Holds vs PT

Greg Bockelman

Greg Bockelman

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
11,205
Location
Lone Jack, MO
Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Is the protected airspace for a hold the same tolerances as the protected airspace for a procedure turn?

In other words, all things being equal, why would a procedure have a hold on one side of the course and a Procedure Turn on the other side of the course?
 
My guess would be because a PT is done at a cretain altitude and holds can be stacked. Wouldn't want PT's flown through a 10,000' stack of holding airplanes. Just a layman's guess.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Is the protected airspace for a hold the same tolerances as the protected airspace for a procedure turn?

In other words, all things being equal, why would a procedure have a hold on one side of the course and a Procedure Turn on the other side of the course?
Click to expand...

So the controllers can take a quick look at the radar and see who is holding and who is flying the IAP?
 
The protected airspace for a holding pattern is different from that for a PT. The biggest difference is that the PT protected airspace must cover an aircraft operating up to 10nm from the base fix plus winds and nav inaccuracies, while the HP at low altitude must only go out to include a one-minute inbound leg at 200 KIAS (plus winds and nav inaccuracies). In addition, the PT protected side is larger, due to the larger cross-track displacement of a PT maneuver vs a standard rate turn. Finally, there can be any number of reasons for the PT to be on one side and the hold on the other, including terrain and airspace.
 
Man, it's almost, like, he knows this stuff!
 
I'd also think they don't want a potentially very fast aircraft holding on the same side as a slower aircraft or vice versa. At 200 Kts, that could take the holding aircraft out 4-6 miles depending on accuracy of timing and navigational equipment/settings. A Skyhawk doing a PT after only one minute outbound puts it not quite half of that.
 
KennyFlys said:
I'd also think they don't want a potentially very fast aircraft holding on the same side as a slower aircraft or vice versa. At 200 Kts, that could take the holding aircraft out 4-6 miles depending on accuracy of timing and navigational equipment/settings. A Skyhawk doing a PT after only one minute outbound puts it not quite half of that.
Click to expand...
Not a factor. They can't have anyone in the hold at the same time someone else is shooting the approach.
 
Ron, was I way off base with the stacking aircraft in the hold idea? I think I confused a hold as part of an approach and a hold at a fix for sequencing, delays, etc.
 
If someone is holding at the same time that someone else is on the approach, they will be seperated vertically by at least 1000ft altitude. So with the PT at 2500ft and the missed approach is to climb back to 2500ft. The next guy in line waiting for the approach will be at 3500ft or higher.

The "airspace to be protected" for either holding or PT is in 7110.65. Google it.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, lets get specific. This is a Missed Approach hold. And here is the procedure.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0811/06478VA.PDF

Why is the hold on the opposite side of the coarse as the PT and what is the differences in the airspace protection?
Click to expand...

PT placement is typically determined by terrain and obstacles. Holding pattern placement is determined by other procedures; airways and other holding patterns. If a holding pattern overlaps an airway or another holding pattern they can't be used simultaneously at the same altitude.

All of this is based on non-radar procedures.
 
KennyFlys said:
I'd also think they don't want a potentially very fast aircraft holding on the same side as a slower aircraft or vice versa. At 200 Kts, that could take the holding aircraft out 4-6 miles depending on accuracy of timing and navigational equipment/settings. A Skyhawk doing a PT after only one minute outbound puts it not quite half of that.
Click to expand...

They'd be at different altitudes.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not a factor. They can't have anyone in the hold at the same time someone else is shooting the approach.
Click to expand...

There can be several aircraft in the hold while someone else is shooting the approach. They just have to be at different altitudes.
 
roncachamp said:
There can be several aircraft in the hold while someone else is shooting the approach. They just have to be at different altitudes.
Click to expand...
Right -- but they can't let anyone start the approach to this nontowered airport when someone is already flying it or in the published missed approach hold.
 
Ron Levy said:
Right -- but they can't let anyone start the approach to this nontowered airport when someone is already flying it or in the published missed approach hold.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, assume approach control is not radar-monitoring the approach procedure, how would they safely stack the planes in the hold?

If a plane is already in the hold, say at 2,400', approach control would have to send that plane up to say 3,400' before they can let another airplane shoot the approach, in case the second plane also misses the approach. Otherwise a conflict would exist.

Then, would this mean that the last plane to enter the hold will be the first to leave it?

I don't see how they could have multiple planes holding and shooting the approach without radar-monitoring the situation unless they send planes to different non-conflicting holding points.
 
Last edited:
TeenDoc said:
Out of curiosity, assume approach control is not radar-monitoring the approach procedure, how would they safely stack the planes in the hold?
Click to expand...

By assigning holding aircraft altitudes of 4000, 5000, 6000, etc, as needed.


If a plane is already in the hold, say at 2,400', approach control would have to send that plane up to say 3,400' before they can let another airplane shoot the approach, in case the second plane also misses the approach. Otherwise a conflict would exist.

Then, would this mean that the last plane to enter the hold will be the first to leave it?
Click to expand...

That depends on what the aircraft decide to do. Some may choose to wait for better weather, some may choose to go to alternate airports.

I don't see how they could have multiple planes holding and shooting the approach without radar-monitoring the situation unless they send planes to different non-conflicting holding points.
Click to expand...

This isn't a high traffic airport, you're not going to have a lot of aircraft missing approaches and stacked up in the holding pattern.
 
Boy what a can of worms I inadvertently opened.

Here's my take on this. The hold depicted in the attached procedure is a missed approach hold. I seriously doubt ATC would stack people in THAT hold waiting for THAT approach into THAT airport. If a plane missed the approach, ATC is not going to send another airplane into that airport until the issue with the missed approach is resolved. So it becomes a moot point.

Anyway, when is the last time anyone has done a complete published missed approach in the real world? Yeah, it happens, but not often, I suspect.
 
roncachamp said:
By assigning holding aircraft altitudes of 4000, 5000, 6000, etc, as needed.




That depends on what the aircraft decide to do. Some may choose to wait for better weather, some may choose to go to alternate airports.



This isn't a high traffic airport, you're not going to have a lot of aircraft missing approaches and stacked up in the holding pattern.
Click to expand...
It's a hypothetical question with a learning purpose.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Here's my take on this. The hold depicted in the attached procedure is a missed approach hold. I seriously doubt ATC would stack people in THAT hold waiting for THAT approach into THAT airport.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised. Last year, I was going into Lawrence MA (KLWM) for the VOR 23 approach (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0811/00654VG23.PDF). There was someone else on the approach ahead, so Boston says, "Hold at Lawrence VOR as published." As you can see from the chart for that approach, there's no published hold at LWM VOR on that chart. We check the L-chart -- no published hold at LWM VOR there either. "Boston, Beech 123, there's no published hold at Lawrence VOR." "Beech 123, yes, there is -- I've got it on my scope." "Well, Boston, it's not on the approach chart and it's not on the enroute chart, so you'll have to read it to us." "Hold northeast of Lawrence on the 057 radial, right turns, EFC 1234."

While my trainee is going around in the hold, I look further -- guess what I find -- the ILS 05 approach (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0811/00654I5.PDF) has a published missed approach hold at the LWM VOR -- northeast, 057 radial, right turns. Not on the other approach charts, not on the L-chart.

:frown2:

So, be aware that any published hold is going to be depicted on the controller's scope, but the controller will not know where it's actually published -- the enroute ("L") chart, one or all of the approach charts, missed approach hold, HPILPT, whatever. But since it's on the scope, it may get used. So be prepared to go on a search-and-find expedition through your charts any time a controller says "hold as published" -- or be prepared to say, "I can't find it, request instructions."
 
Send a report into NASA about the discrepancy in the approach plates.
ZBOS cannot expect you to "hold as published" for the VOR approach that is depicted on the ILS plate.

Not all Holds are displayed on the controllers map overlay of his radar display.
 
BillTIZ said:
Send a report into NASA about the discrepancy in the approach plates.
Click to expand...
There's no discrepancy. The missed approach hold is properly depicted on the chart for the approach to which it applies.
ZBOS cannot expect you to "hold as published" for the VOR approach that is depicted on the ILS plate.
Click to expand...
Boston Center wasn't involved; Boston Approach was. And my point is that they don't have any idea on what charts the hold is depicted -- all they know is that it's on their scope overlay.
Not all Holds are displayed on the controllers map overlay of his radar display.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but this one was.

That said, in retrospect, it is probably worth an ASRS report. More importantly, it's worth talking about with any IR pilot you know, especially if you're an instrument instructor.
 
TeenDoc said:
It's a hypothetical question with a learning purpose.
Click to expand...
Even so, the regs exist in a context. We like to discuss certain regulatory issues as though they exist in a vacuum, but true learning takes place when we correlate them with reality.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Here's my take on this. The hold depicted in the attached procedure is a missed approach hold. I seriously doubt ATC would stack people in THAT hold waiting for THAT approach into THAT airport.
Click to expand...

Well, assuming there were several people waiting for THAT approach into THAT airport, where do you think ATC would put them?

If a plane missed the approach, ATC is not going to send another airplane into that airport until the issue with the missed approach is resolved. So it becomes a moot point.
Click to expand...

What issue with the missed approach?
 
Ron Levy said:
So, be aware that any published hold is going to be depicted on the controller's scope, but the controller will not know where it's actually published -- the enroute ("L") chart, one or all of the approach charts, missed approach hold, HPILPT, whatever. But since it's on the scope, it may get used. So be prepared to go on a search-and-find expedition through your charts any time a controller says "hold as published" -- or be prepared to say, "I can't find it, request instructions."
Click to expand...

A published hold is not necessarily depicted on the controller's scope. A pilot shouldn't be instructed to hold "as published" unless the hold is depicted on a chart he's likely to be using; the enroute chart or the approach plate for the approach he'll be shooting.
 
roncachamp said:
They should have an idea, they have the charts.
Click to expand...
If controllers are as busy as what I heard even upon returning to Austin tonight, they don't the time to be looking up approach plates. If they have to for a pilot because they're not properly prepared and equipped, the flight may finish with a phone number to call.
 
KennyFlys said:
If controllers are as busy as what I heard even upon returning to Austin tonight, they don't the time to be looking up approach plates.
Click to expand...

Do you suppose the charts might be used during controller training? Wouldn't it be a good idea for controllers to have some idea of what the approach entails? Shouldn't they know what those various markings on their scopes represent?
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Do you suppose the charts might be used during controller training? Wouldn't it be a good idea for controllers to have some idea of what the approach entails? Shouldn't they know those various markings on their scopes represent?
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure they do know the approaches better than many of the regular pilots using them. But, when things get busy their sole purpose is to separate and route traffic by immediately available tools. Unless they have each and every chart in their sector memorized perfectly, they aren't likely to be able to pick and choose where exactly what hold was established for what approach. And, it would be unreasonable to expect them to.

As PIC under 91.103, that's your job.
 
KennyFlys said:
Yes, I'm sure they do know the approaches better than many of the regular pilots using them. But, when things get busy their sole purpose is to separate and route traffic by immediately available tools. Unless they have each and every chart in their sector memorized perfectly, they aren't likely to be able to pick and choose where exactly what hold was established for what approach. And, it would be unreasonable to expect them to.

As PIC under 91.103, that's your job.
Click to expand...

As PIC under Preflight Action it's my job to know what holding patterns depicted on the controller's scope are established for what approach?
 
roncachamp said:
As PIC under Preflight Action it's my job to know what holding patterns depicted on the controller's scope are established for what approach?
Click to expand...
No, the issue is you want the controller's to have a perfect memory, even if the pilot isn't prepared. In Ron's example, the controller referenced a hold the pilot wasn't prepared for but that wasn't necessarily anyone's fault. Ron did what he could by stating the hold was not indicated on either the approach in use nor the enroute chart. The controller was apparently calm about it and gave them a fix and radial.

Probably the only other thing that could be done is to quickly flip through the other approaches for that airport and see if the hold is shown. But, if there isn't time... ask.

I've looked at how missed holds are located at different points around the Austin area for different approaches. I've thought that somewhat confusing and even disorganized. There has to be a logical reason for TRACON not wanting to place holding traffic in just a few fixes.
 
Ron Levy said:
And my point is that they don't have any idea on what charts the hold is depicted -- all they know is that it's on their scope overlay.
Click to expand...

They better know.. "when I was a young controller" we had to know every approach, missed approach, holding patterns and protected airspace boundries in the areas we were qualified to work. And.. a current copy of the approach was maintained at the sector so we could read the approach to a pilot if needed.

Roger on Boston Approach and not Boston Center for the approaches into LWM. I was a "center" controller at ZBOS in the old days.. and worked all of the approaches north of MHT/CON into NH and VT. That was before MHT or what ever the combined approach control is called now became a "radar" approach control and moved into "center".
 
KennyFlys said:
No, the issue is you want the controller's to have a perfect memory, even if the pilot isn't prepared.
Click to expand...

Yes, I want the controller to have a perfect memory of everything that is displayed on his scope. I want him to have a perfect memory of what depicted holds appear on what charts. Anything less is unacceptable.

The pilot in this case was preparing for the VOR RWY 23 approach and was issued a hold that does not appear on that plate or on the enroute chart. Complete holding instructions should have been issued. Even if the hold had been charted, assuming Ron's quote of the controller is correct, the controller erred in not issuing the holding direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top