Leaving hold in approach

[midlifeflyer]

OK, so I watched the video. Looks like his GPS drew the dark red and he flew the magenta, so even I guess if he made an extra circuit it still might not have been noticed (I suppose calling "established on the FAC" just as he was heading towards YADFY is also questionable but probably not noticeable).
View attachment 94260

You got a better close view than I did. The same concept was at play plus an assumption that the GTN would automatically load the published hold - that's on my recurrent training short list, so he actually held south with left turns rather than west as published. It was actually a bit worse than I first thought.

 

[asicer]

plus an assumption that the GTN would automatically load the published hold - that's on my recurrent training short list

You've inspired me to put it on my list, too (the receiving end). I know how to input a hold but I need to check whether "the box" prompts me for a published hold or if I need to set it up manually.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You've inspired me to put it on my list, too (the receiving end). I know how to input a hold but I need to check whether "the box" prompts me for a published hold or if I need to set it up manually.

It doesn't. At best it will assume a direct entry on current course to the fix. That's tru for the Avidyne as well. That kind of makes sense since most enroute holds, published or not, are like that. The two best options i a Jerry situation are (1) understand the hold and recreate it and (2) reload the approach using CITXU as the IAF and accept the hold. (you can also use OBS mode but you're still stuck with needing to understand the hold).

Personally, I like #2, reloading the approach. That's because loading an approach is a very common task and reloading is not really different and happens far more often than holds.

 

[Larry in TN]

De-automate.

A/P to heading mode. Fly the hold-entry in heading mode, referencing the chart, while you reprogram the box.

Had something similar happen in 767 initial training. Both my sim partner and I were coming off fly DC9s with two VOR and one ADF receivers for navigation so learning the FMS and automation was a challenge for us. My leg in the sim, instructor gave us a last minute hold. I called for my partner (PM) to program the hold. He wasn't going to have it done before I reached the fix so I went to heading mode and fly the hold the old way until he was able to catch up.

Very easy to get yourself into trouble, and into unprotected airspace, if you stick with the full automation when you get behind instead of prioritizing where the airplane is, and is going. De-automate.

Also, don't cancel IFR while you're still going in and out of clouds.

 

[midlifeflyer]

De-automate.

Knowing how the equipment works just as well as foregoing it. Look at @asicer's drawing. Better yet, here the approach plate on his GTN (track up) with the published hold and his hold both displayed. That's not an automation problem. That's a pilot not understanding what "hold west" means even when it's "hold west as published." If he did it your way, chances are the picture would look exactly the same.

 

[asicer]

Personally, I like #2, reloading the approach. That's because loading an approach is a very common task and reloading is not really different and happens far more often than holds.

Ah yes, great idea. I like that a lot. I once input an IAF with a noPT leg towards a HILPT just like Jerry's approach (I think it was a G1000 although it could have been a GNX375) and the thing asked me if I wanted to hold as published. I remember thinking "why the heck is it asking me that when it's a noPT leg??!?". Well, the light bulb just came on today.

 

[Larry in TN]

That's a pilot not understanding what "hold west" means even when it's "hold west as published."

That's true. Don't know what his thought process was. Is he on this forum?

 

[aterpster]

De-automate.

A/P to heading mode. Fly the hold-entry in heading mode, referencing the chart, while you reprogram the box.

Had something similar happen in 767 initial training. Both my sim partner and I were coming off fly DC9s with two VOR and one ADF receivers for navigation so learning the FMS and automation was a challenge for us. My leg in the sim, instructor gave us a last minute hold. I called for my partner (PM) to program the hold. He wasn't going to have it done before I reached the fix so I went to heading mode and fly the hold the old way until he was able to catch up.

Very easy to get yourself into trouble, and into unprotected airspace, if you stick with the full automation when you get behind instead of prioritizing where the airplane is, and is going. De-automate.

Yes indeed, when in doubt sync to present heading then go into heading mode. Had AAL 965 done that going into Cali, Colombia in 1995, it would have been a non-event.

 

[Larry in TN]

Yes indeed, when in doubt sync to present heading then go into heading mode. Had AAL 965 done that going into Cali, Colombia in 1995, it would have been a non-event.

FO: "What's it doing now?"

CA: "Yeah, it does that sometimes"

 

[NoHeat]

There's a Chief Counsel opinion saying it's a maximum distance (although it deals with DME distance rather than RNAV) unless ATC specifies the distance in the holding instruction. It's the last of the five questions in the 2011 Young interpretation.

Do I have this right?

A really basic requirement -- in an RNAV approach, the leg of holding pattern must be "less than or equal" to what's charted; so that it's okay to make the turn shorter than charted but not longer -- that's not really disclosed anywhere obvious like the Instrument Flying Handbook or Instrument Procedures Handbook?

Just an obscure Chief Counsel letter, and even that is really about a different kind of approach (DME)?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Do I have this right?

A really basic requirement -- in an RNAV approach, the leg of holding pattern must be "less than or equal" to what's charted; so that it's okay to make the turn shorter than charted but not longer -- that's not really disclosed anywhere obvious like the Instrument Flying Handbook or Instrument Procedures Handbook?

Just an obscure Chief Counsel letter, and even that is really about a different kind of approach (DME)?

And the obscure AIM.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just an obscure Chief Counsel letter, and even that is really about a different kind of approach (DME)?

Some people feel comfortable with correlation. Others don't.

FWIW, I am not 100% comfortable with the interpretation from a practical standpoint. I think it is correct but it is an "IFR Rule No 1" (always be on the same page as ATC) item for me. Distance being "specified" by ATC on a published hold is too fine a distinction for my taste and one I can see ATC not recognizing at all. Heck many of them don't really understand they need to clear us straight in when they send us direct to an IF which has a depicted procedure turn, reasonable expecting us to go straight in. And since an assigned hold is typically for spacing, I may well be wasting my time making more turns than I need to by not using the full distance. So, for many reasons, my SOP is to inform ATC I plan to shorten the distance.

 

[NoHeat]

I looked for anything about this in an FAA book.

Chapter 3 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook isn't clear to me. In the paragraph below, the bolded sentence seems to hint that an exact match is expected: leg length must be equal what's charted. On the other hand, the italicized sentence suggests there's more flexibility (but without clearly saying that the leg length in an RNAV chart is a maximum, it's okay to fly a leg that's shorter)

When flying published GPS overlay
or standalone procedures with distance specified, the
holding fix is a waypoint in the database and the end of the
outbound leg is determined by the ATD. Instead of using
the end of the outbound leg, some FMS are programmed
to cue the inbound turn so that the inbound leg length
matches the charted outbound leg length.
Normally, the difference is negligible, but in high winds,
this can enlarge the size of the holding pattern. Aircrews
need to understand their aircraft’s FMS holding program to
ensure that the holding entry procedures and leg lengths
match the holding pattern. Some situations may require
pilot intervention in order to stay within protected airspace.​

 

[MauleSkinner]

I looked for anything about this in an FAA book.

Chapter 3 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook isn't clear to me. In the paragraph below, the bolded sentence seems to hint that an exact match is expected: leg length must be equal what's charted. On the other hand, the italicized sentence suggests there's more flexibility (but without clearly saying that the leg length in an RNAV chart is a maximum, it's okay to fly a leg that's shorter)

When flying published GPS overlay
or standalone procedures with distance specified, the
holding fix is a waypoint in the database and the end of the
outbound leg is determined by the ATD. Instead of using
the end of the outbound leg, some FMS are programmed
to cue the inbound turn so that the inbound leg length
matches the charted outbound leg length.
Normally, the difference is negligible, but in high winds,
this can enlarge the size of the holding pattern. Aircrews
need to understand their aircraft’s FMS holding program to
ensure that the holding entry procedures and leg lengths
match the holding pattern. Some situations may require
pilot intervention in order to stay within protected airspace.​

Is this a quote about holds, or is it the Hold-in-lieu-of-procedure-turn?

 

[luvflyin]

Some people feel comfortable with correlation. Others don't.

FWIW, I am not 100% comfortable with the interpretation from a practical standpoint. I think it is correct but it is an "IFR Rule No 1" (always be on the same page as ATC) item for me. Distance being "specified" by ATC on a published hold is too fine a distinction for my taste and one I can see ATC not recognizing at all. Heck many of them don't really understand they need to clear us straight in when they send us direct to an IF which has a depicted procedure turn, reasonable expecting us to go straight in. And since an assigned hold is typically for spacing, I may well be wasting my time making more turns than I need to by not using the full distance. So, for many reasons, my SOP is to inform ATC I plan to shorten the distance.

Comply with ‘last clearance received.’ That’s a basic rule. Somewhere in the AIM I think it says that is the basic tenet of IFR Clearances. The Counsels letter addressed complying with holding instructions. Could be ## mile legs, # minute legs or as published. ATC will be expecting you to comply and may be basing separation between aircraft on you doing so. However, in the situation this thread is about, “Hold blah, blah, blah” is not the last Clearance received. Cleared for the Approach was the last Clearance received.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Chapter 4 of the IPH talks about HILPT, and uses the same terminology as the AIM...

A holding pattern-in-lieu-of procedure turn may be specified for course reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is established over an intermediate fix or a FAF. The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. For a hold-in-lieu-of PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Comply with ‘last clearance received.’ That’s a basic rule. Somewhere in the AIM I think it says that is the basic tenet of IFR Clearances. The Counsels letter addressed complying with holding instructions. Could be ## mile legs, # minute legs or as published. ATC will be expecting you to comply and may be basing separation between aircraft on you doing so. However, in the situation this thread is about, “Hold blah, blah, blah” is not the last Clearance received. Cleared for the Approach was the last Clearance received.

Not an important enough distinction for me to not take the 4 seconds needed to say, "45X will turn inbound early."

 

[luvflyin]

Not an important enough distinction for me to not take the 4 seconds needed to say, "45X will turn inbound early."

With you a hunnert percent on that. I wasn’t arguing your being on the same page as ATC part of your post. Just making the distinction of what the Chief Shyster said and how it did or didn’t apply to this threads situation.

 

[aterpster]

FO: "What's it doing now?"

CA: "Yeah, it does that sometimes"

They were passengers by that point.

I felt sorry for the approach/tower controller. No radar, but he sensed something was amiss. It must have been very hard on him. Having said that, Colombia, unlike some "third world" countries, take care of their ATC folks.

 

[luvflyin]

I looked for anything about this in an FAA book.

Chapter 3 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook isn't clear to me. In the paragraph below, the bolded sentence seems to hint that an exact match is expected: leg length must be equal what's charted. On the other hand, the italicized sentence suggests there's more flexibility (but without clearly saying that the leg length in an RNAV chart is a maximum, it's okay to fly a leg that's shorter)

When flying published GPS overlay
or standalone procedures with distance specified, the
holding fix is a waypoint in the database and the end of the
outbound leg is determined by the ATD. Instead of using
the end of the outbound leg, some FMS are programmed
to cue the inbound turn so that the inbound leg length
matches the charted outbound leg length.
Normally, the difference is negligible, but in high winds,
this can enlarge the size of the holding pattern. Aircrews
need to understand their aircraft’s FMS holding program to
ensure that the holding entry procedures and leg lengths
match the holding pattern. Some situations may require
pilot intervention in order to stay within protected airspace.​

AIM 5-3-8 j. 7 and 8. talks about how RNAV navigators and FMS cannot always be trusted to keep you in protected airspace and what to do about it.