Since we can’t help talking about holds, here’s something a wee bit different in a hold-in-lieu.
Holds
- Thread starter midlifeflyer
- Start date
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
This is the first ILS TAA I think I've seen. They may be more common nowadays than I'm thinking as I mostly fly into airports with only RNAV IAPs so don't see many ILS's outside of the sim.
There are getting more common. There are several ILS approaches with TAAs and I expect there to be more. In most cases there are two versions, a Z and a Y with one of them being GPS enhanced; the other solely ground-based. In my immediate area, there are three of those, including my home base. Compare the TTA ILS 3 Z with the ILS 3 Y. This one is a little unusual since it's a combo, but it was not the existence of a TAA I was thinking of when I posted.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
The hold based on either time or distance?
FWIW, Jepp only shows the distance…we need to get Wally or Russ on this one.
Clip4
Final Approach
The minimums for the LPV and ILS are the same at this airport. So this approach is for a non-WAAS aircraft needing the ILS?
The 4nm HILPT is for arrival from the south TAA sector.
The 4nm HILPT is for arrival from the south TAA sector.
Last edited:
Yep. Interesting, eh?
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,678
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
It’s a double non-standard. I’m also interested in the correct way to begin the approach if GPS is not available and you’re not getting vectors. The plate doesn’t require radar, GPS, or other RNAV to fly the approach, only GPS to use the TAA. Fly an airway to MEM or HLI, then the designated radial from there to EFPUB, and then the HILPT?
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,094
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
The GPS REQUIRES FOR TAA in the plan view vs the notes box leads me to imagine the plate without the TAA on it if I’m not capable GPS. That being the case, I expect vectors to final if I’m not equipped.
But yeah, I’d expect GPS required for TAA to he in the notes box as well.
Good observation. There were probably more at one time but the plate indicates the only published non-RNAV non-radar access is via the HLI transition.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
You could intercept the localizer pretty much anywhere within its service volume and proceed to the HILPT from there.
That's probably the age of the plate and that 3A is a minor amendment. 3A is 2017; 3 was 2013.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,094
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
Think more about the plan view, since DME does not appear to be requires, my guess is that when arriving via the GPS TAA, the 4NM HILPT course reversal is utilized and when unable GPS, the 1 min legs are used since there’s no way other to figure the distance.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,678
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I had to view it on a computer rather than my phone to notice the additional information at HLI for that transition. It doesn't hold any records for busiest plate in the book, but it is certainly above average.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,678
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
If you can navigate yourself into the localizer service volume, that would work. But without RNAV or vectors I think the only way to accomplish that would be to fly a known radial outbound from one of the charted VORs. Per @midlifeflyer's post #9, the charted transition from HLI is probably the single correct answer.
What strikes me is the decision to do it all on one plate instead of dividing into Z and Y variants; one with a TAA and one without. That's a good @RussR question. Maybe timing.
But for the base question about having both a 4 NM and a 1 minute hold, I have an answer from the FAA charting people.
The addition of a TAA to this procedure updated the holding to include the 4nm leg. Both patterns have been evaluated for obstacles and airspace so it's up to each pilot which one they want to fly.
IOW, it's all been vetted. Do what you want. And the Garmin and Jepp databases do it different. Garmin gives you a 1-miute hold; Jepp gives you a 4 NM hold.
RussR
En-Route
This procedure is really early in the TAA-to-ILS development - Amdt 3 is from 2013, which is very early days for all of that. The current Amdt 3A just had some minor airport elevation-type changes. So in 2013, the rules for RNAV-to-ILS transitions were new and not fully fleshed out. So it has some oddities.
Regarding the holding pattern time and distance, it looks like what happened is this:
The pattern was documented on the form 8260-2 as a timed holding pattern. Pat 2 on the form. Note at the bottom is where it specifies which procedure uses which pattern, the ILS uses Pat 2 in this case.
So, charting looks at this, see it uses Pat 2, which has a 1 min length, and charts that.
But the procedure source (form 8260-3) has this added comment:
So it seems like charting took this as "chart 4 nm leg AS WELL as 1 min", and not "INSTEAD OF". This seems to be correct to me, since the distance wouldn't work for someone not having GPS and flying the HLI feeder. But having them both on there is fine, they were both evaluated (the leg length as part of the RNAV), so there's no issue and as @midlifeflyer 's response indicates, you can safely fly either.
Jepp charting only the distance seems incorrect to me.
Regarding splitting it into a Y and a Z, that could have been done, and was probably discussed, but ultimately decided to not be necessary.
Regarding the holding pattern time and distance, it looks like what happened is this:
The pattern was documented on the form 8260-2 as a timed holding pattern. Pat 2 on the form. Note at the bottom is where it specifies which procedure uses which pattern, the ILS uses Pat 2 in this case.
So, charting looks at this, see it uses Pat 2, which has a 1 min length, and charts that.
But the procedure source (form 8260-3) has this added comment:
So it seems like charting took this as "chart 4 nm leg AS WELL as 1 min", and not "INSTEAD OF". This seems to be correct to me, since the distance wouldn't work for someone not having GPS and flying the HLI feeder. But having them both on there is fine, they were both evaluated (the leg length as part of the RNAV), so there's no issue and as @midlifeflyer 's response indicates, you can safely fly either.
Jepp charting only the distance seems incorrect to me.
Regarding splitting it into a Y and a Z, that could have been done, and was probably discussed, but ultimately decided to not be necessary.
Larry in TN
En-Route
Direct MEM, direct EFPUB, then the holding entry for the course reversal, or the feeder off HLI to EFPUB.
RussR
En-Route
There is no published route from MEM to EFPUB.
Me too since, after all, if you are loading it from the database, you have GPS. But it's probably a no harm, no foul.
What's the altitude for that leg? (That's your hint it's not a published route.)
Larry in TN
En-Route
There's no published route from the departure airport to the MEM VOR, either. That's what Direct is used for. EFPUB is an IAF. You need clearance to EFPUB, that you have the ability to navigate, and a clearance for the approach starting at EFPUB.
The altitude assigned by ATC which is at, or above, the minimum IFR altitude as defined by 14 CFR 91.177.
I earned my instrument rating in a 1960 C-310E which was quipped with two NAV/COMs, two CDIs, one G/S, and one ADF. Didn't even have DME. DMEs were for those fancy corporate airplanes. How do you think we navigated without RNAV or even DME?
A related question, what was the plastic IFR plotter, that come with your Jepps subscription, used for by IFR pilots?
Last edited: