Holds for currency

B

Bravo

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
138
Location
Maryland
Display Name
Display name:
Bravo
Do I need to be in actual or simulated when getting credit for holds? I have had about 3 holds so far while on an IFR flight plan but in VMC.
 
Doesn't matter, you can even be VFR negative FF and count it.
 
61.57(c)(1) sure makes it sound like they need to be done in actual or simulated conditions.
 
Bravo said:
Do I need to be in actual or simulated when getting credit for holds? I have had about 3 holds so far while on an IFR flight plan but in VMC.
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you were on an IFR flight plan in VMC but without wearing a view limiting device and a safety pilot. If so, you can't log it.

Am I missing something?
 
James331 said:
Doesn't matter, you can even be VFR negative FF and count it.
Click to expand...
Only if you're in actual or simulated instrument conditions. Of course, you can be in actual instrument conditions while legally operating under VFR, but otherwise, you have to be in the goo or under the hood.

See this post for more about what "actual instrument conditions" means.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's only because they do need to be done in actual or simulated instrument conditions.
Click to expand...

LOL. There are so many "experts" around here that I tend to refrain from making declarative statements, even when I'm reasonably certain they're correct. Glad I got this one right!
 
There is the question of what "holding procedures" are. 61.57 explicitly requires you to perform a specific number of instrument approaches, but not holds. In theory, one could perform holding procedures by reviewing them with the safety pilot without actually performing a hold.
 
My personal favourite is:
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.

Unless your 6 approaches were either PARs or ASRs, it's pretty tough to fly an approach without checking that box. And even then, your radio is an "electronic system" that, during a PAR/ASR, is a navigation system.
 
JeffDG said:
My personal favourite is:
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.

Unless your 6 approaches were either PARs or ASRs, it's pretty tough to fly an approach without checking that box.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Get out there and do a VOR approach that has a turn in the hold as part of the procedure and you're getting lots of currency credit all at once.
 
Sac Arrow said:
There is the question of what "holding procedures" are. 61.57 explicitly requires you to perform a specific number of instrument approaches, but not holds. In theory, one could perform holding procedures by reviewing them with the safety pilot without actually performing a hold.
Click to expand...
I think you'd have a equally hard time convincing someone, especially from the FAA, that one "performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate" by discussing it with a safety pilot, whether the "task or iteration" is an approach or a hold.
 
Sac Arrow said:
There is the question of what "holding procedures" are. 61.57 explicitly requires you to perform a specific number of instrument approaches, but not holds. In theory, one could perform holding procedures by reviewing them with the safety pilot without actually performing a hold.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The reg says:
(1) Use of an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device that involves having performed the following--
(i) Six instrument approaches.
(ii) Holding procedures and tasks.
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.
Click to expand...
I think the word "performed" makes it pretty clear you actually have to do it, not just talk about it. Now, how much of a holding pattern must you do? I rely on the following from the AIM:
The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry.
Click to expand...
...to consider that you have performed a holding procedure once you complete the entry and cross the fix the second time -- and nobody from the FAA has ever disagreed with me on that. However, I would not wish to ask that question of the Chief Counsel for fear that I could not live with the possible answer.
 
JeffDG said:
My personal favourite is:
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.

Unless your 6 approaches were either PARs or ASRs, it's pretty tough to fly an approach without checking that box. And even then, your radio is an "electronic system" that, during a PAR/ASR, is a navigation system.
Click to expand...
The FAA does not agree with that last part, and that is exactly why they inserted that into that regulation. They don't want folks who have done nothing but radar vectors to a radar approach (i.e., haven't tracked a needle in more than six months) to be out there flying IFR in the system.

BTW, Flight Standards was perfectly happy to accept logged VOR/ILS/etc approaches (i.e., the ones involving following needles) as meeting that requirement. Then some misguided individual asked the Chief Counsel if that was good enough, and the answer came back "no". So, now we have the newer logbooks with a column labeled "Int/Trk" next to the columns for approaches and holds.

Moral of the story: If you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I don't think so. The reg says:
I think the word "performed" makes it pretty clear you actually have to do it, not just talk about it. Now, how much of a holding pattern must you do? I rely on the following from the AIM:
...to consider that you have performed a holding procedure once you complete the entry and cross the fix the second time -- and nobody from the FAA has ever disagreed with me on that. However, I would not wish to ask that question of the Chief Counsel for fear that I could not live with the possible answer.
Click to expand...

(1) Use of an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device that involves having performed the following--
(i) Six instrument approaches.
(ii) Holding procedures and tasks.
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.
Click to expand...

My hangup is with the phrase "holding procedures and tasks." It doesn't tell you six holds, one hold, or even "a" hold. Certainly you have performed holding procedures if you did a hold, but implicitly one could do less than a full track in the hold to satisfy the semantics of the regulation. You are logging approaches by number but not holds, by number.
 
Sac Arrow said:
My hangup is with the phrase "holding procedures and tasks." It doesn't tell you six holds, one hold, or even "a" hold. Certainly you have performed holding procedures if you did a hold, but implicitly one could do less than a full track in the hold to satisfy the semantics of the regulation.
Click to expand...
I disagree -- you cannot look at anything in complete isolation. As I said, based on the AIM language about what constitutes a complete "holding pattern maneuver", I think you have to cross the fix at least twice for it to count -- once to begin the maneuver, and once to complete it. Note that I'm not saying you have to do an entry plus another full lap, as that would have you crossing the fix three times, and the AIM does not require that for a complete "holding pattern maneuver".
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I disagree -- you cannot look at anything in complete isolation. As I said, based on the AIM language about what constitutes a complete "holding pattern maneuver", I think you have to cross the fix at least twice for it to count -- once to begin the maneuver, and once to complete it. Note that I'm not saying you have to do an entry plus another full lap, as that would have you crossing the fix three times, and the AIM does not require that for a complete "holding pattern maneuver".
Click to expand...

To me...that's exactly what Sac was implying
 
Last edited:
Gucci Pilot said:
I think he is talking about not having to do a full racetrack.

Teardrop: cross the fix outbound, turn around, and cross it inbound, it counts.
Parallel: cross it outbound, do the reversal, cross it inbound, it counts.

You don't have to do the reversal, cross the fix inbound, and do a full oval circuit just to demonstrate wind correction.
Click to expand...
If that's what he's saying, then he and I are on the same page.

There is often confusion about what constitutes one complete holding pattern maneuver, so I teach folks to count the number of times they cross the fix -- two, and only two, constitutes one full holding pattern maneuver. That covers it for all three standard entries without worrying about "complete racetracks" or anything like that, since that can become confusing when you throw in a direct entry versus a teardrop/parallel.
 
The way around ALL of that is to get a GOOD IPC every 6 months. Not just a three approaches and done sort of pencil whipped thing. You get much more bang for your buck than by logging 6 and 1 every six months.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
The way around ALL of that is to get a GOOD IPC every 6 months. Not just a three approaches and done sort of pencil whipped thing. You get much more bang for your buck than by logging 6 and 1 every six months.
Click to expand...
Concur. The FAA has good reasons for making air carrier pilots get a full instrument check every six months, and their accident rate compared to that of the rest of us makes it seem a real good idea to copy as much of what they do as practical. Based on my job, the average non-professional pilot needs a good instrument workout at least every 12 months -- the folks I see every 24 months are usually pretty rusty on anything other than GPS/autopilot/vectors-to-final/coupled ILS approach.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
The way around ALL of that is to get a GOOD IPC every 6 months. Not just a three approaches and done sort of pencil whipped thing. You get much more bang for your buck than by logging 6 and 1 every six months.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
Concur. The FAA has good reasons for making air carrier pilots get a full instrument check every six months, and their accident rate compared to that of the rest of us makes it seem a real good idea to copy as much of what they do as practical. Based on my job, the average non-professional pilot needs a good instrument workout at least every 12 months -- the folks I see every 24 months are usually pretty rusty on anything other than GPS/autopilot/vectors-to-final/coupled ILS approach.
Click to expand...

Taking into account what Tim Winters shared of his experience after his IPC with Andrew (ARFlyer) at Gastons, this does make sense.
 
I would point out that the most perishable things are often knowledge, i.e., alternate requirements, unusual procedures, and even when a course reversal is required/prohibited. An strictly-by-the-book IPC may not cover all that, which is why I recommend doing an IPC as an IFR XC flight including all the weather and flight planning first, then flying the planned flight and creating problems as you go (e.g., losing the autopilot at some point, losing the GPS, primary flight instrument failure, unexpected missed approach and diversion, etc). I find that really identifies the pilot's weak areas for clean-up.

Of course, you ain't gonna do all that in an hour and a half. ;)
 
Gucci Pilot said:
To me...that's exactly what Sac was implying
Click to expand...
Sac was exatctly "saying"
one could perform holding procedures by reviewing them with the safety pilot without actually performing a hold.
Click to expand...
There are no specific numbers of holds, as there are approaches, but I think the better interpretation of "perform...holding procedures," even as a pure exercise in semantics, is "at least one," not "none."

Teacher: Johnny, bring me chalk.
Johnny: Oh good, since you didn't tell me how much chalk, I don't have to bring any.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If that's what he's saying, then he and I are on the same page.

There is often confusion about what constitutes one complete holding pattern maneuver, so I teach folks to count the number of times they cross the fix -- two, and only two, constitutes one full holding pattern maneuver. That covers it for all three standard entries without worrying about "complete racetracks" or anything like that, since that can become confusing when you throw in a direct entry versus a teardrop/parallel.
Click to expand...

I would agree that would constitute one complete holding pattern maneuver. Regardless, I'm arguing a semantic issue. As a practical matter, yes you should do complete holds as part of your currency program.
 
The approach I fly regularly has a Hold-in-loo. I don't really have to worry about that one.
 
It was funny, on my IR check ride I was given an intersection hold with a single Kx 170b, I found the intersection, turned and the DE says, "That's good enough, if you found the intersection and turned the right way, I'm sure you can fly the hold."
 
jordane93 said:
Even though you only legally need to do one it may be a good idea to do more than the bare minimum.
Click to expand...

stan_flair.jpg
 
And I don't think that the hold-in-loo maneuver qualifies as "holding procedures".
It is a type of procedure turn for an approach. The turn only needs to be on the depicted side, and must not EXCEED one minute.
You are not issued holding instructions with an EFC, the initial outbound MUST be one minute, and you are not maneuvering for a final approach to landing. You are trying to establish a one minute holding pattern.
Counting a hold-in-leu type procedure turn as a holding pattern is like counting a radar approach as one of the required approaches.
 
nosehair said:
And I don't think that the hold-in-loo maneuver qualifies as "holding procedures".
It is a type of procedure turn for an approach. The turn only needs to be on the depicted side, and must not EXCEED one minute.
You are not issued holding instructions with an EFC, the initial outbound MUST be one minute, and you are not maneuvering for a final approach to landing. You are trying to establish a one minute holding pattern.
Counting a hold-in-leu type procedure turn as a holding pattern is like counting a radar approach as one of the required approaches.
Click to expand...
I think it is. I don't agree with your reasoning.
• It is the same instructions as "hold as published;" I don't think the concept of an EFC time is enough difference to make it not a hold. Is the missed approach hold also "not a hold" to you? No holding instruction with an EFC there either.
• The turn needs to be done "as depicted." It's not "only on he depicted side" like the barbed procedure turn; it's a holding pattern with 1 minutes legs that requires the same entry and maneuvering to remain in protected airspace as any other hold.
• True, the 1 minute is not to be "exceeded" but how is that different from any other hold? Even a distance hold is just a limitation in the furthest distance to remain in the protected area.
• The FAA was pretty silly and drill-down detailed in requiring the performance and logging of "intercepting and tracking," done with just about any approach or hold, but somehow, they sort of missed saying that only certain types of holds counted as a holding procedure?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top