Approach From a Hold

Roy Smith wrote:

Mitty wrote:
It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the line
of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further
clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in
that area.

That makes sense. I'm not sure why you said you were "vectored into the
hold", though. You went direct to the VOR and held. Nothing vectorish
about it :-)

When I told him I was ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I
then asked for another turn in the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing
is 2500), which was approved.

OK, here's my take on this. Since you were not vectored to the final
approach course, and were not approaching the FAF along a segment labeled
NoPT, you were required to perform a PT. A racetrack pattern is a
perfectly acceptable way of flying a PT, and it sounds like this is what
you did.

On the other hand, this is a bit of a grey area in my mind. Rather than
second guessing the controller, a quick radio call will eliminate any
possible confusion on both sides. Lack of confusion is always a good thing.

wrote the following:
Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern
until the weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up
correctly and not more than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you
can go straight-in once cleared for the approach.

What does the "300 feet higher" have to do with anything? The AIM says:

5-4-9. Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required
when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach
course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure
turn is not authorized.

I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.

That is the criteria for timed IAPs or HILs at FAFs.

If you think it is unreasonable, then do the procedure turn, by all means.

OtisWinslow wrote:

"Mitty" wrote in message
...
Question for the controllers he


I should have flown the full approach including the procedure turn.
TIA,
Mitty

You did. If you were on the protected side (procedure turn) side
of the final approach course you chose a perfectly fine way to
get turned around.

In this case the hold is not on the same side of the intermediate segment
as the PT. But, so what?

Roy Smith wrote:

I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.

This is what the guidance to procedures specialists says:

j. The use of notes to prohibit a final approach from a holding pattern has been
DISCONTINUED. The following guidelines apply:
(1) Where a holding pattern is established at a final approach fix in lieu of a
conventional procedure turn, the minimum holding altitude must meet the altitude
limitation requirements of TERPS Volume 1, paragraph 234e(1).

NOTE:
Holding in-lieu-of PT at the FAF is not authorized for RNAV procedures.

(2) Where a holding pattern is established at an intermediate fix in lieu of a
conventional procedure turn, the rate of descent to the final approach fix must
meet the descent gradient requirements of TERPS Volume 1, paragraph 234e(2).

(3) Where a holding pattern is established for the missed approach at an
intermediate or final approach fix, and a holding pattern is used in lieu of a
procedure turn, the MHA for the missed approach must conform to the altitude or
descent gradient requirements of paragraph 855j(1) or (2) above. Missed approach
holding must not be established at the FAF for RNAV procedures.

(4) Where a holding pattern is established for the missed approach at an
intermediate or final approach fix, and a holding pattern is NOT used in lieu of a
procedure turn, establish a conventional procedure turn to permit pilot flexibility
in executing a course reversal and descent to final approach fix altitude. This
paragraph is not applicable to RNAV procedures.

Trying to get the AIM to conform with design intent is an unending game. Why don't
you contact AOPA and have them get the AIM corrected?

In article , wrote:
I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.

That is the criteria for timed IAPs or HILs at FAFs.

Are you talking about TERPs criteria? If so, those rules apply to the
people who design approaches. The pilots who fly them shouldn't have to
know anything about TERPs to figure out how to fly the procedure.

Just did a similar one on my IPC last month - instructor says if
inbound course in hold is within 30 degrees and altitude permits normal
approach, continue the approach. In this case, we had a 31 degree
course difference, so he made me do the PT :-) Needed the practice
anyway.

In article ,
wrote:
I think everybody is losing sight of the fact that the idea is to fly
the approach safely.

BINGO!

We can nit pick on the rules all we want, but in the end what is most
important is that we fly safely! There are things that are legal, but not
safe, and there are things that are safe, but not legal. What we want
to do in stay in the intersection of the two: both safe AND legal.

-- Dane

You're absolutely right about a racetrack being an acceptable course
reversal maneuver. Too many instructors are hung up on the 45-180 printed on
the plate as being somehow blessed by the FAA to the exclusion of all
others.

Bob Gardner

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Mitty wrote:
It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the
line
of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further
clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in
that area.

That makes sense. I'm not sure why you said you were "vectored into the
hold", though. You went direct to the VOR and held. Nothing vectorish
about it :-)

When I told him I was ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I
then asked for another turn in the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing
is 2500), which was approved.

OK, here's my take on this. Since you were not vectored to the final
approach course, and were not approaching the FAF along a segment labeled
NoPT, you were required to perform a PT. A racetrack pattern is a
perfectly acceptable way of flying a PT, and it sounds like this is what
you did.

On the other hand, this is a bit of a grey area in my mind. Rather than
second guessing the controller, a quick radio call will eliminate any
possible confusion on both sides. Lack of confusion is always a good
thing.

wrote the following:
Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern
until the weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up
correctly and not more than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you
can go straight-in once cleared for the approach.

What does the "300 feet higher" have to do with anything? The AIM says:

5-4-9. Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in
lieu of
procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not
required
when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final
approach
course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the
procedure
turn is not authorized.

I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.

I always try and fly an approach in actual with the minimum of
manuevering. It seems in training the emphasis is to fly an approach
with the maximum of manuevering. So when I do some hood work with an
instructor, I usually have to verify which program we are on. I also
like to spend some time on departures, which I think are just as
difficult as approaches, when done in actual. As usual, your mileage
may vary.

I have always thought it was unecessary to do a hold if you are already
established on the final approach course. I see no reason to do a
procedure turn if you are in this hold at the correct altitude. I
certainly hope the regulations agree. I know that ATC agrees with me.
They don't want me up there going around in circles, unless they've
told me to.

wrote in message ...

In this case the hold is not on the same side of the intermediate segment
as the PT. But, so what?


Right you are. I couldn't get the link to work from the original post .. and
having gone back in thru the FAA site and looked it up I see that now.
However
I'd still do it the same and just come around and finish the approach. I'd
be
sure the controller knew what I was doing .. but seldom do they want you
just out there riding around. They want you on the ground and out
of their airspace in the quickest manner that's safe.