Holding Pattern Question

Dennis Johnson wrote:
I'm probably over-thinking holding patterns and have become confused.

When given instructions to hold at a non-published holding pattern, ATC will
specify:

1. The direction from the fix, such as north, north-east, etc.
2. The name of the holding fix.
3. The radial, course, or airway on which the aircraft is to hold.
4. The leg length and direction of turns if they are not standard.
5. The expect further clearance time.

Here's my question: If I'm told to hold on a radial (as opposed to a
course), does that mean that I'm flying away from the station when I'm "on
course" in the holding pattern?

For example, I'm given the instruction, "Hold south of the VOR on the 180°
radial, expect further clearance in 15 minutes." Once I get established in
the holding pattern, do I track inbound to the station on the 180° radial or
do I track outbound on the 180° radial?

How would that be different if I were given the same instructions, except
hold on the 180° course (instead of the 180° radial)?

Thanks,
Dennis



Remember on the outbound leg you are correcting for the wind with double
or triple the crab angle used inbound. So you will not be tracking
parallel to any radial if there is a wind.

You have received excellent answers, but that won't keep me from piling
on....

Dennis,

I will pile on too. I think the confusion can set in when we are told to
hold south on the 180 radial, we are inbound on that radial, but our DG
needs to say 360 and our OBS does not have 180 on the top of the dial. It
has it's inverse.

I hope I'm correct on this...it not I will bow my head out of this
conversation.

Kobra

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
reaching
the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.

Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
to the ETA..."

Thanks,
Dennis

On 09/24/07 20:14, Dennis Johnson wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
reaching
the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.

Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
to the ETA..."

Yes, and that is the answer you want to give on the exams, but in real
life, you'll find that the controllers want you out of the air as soon
as possible. They're expecting you to get on the ground asap. I wouldn't
plan on waiting for your ETA once you get to the fix...


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

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

Mark Hansen wrote:
On 09/24/07 20:14, Dennis Johnson wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
The EFC is of use only if you experience communication failure. Assuming
that's the case, then with no EFC, you're expected to proceed upon
reaching
the holding fix as though the EFC was zero.
Thanks for the correct answer. In the meantime, I also found the answer in
AIM 91.185(c)(3)(ii):

"...leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one
has been received, or if one has not been received, ... as close as possible
to the ETA..."

Yes, and that is the answer you want to give on the exams, but in real
life, you'll find that the controllers want you out of the air as soon
as possible. They're expecting you to get on the ground asap. I wouldn't
plan on waiting for your ETA once you get to the fix...



If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.

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.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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


Please explain.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If you really lose comm, waiting until your ETA is the correct procedure.


Why?

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