![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
24 Feb 2006 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 25th 06 06:55 AM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |
Backup gyros - which do you trust? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 23 | July 17th 03 08:06 PM |