VOR RWY19 Approach

[aterpster]

The enroute chart has no holding pattern and the airway is 287°. The Aeronav chart has an arrival pattern at 285°.
Still wondering if Jepp uses a dashed line for missed approach holding patterns or how they distinguish between that and the arrival patterns.

Also, if holding in an arrival pattern and cleared for the approach, are you saying you can't descend there without yet an additional clearance?

dtuuri

I would say that pattern is on the airway. But, for sake of discussion let's say the 2 degree difference at the VOR means it is not on the airway. It is still an en route/arrival hold at BIG VOR and it is the same holding pattern that is used for the missed approach.

As an arrival hold you can descend in it and end up at the VOR to start your procedure turn.

If you have previously been cleared into an arrival holding pattern you can certainly descend in it once given an unrestricted approach clearance. What I said previously you cannot assume you have a clearance to enter an arrival holding pattern simply because you have been cleared for an approach.

As to dashed line holding patterns I don't believe Jeppesen uses them.

 

[dtuuri]

I would say that pattern is on the airway. But, for sake of discussion let's say the 2 degree difference at the VOR means it is not on the airway. It is still an en route/arrival hold at BIG VOR and it is the same holding pattern that is used for the missed approach.

As an arrival hold you can descend in it and end up at the VOR to start your procedure turn.

If you have previously been cleared into an arrival holding pattern you can certainly descend in it once given an unrestricted approach clearance. What I said previously you cannot assume you have a clearance to enter an arrival holding pattern simply because you have been cleared for an approach.

As to dashed line holding patterns I don't believe Jeppesen uses them.

I see, thanks. I was wondering if there might be a transition problem from the airway because it was exactly 90° to the initial segment. Perhaps the criteria didn't allow it, so they put in an arrival hold a couple degrees less than that as a CYA thing. Just a wild guess.

dtuuri

 

[aterpster]

I see, thanks. I was wondering if there might be a transition problem from the airway because it was exactly 90° to the initial segment. Perhaps the criteria didn't allow it, so they put in an arrival hold a couple degrees less than that as a CYA thing. Just a wild guess.

dtuuri

Beats me why the 2 degree difference. An airway or feeder can differ from a VOR initial by as much as 120 degrees.

 

[akpilot907]

Sorry. The only examples I found were also military airfields. This approach at Patuxent is the same, showing the arrival hold:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1411/00314VDT24.PDF

Logically speaking, if they depicted such a coincident hold with a dashed missed approach hold line, how would you know it was an arrival hold? But if an arrival hold is to be used as a missed approach hold, the missed instructions would elucidate that just like when a missed approach hold and HILPT are coincident.

Thats one hell of an approach plate!

 

[Palmpilot]

Using the approach chart by itself you can only determine that the hold on the BIG R 287 is the missed approach hold. Presumably, if you were flying into this airport you would also have the low altitude en route chart out (AL-3), which also shows the same holding pattern. In any case you cannot use an arrival holding pattern for descent without an ATC clearance separate from the approach clearance.

Based on that, it sounds like the missed approach hold for the RNAV Y RWY 30 approach at HAF could not be used for course reversal when inbound to the approach even if ATC gave permission, because it is not shown on the enroute chart. Is that correct?

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/haf_rnav_gps_y_rwy_30.pdf

http://skyvector.com/?ll=37.38425733490454,-122.52017689726516&chart=402&zoom=2

 

[aterpster]

Based on that, it sounds like the missed approach hold for the RNAV Y RWY 30 approach at HAF could not be used for course reversal when inbound to the approach even if ATC gave permission, because it is not shown on the enroute chart. Is that correct?

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/haf_rnav_gps_y_rwy_30.pdf

http://skyvector.com/?ll=37.38425733490454,-122.52017689726516&chart=402&zoom=2

If you can get an ATC clearance into that HAF hold and let them know your intentions, then go for it. Ad hoc course reversals in such circumstances are primarily your responsibility so long as ATC gives you the airspace.

With FUSION NorCal now has radar coverage of HAF. I don't know how much they can do with it, though, other than provide radar separation. And, they have a DVA in the works for HAF.

 

[Palmpilot]

With FUSION NorCal now has radar coverage of HAF. I don't know how much they can do with it, though, other than provide radar separation.

Yesterday I flew a practice approach there in good VFR weather, and they told me the pattern was full of airplanes, so apparently coverage is pretty good now.

And, they have a DVA in the works for HAF.

That went into effect yesterday. The new Jepp 10-9 page says

DIVERSE VECTOR AREA (Radar Vectors) (AMEND 0)

Rwy 12: Heading as assigned by ATC.​

 

[aterpster]

I see, thanks. I was wondering if there might be a transition problem from the airway because it was exactly 90° to the initial segment. Perhaps the criteria didn't allow it, so they put in an arrival hold a couple degrees less than that as a CYA thing. Just a wild guess.

dtuuri

I looked at the 8260-2 for BIG. In 2007:

MAG VAR UPDATE FROM 29E TO 23E

My guess is that the pattern was originally placed on the airway but the variation changed and not in sync with the declination of the BIG VOR.

 

[akpilot907]

All of the airports in the interior underwent a big runway designation change about 4-5 years ago...