, cleared..." works pretty well.

 

[PPC1052]

"...until established on the final approach course, cleared..." works pretty well.

Cool. Thanks for the answer. I appreciate your help.

 

[aterpster]

"...until established on the final approach course, cleared..." works pretty well.

What about those RNAV IAPs where the intermediate segment and final approach segment have different courses?

 

[roncachamp]

What about those RNAV IAPs where the intermediate segment and final approach segment have different courses?

You just identify what the pilot is to join; "intercept Victor 510", "join the Gopher 103 radial", whatever is called for.

 

[aterpster]

You just identify what the pilot is to join; "intercept Victor 510", "join the Gopher 103 radial", whatever is called for.

Here is a real world example, the RNAV Y Rwy 28L at KMRY. I am southbound passing HENCE fix on V111, maintaining 8,000. How would you phrase the clearance?

 

[roncachamp]

Here is a real world example, the RNAV Y Rwy 28L at KMRY. I am southbound passing HENCE fix on V111, maintaining 8,000. How would you phrase the clearance?

Real world, I wouldn't vector for that approach from HENCE as there's no significant gain; "Cleared straight-in RNAV Y RWY 28L approach."
If the MVA allowed a descent to the same altitude at HIXAR as the SNS feeder route I would issue direct to HIXAR from HENCE; "Proceed direct HIXAR, cross HIXAR at or above 5100, cleared straight-in RNAV Y RWY 28L approach."