Crossing an NDB 3 times on an approach?

That is true, if at the altitude. For example in the case
of the Hendrick crash, the BE 200 was at 5.000 and the
initial is 3600. Then the crew got lost over the LOM and
just did a 360 and never went outbound.



"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| if the altitude change requires more than 500 fpm, the
pilot
| should request the extra turns. Further the pilot
should
| not be rushed, if not properly established the options
are
| to request extra turns or go missed. At a busy airport,
the
| miss may be needed because of traffic, at a place where
you
| are the only traffic, ATC will approve what ever you
need.
|
| A pilot should know his limitations and those of his
| airplane. If you have a lot of altitude to loose, you
know
| that before you get to the fix and should ask for time
and
| distance to allow this. Most controllers will as a
routine
| clearance authorize long legs on the initial clearance
if
| the airplane is not already at the initial approach
| altitude.
|
| If the pilot needs it, requests it, and is granted the
clearance, that
| is fine.
|
| But, if he arrives at the course reversal hold on
altitude, criteria
| will protect him from high descent rates.

Jim Macklin wrote:
That is true, if at the altitude. For example in the case
of the Hendrick crash, the BE 200 was at 5.000 and the
initial is 3600. Then the crew got lost over the LOM and
just did a 360 and never went outbound.


You're a thousand feet high on both counts. They were told to hold at
4,000 and both the initial (minimum holding altitude) and intermediate
altitudes are 2,600.


From the NTSN report:

"As the airplane approached MTV, an air traffic controller advised the
flight crew that the airplane was second in line for the localizer
runway 30 approach. The controller instructed the pilots to hold 'as
published' on the localizer course at 4,000 feet mean sea level (msl)2
and to expect a 28-minute delay in the holding pattern. The flight crew
requested 5-mile legs in the holding pattern, and the controller
pproved 5- or 10-milelegs at the crew’s discretion."

"At 1224:19, while the accident airplane was still turning right to the
outbound leg of the holding pattern, the controller asked the flight
crew if the airplane was established in the holding pattern, and the
crew confirmed, 'we’re established.' At 1224:26, the controller cleared
the airplane for the localizer runway 30 approach and requested that the
flight crew advise him when the airplane was inbound on the approach.
The airplane then completed a continuous right turn toward the inbound
course and crossed the BALES LOM at an altitude of 3,900 feet."

In a case like this the holding pattern's primary purpose was to absorb
a traffic delay with course reversal being adjunct to that requirement.

The crew had just turned outbound when they received an unexcepted early
approach clearance, and they were not much higher than the two feeder
altitudes. Under AIM 5-9-4, they received the approach clearance *after
crossing the course-reversal/holding fix so they were cleared to fly a
full 1 minute pattern (the 10 mile pattern may have applied only at
4,000). So, with 3 minutes to loose 1,400 feet, they should have been
able to do that, but they did need the full 1-minute pattern to do that.
And, if they though 467 feet per mile was too steep (within the
maximum permitted by TERPs, though) they could have request yet another
circuit.