Hold "as published"?

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?


The airport. While it looks like a very large "point" when you're standing
on it, it appears as a much smaller "point" on a radar scope. It's not
going to make a bit of difference while you're enroute if you're aimed at
the ARP, one of the runway thresholds, an on-field navaid, etc., etc., etc.

"Michael" wrote in message om...

The clearance was proper. Your GPS substitutes for an ADF in all
situations other than an NDB approach with no GPS overlay.

Correct, and the hold issued is only published on the NDB approach that
has no overlay. The two GPS approaches are distinct from the NDB 1.

Hopefully that would have tipped you that the hold was depicted on the
NDB approach chart, and all would have been well.

Why would he look at the NDB chart when he was:

1. Not equipped to fly it.
2. Cleared for the GPS approach he was equipped to fly?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

Why would he look at the NDB chart when he was:

1. Not equipped to fly it.
2. Cleared for the GPS approach he was equipped to fly?


At the time he hadn't been cleared for a GPS approach.

I've been chewed out by Bay (now Norcal) when told "cross
San Jose at xxx" - there was a solid undercast so I just aimed
for the VOR. At some point he said "I told you cross San Jose
at xxx" and gave me a vector which was in fact mid-field. This
was the same controller who a few minutes earlier had given
me a vector which would take me straight into the side of a
mountain in a small number of minutes (it was fortunately VMC above
the overcast), one of two times I've said "unable".

Otoh when cleared "direct Palo Alto" there's little ambiguity.

I guess I would always assume the navaid unless there was some
good reason not to, reading it back (now!) as "96S, direct Sacramento
VOR" for example.

John

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

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?


The airport. While it looks like a very large "point" when you're
standing
on it, it appears as a much smaller "point" on a radar scope. It's not
going to make a bit of difference while you're enroute if you're aimed at
the ARP, one of the runway thresholds, an on-field navaid, etc., etc.,
etc.

It's a local knowledge thing, Ben, but you know and I know that there is no
conflicting airspace in the vicinity of Astoria that would obviate holding
on the course on which you approach the holding fix. From what I have seen
and experienced, holding pattern airspace placement is designed to keep two
or more "reserved for holding or other ATC purposes" blocks of airspace from
overlapping.

Bob Gardner

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:%Nbab.376350$Oz4.157019@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
John Clonts wrote:

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.

I don't think that's legitimate. A given navaid can have different holds
for different procedures. The AST VOR Rwy 8 (Astoria, OR) missed approach
terminates in a hold on the 115 radial of AST, left turns. The AST ILS
Rwy 26 missed approach ends in a hold on the 075 radial of AST, right
turns. I guess all the published holds have sufficient protected airspace
(in this case, mostly the Pacific ocean), but there is no hold depicted
on the enroute chart, so I don't know what the controller would expect
if they just said "hold at AST as published".

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?


The airport. While it looks like a very large "point" when you're standing
on it, it appears as a much smaller "point" on a radar scope. It's not
going to make a bit of difference while you're enroute if you're aimed at
the ARP, one of the runway thresholds, an on-field navaid, etc., etc., etc.

While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
runway thresholds?

Ari.

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
runway thresholds?


I assume the conditions are IMC. I'm not going to hold anywhere. I'm going
to say to myself, "I have an in-flight emergency requiring immediate
action," and then fly the most advantageous approach and land.

(K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?

As far as I understand, you have no clearance limit. If you lose
comms and cannot go VFR, then you just fly to your destination and
shoot an approach, no holds required.


All the best,


David

(K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:

While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
runway thresholds?

The IAF for your approach, I guess. In real life, do controllers
really want a 7600 holding for 15 minutes because it's ahead of its
ETA, or do they just want it safely on the ground as soon as possible
so that it stops messing up their airspace?


All the best,


David

Hi Steven,

While it doesn't make a bit of a difference from 150 miles out, if you
reach the clearance limit and have no communication with ATC, and
reach it before your ETA, where are you going to hold? Over one of the
runway thresholds?

I assume the conditions are IMC. I'm not going to hold anywhere. I'm
going
to say to myself, "I have an in-flight emergency requiring immediate
action," and then fly the most advantageous approach and land.

I wouldn't like to be on your aeroplane if you're not going to hold anywhere
if you're 30 minutes early arriving at your destination with lost comms
etc... :-)

If you are in IMC and loose communication then one should start any
available instrument approach into the destination airport at the ETA within
the filed flight plan (ETD + Time Enroute). If you're early and its solid
IMC you hold. Simple as that.

The reason for this is Air Traffic is expecting you to arrive at the airport
at that ETA so they will have cleared the airspace in its entirity,
expecting you to start any published instrument approach into the airport.
This is particularly relevant if your transponder has also failed... how
are Air Traffic supposed to know where you are?

If you arrive, lets say 30 minutes ahead of schedule, you have no comms and
as its your very unlucky day your transponder has decided to go
unservicable. ATC have no idea where you are but as they will be following
the FARs they'll be clearing the area for your planned ETA. If you are now
30 minutes ahead of schedule (great tailwind) then they may still be
clearing the approaches... if you then start an ILS approach in solid IMC,
there could be a possibility of ploughing straight into another aircraft
that they are getting onto the ground in anticipation of your arrival 30
minutes later...

Of course if you are in VMC conditions then you'd stay in VMC and land as
soon as practicable. After landing informing Air Traffic by telephone so
they aren't any more incovenienced than they need to be.

Just my two pennies worth (I'm a Brit' so pennies instead of cents!).

Best wishes,

Richard Thomas
FAA CP-ASEL IA