Leaving hold in approach

Dennis M Carleton

Dennis M Carleton

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
41
Display Name
Display name:
DMC
Flying the RNAV 21 approach yesterday into Wheeling (KHLG) and received instructions to hold NW of BEKSE (the IAF). Completed one lap around the hold and the turn to the outbound leg for the second lap when I was cleared for the approach. I turned immediately to intercept the final approach course. Is this correct or should I have completed the second lap around the hold, intercepting the final approach course after the inbound turn?
 
Yes. Controller said “November 2806M cleared for the RNAV 21 approach. Wheeling airport”
 
Dennis M Carleton said:
Is this correct or should I have completed the second lap around the hold, intercepting the final approach course after the inbound turn?
Click to expand...

So you basically just made a short holding pattern? Perfectly fine.

The distance on an RNAV holding pattern is a "maximum" distance. However, I have been unable to provide any reference for this other than the TERPS, FAAO 8260.3, that is used by the procedure designers to decide what number to put there (4 nm, 5 nm, etc.), but is not really designed for pilot use. Note: the distance specified is almost always this maximum leg length from this table. I am aware of no exceptions.

So, you just made your outbound leg 1 nm or whatever. Perfectly fine by TERPS.

upload_2021-2-22_20-14-0.png
 
Dennis M Carleton said:
Flying the RNAV 21 approach yesterday into Wheeling (KHLG) and received instructions to hold NW of BEKSE (the IAF). Completed one lap around the hold and the turn to the outbound leg for the second lap when I was cleared for the approach. I turned immediately to intercept the final approach course. Is this correct or should I have completed the second lap around the hold, intercepting the final approach course after the inbound turn?
Click to expand...

AIM. Note the “within” I highlighted
5−4−9. Procedure Turn and Hold−in−lieu of
Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed
when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish
the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final
approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in−
lieu−of−PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted
on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a
straight−in approach. Additionally, the procedure
turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is not permitted when the
symbol “No PT” is depicted on the initial segment
being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final
approach course is provided, or when conducting a
timed approach from a holding fix. The altitude
prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum
altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound
course. The maneuver must be completed within the
distance specified in the profile view. 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
 
RussR said:
The distance on an RNAV holding pattern is a "maximum" distance. However, I have been unable to provide any reference for this other than the TERPS, FAAO 8260.3, that is used by the procedure designers to decide what number to put there (4 nm, 5 nm, etc.), but is not really designed for pilot use.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dennis M Carleton said:
Flying the RNAV 21 approach yesterday into Wheeling (KHLG) and received instructions to hold NW of BEKSE (the IAF). Completed one lap around the hold and the turn to the outbound leg for the second lap when I was cleared for the approach. I turned immediately to intercept the final approach course. Is this correct or should I have completed the second lap around the hold, intercepting the final approach course after the inbound turn?
Click to expand...

You were cleared to hold NW or NE as published?
 
Clip4 said:
You can hold NW of BEKSE, but that’s not a clearance I would expect. Hold as published NE would be more logical.
Click to expand...
Nope. Whether is is a right or left pattern is separate from the holding direction.
 
Dennis M Carleton said:
Flying the RNAV 21 approach yesterday into Wheeling (KHLG) and received instructions to hold NW of BEKSE (the IAF). Completed one lap around the hold and the turn to the outbound leg for the second lap when I was cleared for the approach. I turned immediately to intercept the final approach course. Is this correct or should I have completed the second lap around the hold, intercepting the final approach course after the inbound turn?
Click to expand...
In Canada (and probably the U.S.), "cleared for approach XXX" without any additional instructions means you have to figure out the entry yourself, but should do it expeditiously. (In Canada, it also implies clearance to descend to MSA, but I know that's not the same in the U.S.).

If you had kept waltzing around the holding pattern, you probably wouldn't have gotten in trouble, but you'd have been forcing ATC to protect a lot of prime airspace for you longer than necessary. So I think you made a good call.
 
Clip4 said:
You were cleared to hold NW or NE as published?
Click to expand...
Clip4 said:
You can hold NW of BEKSE, but that’s not a clearance I would expect. Hold as published NE would be more logical.
Click to expand...
@Dennis M Carleton , ya still here? I’m guessing your NW was a typo or you just remembered wrong. Did the Controller say “as published” when giving you the hold?
 
David Megginson said:
In Canada (and probably the U.S.), "cleared for approach XXX" without any additional instructions means you have to figure out the entry yourself, but should do it expeditiously. (In Canada, it also implies clearance to descend to MSA, but I know that's not the same in the U.S.).

If you had kept waltzing around the holding pattern, you probably wouldn't have gotten in trouble, but you'd have been forcing ATC to protect a lot of prime airspace for you longer than necessary. So I think you made a good call.
Click to expand...
There was a thread about that here awhile back. Or mighta been another Forum. It was an airport in the US close to the border. US had delegated the airspace to Canada. Don’t remember if it was an Approach Control or Center. Anyway, Canadian procedures ruled. The Approach Clearance left the US pilot confused because he wasn’t given an altitude to maintain until on a Published Segment of the Approach. Which is OK in Canada but didn’t make sense to a US pilot.
 
luvflyin said:
The Approach Clearance left the US pilot confused because he wasn’t given an altitude to maintain until on a Published Segment of the Approach. Which is OK in Canada but didn’t make sense to a US pilot.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't have to be given one. The "maintain xxx until established" is a redundant instruction put into place decades ago directly as a result of the TWA514 crash where the pilots erroneously descended to the altitude for the initial segment of the approach when they received the approach clearance. The NTSB was split on whether that was the fault of the pilots or ATCs (I'm tending to put the blame on the pilots). Here's the NTSB report if you're curious: http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR75-16.pdf
 
luvflyin said:
There was a thread about that here awhile back. Or mighta been another Forum. It was an airport in the US close to the border. US had delegated the airspace to Canada. Don’t remember if it was an Approach Control or Center. Anyway, Canadian procedures ruled. The Approach Clearance left the US pilot confused because he wasn’t given an altitude to maintain until on a Published Segment of the Approach. Which is OK in Canada but didn’t make sense to a US pilot.
Click to expand...
AOPA and COPA have a good joint introduction to cross-border differences, but understood that someone wouldn't think of reading that if they weren't actually crossing the border.

If you're doing an approach into Soo Michigan, for example, you'll always be talking to Toronto Centre, not Cleveland Centre. If you're doing an approach into Windsor Ontario, you'll be talking to Detroit Approach, not Toronto Centre. Flying back from NYC to Ottawa, I've been handed off from Boston Centre to Montreal Centre as far south as Saranac Lake NY.

As Facebook's old relationship status used to say, "It's complicated."
 
flyingron said:
You shouldn't have to be given one. The "maintain xxx until established" is a redundant instruction put into place decades ago directly as a result of the TWA514 crash where the pilots erroneously descended to the altitude for the initial segment of the approach when they received the approach clearance. The NTSB was split on whether that was the fault of the pilots or ATCs (I'm tending to put the blame on the pilots). Here's the NTSB report if you're curious: http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR75-16.pdf
Click to expand...
It wasn't the controller's fault. It was the chart's profile view and TWA training that were at fault. I know that as well as anyone. And, the crew to the extent they discussed the higher altitudes in the plan view, but failed to query the controller.
 
aterpster said:
Nope. Whether is is a right or left pattern is separate from the holding direction.
Click to expand...
This is a surprisingly common error - thinking direction of turns and direction of hold are related.

just saw it in Jerry W's latest video. "Hold west as published" for a right hand pattern. He input a left hand pattern because he was coming from the south and the turn outbound to the west was a left turn.

That's not another Jerry slam. That kind of error is pretty common. It's so common, I've heard CFIIs argue this is "hold northwest" because the left turn takes you into that quadrant.
upload_2021-2-24_7-28-42.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's so common, I've heard CFIIs argue this is "hold northwest" because the left turn takes you into that quadrant.
Click to expand...
I’ve had that argument with an examiner. Unfortunately it was just a continuation of a general 4-day ****ing contest.:rolleyes:
 
This is an article about this subject I wrote for the ALPA magazine in 1999.
 

Attachments

  • unchartedholding.pdf
    111.4 KB · Views: 34
aterpster said:
This is an article about this subject I wrote for the ALPA magazine in 1999.
Click to expand...
Your example in that article is almost exactly the disagreement I had with the examiner...he gave me “hold northwest of the 220-degree radial, 10 mile fix,” and believed that meant holding pattern “A” in your article.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Your example in that article is almost exactly the disagreement I had with the examiner...he gave me “hold northwest of the 220-degree radial, 10 mile fix,” and believed that meant holding pattern “A” in your article.
Click to expand...
Sadly, it happens all the time. That's why the editor agreed to publish my article.
 
midlifeflyer said:
just saw it in Jerry W's latest video. "Hold west as published" for a right hand pattern. He input a left hand pattern because he was coming from the south and the turn outbound to the west was a left turn.
Click to expand...
Is that a FAR bust?
 
asicer said:
Is that a FAR bust?
Click to expand...
Not unless ATC cares. And even then only if you left the area protected fort a 50 kt crosswind.

in Jerry's video it didn't matter. His left turn was a parallel entry and a left turn inbound would being him on course. I doubt it would have been noticed unless he had to make an extra circuit. Even then he'd probably still be in protected airspace going the wrong way.
 
midlifeflyer said:
in Jerry's video it didn't matter. His left turn was a parallel entry and a left turn inbound would being him on course. I doubt it would have been noticed unless he had to make an extra circuit. Even then he'd probably still be in protected airspace going the wrong way.
Click to expand...
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).
upload_2021-2-24_13-38-47.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
The correct answer to an Examiner is, "Gee, thanks. I didn't know that" unless you are ready to argue the bust.
Click to expand...
I would’ve been ready to argue the bust (or just about anything at that point) had it happened, but we came to an agreement and he issued me a holding clearance that I could execute with the equipment on board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top