Holds when PT NA

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

--
David Rind

The NoPT is for that transition only (I assume you knew that). The GS
intercept altitude is not a huge descent from 4000 in my opinion. The
distance from CAHOW to SWANZ is just over 5 miles with 1400 ft to lose - my
math shows that is 280 ft per mile. Even at 120kts that is less than 500 ft
per minute...

NoPT means NoPT; you certainly can ask to go around - but you'd better talk
to someone if you intend to do so. (on a transition that is labeled NoPT)

"David Rind" wrote in message
...
If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

--
David Rind

Oops - that should be just over 500 ft per minute.

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...
The NoPT is for that transition only (I assume you knew that). The GS
intercept altitude is not a huge descent from 4000 in my opinion. The
distance from CAHOW to SWANZ is just over 5 miles with 1400 ft to lose -
my
math shows that is 280 ft per mile. Even at 120kts that is less than 500
ft
per minute...

NoPT means NoPT; you certainly can ask to go around - but you'd better
talk
to someone if you intend to do so. (on a transition that is labeled NoPT)

"David Rind" wrote in message
...
If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

--
David Rind

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:58:36 -0400, David Rind
wrote:

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

If you are on a segment that is marked NoPT, the hold can only be executed
with permission from ATC.

It's pretty clear in AIM 5-4-8 b.3.

======================
When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must
be followed, *except* when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT is
shown on the approach course.
====================
(emphasis mine).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

David Rind wrote in news:c52bkn$hld$1
@reader1.panix.com:

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.


The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
non radar environment.

On 08 Apr 2004 12:44:43 GMT, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
non radar environment.

Would it not be more accurate to say "this all assumes" you are not in a
"radar vectors to final" situation?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in message . ..
On 08 Apr 2004 12:44:43 GMT, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
non radar environment.

Would it not be more accurate to say "this all assumes" you are not in a
"radar vectors to final" situation?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Yes, of course. I had inadvertantly assumed radar environment to mean
radar vectoring. However, I can't think of any time when ATC did not
vector me in a radar environment unless I specifically requested a
full approach.

On 8 Apr 2004 15:29:46 -0700, (Andrew Sarangan)
wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in message . ..
On 08 Apr 2004 12:44:43 GMT, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
non radar environment.

Would it not be more accurate to say "this all assumes" you are not in a
"radar vectors to final" situation?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Yes, of course. I had inadvertantly assumed radar environment to mean
radar vectoring. However, I can't think of any time when ATC did not
vector me in a radar environment unless I specifically requested a
full approach.

Well, ATC has certain requirements in order to give you vectors to final.
And those requirements are not always met even in a "radar environment".
For example -- my home base.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

Well, ATC has certain requirements in order to give you vectors to final.
And those requirements are not always met even in a "radar environment".
For example -- my home base.

What are those requirements? Are you talking about MVA?

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
om...

Yes, of course. I had inadvertantly assumed radar environment to mean
radar vectoring. However, I can't think of any time when ATC did not
vector me in a radar environment unless I specifically requested a
full approach.

Well, people are coming up with exceptions, although I understand what
you're saying. Here's another: you can be close enough on the far side of an
on-field VOR that you'll be let loose to do the full VOR approach. Last time
I did that at Paine field the tower controller remarked on how quickly I had
done the PT: it was a 90-270 but I had gone far enough out not to need a
slam-dunk.

-- David Brooks