Hold "as published"?

Flying to Burnet, Texas (BMQ) the other day:

"Houston Center, 7nz request vectors-to-final Burnet GPS-01, or else request
direct JIBAJ for the GPS-19"

"7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect further clearance
2125"
....
I didn't understand what he was telling me to do once I got there.
....
About 5 miles from Burnet:

"Center, 7nz, unclear my instructions when I get to Burnet"

"7nz, fly the hold as published"

I read that back, but then looked on my enroute, and there was no hold. I
looked on my approach plates (GPS-1 and GPS-19) and there was no hold there.
By this time I'm just about to crossing KBMQ.

"Center, 7nz, sorry I see no published hold"

"7nz, sigh then fly heading 270, vectors to Burnet"

I then eventually flew one missed approach (GPS-19) then a successful
approach (GPS-1).

Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking about
was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The NDB is on the
field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't have ADF in this
plane.

So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
hold "as published"?

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

John Clonts wrote:

So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
hold "as published"?

It's legal but confusing. If it ain't on the enroute chart or the chart
of the approach you are going to be doing it makes no sense to pull a
holding pattern out of your ass from some other approach.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:22:36 GMT, Newps wrote:

If it ain't on the enroute chart or the chart
of the approach you are going to be doing it makes no sense to pull a
holding pattern out of your ass from some other approach.

C'mon. Don't hold back. How do you really feel about this?

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

I would apply the "when in doubt" rule and enter a standard pattern, holding
at the fix inbound on the course on which you approach the fix, and then
argue it out with the controller. Seems pretty clear that he did not want
you to proceed beyond the fix.

Bob Gardner

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...
Flying to Burnet, Texas (BMQ) the other day:

"Houston Center, 7nz request vectors-to-final Burnet GPS-01, or else
request
direct JIBAJ for the GPS-19"

"7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect further clearance
2125"
...
I didn't understand what he was telling me to do once I got there.
...
About 5 miles from Burnet:

"Center, 7nz, unclear my instructions when I get to Burnet"

"7nz, fly the hold as published"

I read that back, but then looked on my enroute, and there was no hold. I
looked on my approach plates (GPS-1 and GPS-19) and there was no hold
there.
By this time I'm just about to crossing KBMQ.

"Center, 7nz, sorry I see no published hold"

"7nz, sigh then fly heading 270, vectors to Burnet"

I then eventually flew one missed approach (GPS-19) then a successful
approach (GPS-1).

Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking
about
was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The NDB is on the
field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't have ADF in this
plane.

So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
hold "as published"?

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:ky6ab.488979$Ho3.82818@sccrnsc03...

I would apply the "when in doubt" rule and enter a standard pattern,
holding at the fix inbound on the course on which you approach the fix,
and then
argue it out with the controller. Seems pretty clear that he did not want
you to proceed beyond the fix.


I like to apply the "when in doubt, clarify" rule as my standard.

That's what he tried to do, as I understand it, but he was right on top of
the fix at the time. Gotta do something while seeking clarification.

Bob Gardner

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:ky6ab.488979$Ho3.82818@sccrnsc03...

I would apply the "when in doubt" rule and enter a standard pattern,
holding at the fix inbound on the course on which you approach the fix,
and then
argue it out with the controller. Seems pretty clear that he did not
want
you to proceed beyond the fix.


I like to apply the "when in doubt, clarify" rule as my standard.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:k98ab.487586$YN5.331114@sccrnsc01...

That's what he tried to do, as I understand it, but he was right on top of
the fix at the time. Gotta do something while seeking clarification.


After being told, "7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect
further clearance
2125", he said he didn't understand what he was supposed to do once he got
there. That was well before he reached the NDB.

I get your point...I don't have the plates to refer to. Guess he had time to
get it straightened out before it became critical.

Bob Gardner

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:k98ab.487586$YN5.331114@sccrnsc01...

That's what he tried to do, as I understand it, but he was right on top
of
the fix at the time. Gotta do something while seeking clarification.


After being told, "7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect
further clearance
2125", he said he didn't understand what he was supposed to do once he got
there. That was well before he reached the NDB.

Sounds like you did the correct thing. It is going to ATC awhile to adopt a
GPS mindset.

Actually, I think they have the mindset, but don't understand the ergonomic
factors that can be encountered trying to use it.

For example, I've twice been cleared to random 5-letter fixes which do not
appear on enroute charts that turn out to be IF's for ILS approaches. These
clearances were issued en route, 60-100 miles away from the airport, well
before an expected approach had been specified. Actually, both approaches
ended up being visuals. I don't know every 5 character permutation of
"wip-pee" intersection and which one applies - running through the guesses
takes some serious knob time. Yet there's always a certain irritation
(noted by the poster as well) in the response to the request for
clarification, the spelling in my example.

Maybe a screenshot of a Garmin 430 with intersections and data fields
represented on the 100nm scale will help to convey the problem.

--

Bob
PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI

"JerryK" wrote in message
news:_Y6ab.487139$YN5.330405@sccrnsc01...
Sounds like you did the correct thing. It is going to ATC awhile to adopt
a
GPS mindset.