Holds when PT NA

"David Rind" wrote in message
...

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?


ATC authorization is required.



I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).


Fairly quick descent? If your clearance is via GDM and you've been cleared
for the approach, you can descend to 4000 once you reach GDM. If you reach
4000 by CAHOW, you'll find yourself about 240 feet BELOW the glideslope as
you join the localizer.



If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT?


Yes.



I can't tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.


§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

ATC authorization is required.

What are some of the factors in ATC's decision on this request?

The only times I can think of that I'd request a hold would be to configure
my cockpit (which would hopefully have been done prior to entering the
approach segment) or to drop altitude if I'd been cleared inbound high for
whatever reason.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

What are some of the factors in ATC's decision on this request?


Other traffic.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

Yes, of course. This is what says that you cannot do a PT in this
situation without ATC authorization (as I pointed out I understood
in my initial post). My question was whether a holding pattern
in lieu of a PT fell under the same rule. What caused my question
is that in the AIM (5-4-8, section b) the discussion splits limitations
on PTs and on holds in lieu of PTs:

1. In the case of a radar initial approach to a final approach fix or
position, or a timed approach from a holding fix, or where the procedure
specifies NoPT, no pilot may make a procedure turn unless, when final
approach clearance is received, the pilot so advises ATC and a clearance
is received to execute a procedure turn.

3. When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern
must be followed, except when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT
is shown on the approach course.

So that in section 1 above it says you may not do a PT if it says
NoPT, while in section 3 it says you must do a hold in lieu of a PT
unless it says NoPT. Under section 3 alone, it would seem possible
that a hold in lieu of a PT is permitted but not required if it
says NoPT. I write this just to explain why I was unsure. Everyone
here seems to agree that just like a PT, a hold in lieu of a PT
is not permitted if it says NoPT.

--
David Rind