Newbie holding questions

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

I don't know. But unless you are the only person in the air, procedures
must be designed to take into account the failure modes of other aircraft,
which could easily include loss of com without loss of nav.

Such as?

Steven P. McNicoll asked,

What single point of failure would disable both of my comm radios but not
affect my nav radios?

Laryngitis.

Such as?

Such as go back in the thread and re-read the posts you dismissed as not
pertaining to your aircraft.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Then why did you write: "It's a moot point anyway, whatever caused my comm
radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the same way and I won't
be able to identify the holding fix."



I have two comm radios, they share no components, have separate antennas. I
use a headset but also have a hand microphone and cabin speaker. I have
auxiliary headset jacks that allow me to bypass the audio panel. What
single point of failure would disable both of my comm radios but not affect
my nav radios?

I don't know I was simply responding to what you wrote. At least my
newsreader showed you as the author of the post that made the above
statement.


Matt

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Such as go back in the thread and re-read the posts you dismissed as not
pertaining to your aircraft.


Which posts are they?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I don't know I was simply responding to what you wrote. At least my
newsreader showed you as the author of the post that made the above
statement.


I did write it. Do you now understand why it's a moot point?

Steve,
This may seem somewhat pedantic, but Narco built separate comm
and nav units for years. They were great for panel space issues. Collins
also built separate units and actually hyped their independence as a
reliability feature. You are a smart enough person to understand the
redundancy and reliability issues, so I wonder if some of your questions
are just you playing the devil's advocate?


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
Posted At: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:22 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Newbie holding questions
Subject: Newbie holding questions


"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Such as go back in the thread and re-read the posts you dismissed as
not
pertaining to your aircraft.


Which posts are they?

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
. net...

Okay Steve, I didn't realize until just now that you are only talking
about enroute holds. I was applying your comments to all types of holds.
Will you agree that a hold at an initial approach fix will always
include and EFC time?


I'm talking about all holds in which no delay is expected. The example I
provided was an enroute hold but FAAO 7110.65 does not differentiate between
enroute holds where no delay is expected and holds at an IAF where no delay
is expected.

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
. ..

I am like you Jim, seems that Steve is not very clear in what he says.


What did I say that was not very clear?



Though to be honest, I always thought a hold, is a hold is a hold, if I am
told to hold at ABC VOR enroute, I will be expecting an EFC to leave ABC
VOR to proceed on to to my destination, paper stop or not as he describes.

Are there special procedures for an enroute holds? Am I not expected to
fly a racetrack pattern around the fix I am instructed to hold at?

Like others said, it would be more appropriate to put a speed restriction
rather then hold, but Steve insists that I won't be flying in circles when
I am asked to hold.

When I got my one and only reroute, I was routed to a VOR, and I didn't
even think of asking for a EFC since I figured there was no delay as I was
being re-routed around a MOA.

With the vague way Steve writes in this newsgroup, kinda makes me nervous
if I had to ever fly through his sector if he is an ATC controller.


FAAO 7110.65 and FAR 91.185 specifically refer to holding instructions
without an EFC and the AIM does so implicitly. Why then do some insist that
holding instructions must always include an EFC?

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
et...

Steve,
This may seem somewhat pedantic, but Narco built separate comm
and nav units for years. They were great for panel space issues. Collins
also built separate units and actually hyped their independence as a
reliability feature. You are a smart enough person to understand the
redundancy and reliability issues, so I wonder if some of your questions
are just you playing the devil's advocate?


The question in my previous message was asked to ascertain which posts Jose
believes I dismissed as not pertaining to my aircraft.