Holding Pattern Question

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
If no delay is expected, why issue a hold?


For a variety of reasons. Let's say your destination is an uncontrolled
field and there's traffic ahead of you for that field. The controller can't
clear you for the approach because the preceding aircraft hasn't cancelled,
but he expects it to cancel before you'd experience any delay.



In that case, you better ask for an EFC if you haven't received further
clearance prior to arrival at the holding fix.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

In that case, you better ask for an EFC if you haven't received further
clearance prior to arrival at the holding fix.


Yes, but in that case the controller expects to issue an approach clearance
before you arrive at the holding fix. That's why no delay is expected.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
In that case, you better ask for an EFC if you haven't received further
clearance prior to arrival at the holding fix.


Yes, but in that case the controller expects to issue an approach clearance
before you arrive at the holding fix. That's why no delay is expected.

It just seems odd that they would issue the hold then. I guess it saves
a little time if you do actually have to hold, but it also seems like it
would be easy to also forget to issue the EFC.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

It just seems odd that they would issue the hold then. I guess it saves a
little time if you do actually have to hold, but it also seems like it
would be easy to also forget to issue the EFC.


Well, if things don't go as expected, what do you think can cause the
greater problem, not issuing the EFC, or not issuing the hold?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
It just seems odd that they would issue the hold then. I guess it saves a
little time if you do actually have to hold, but it also seems like it
would be easy to also forget to issue the EFC.


Well, if things don't go as expected, what do you think can cause the
greater problem, not issuing the EFC, or not issuing the hold?



Depends on the situation. I can see both being bad in their own way.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Depends on the situation. I can see both being bad in their own way.


Please explain.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Depends on the situation. I can see both being bad in their own way.


Please explain.



If the hold isn't issued and things don't go as expected and comm is
lost, then you have an airplane coming in the airspace unwanted, but at
a known and predictable time since you are tracking it on radar.

If the hold is issued with no EFC and comm is lost during the hold, then
you have an airplane which will enter the airspace at an unknown time.
Hopefully, the pilot knows enough to wait until the ETA, but what if he
doesn't? Or what if his watch is 5 minutes off?

Sometimes knowing what is about to happen is preferable to having a
somewhat unpredictable situation.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:



It just seems odd that they would issue the hold then. I guess it saves
a little time if you do actually have to hold, but it also seems like it
would be easy to also forget to issue the EFC.


If the controller tells you no delay expected and does not give an EFC,
if you lose radios you do not hold, you procede to an approach or
straight to the airport if an approach is not needed. All this assuming
you are close to your proposed enroute time. ATC has no idea when this
is but you should be close to it if ATC loses separation and there's an
investigation all your ducks will be in a row.