Approach Clearance?

Jordan93 said:
Flying the HILPT didn't even occur to me. The red arrow is basically a straight in. If I was cleared for the approach at the arrow, I'm going to straight in. I don't think any controller would expect me to do the hold then proceed inbound
Click to expand...
Logical answer and book answer. If you were teaching someone this for a checkride you know you wouldn't say just go direct, 3000 ft then dump the gear and flaps and call it a day. No no no. Certainly that's probably what we would do in the 121 world.

Also, hold in lieu of a PT. So those who keep saying "where is the PT", it's right there on the plate.

Seems like this has been blown way out of proportion, if you ask me. We've got airline answers, instructor answers and even ATC answers from a book I've probably never seen and never will see. @MidlifeFlyer is the one of the best regs man I know on the forums, even gives references in the CFI thread.
 
jweldon said:
At this point I think I might be going insane. You don't need to hear "cleared straight in," because a direct entry accomplishes a HILPT. (As per my previous post)
Click to expand...
You are not going insane. Just missed that the discussion moved from how to perform a HILPT to bypassing it entirely.

Just in case:

If you do a direct entry, you are reversing course. In the example, turning right and flying outbound. Unless you think turning left and joining the FAC is a direct entry. If you do, I'll disagree. If you turn left and proceed inbound, you have not made any entry into the hold.

You quoted the AIM: The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. True. But the key is "after executing the appropriate entry." It means the inbound course of the holding pattern after the entry turn outbound, not the final approach course of the IAP. IOW, you need to cross the holding fix twice. The language is there because some pilots apparently thought you needed to cross it three times.
 
Last edited:
jweldon said:
At this point I think I might be going insane. You don't need to hear "cleared straight in," because a direct entry accomplishes a HILPT. (As per my previous post)
Click to expand...

A direct entry would have you turning right at the fix, so yeah, it definitely accomplishes the HILPT. That's pretty different from executing the straight-in, though.
 
I'm also voting for the "ATC probably means straight-in, but legally I'm supposed to do the HILPT so I need to ask what he meant" camp.

Of course that's only because "Squawk 7600 and make the controller guess what I'm thinking so he knows how it feels" isn't floated as a choice.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
You are not going insane. Just missed that the discussion moved from how to perform a HILPT to bypassing it entirely.

Just in case:

If you do a direct entry, you are reversing course. In the example, turning right and flying outbound. Unless you think turning left and joining the FAC is a direct entry. If you do, I'll disagree. If you turn left and proceed inbound, you have not made any entry into the hold.

You quoted the AIM: The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. True. But the key is "after executing the appropriate entry." It means the inbound course of the holding pattern after the entry turn outbound, not the final approach course of the IAP. IOW, you need to cross the holding fix twice. The language is there because some pilots apparently thought you needed to cross it three times.
Click to expand...
Your explanation makes a little more sense, except the hold is non standard, so did you mean to say turning left and flying outbound? How much of a hold do you have to fly before you've entered?
Parallel or teardrop entries don't require a lap in the hold since you're established on the inbound course when you turn in, so why would a direct entry be the only entry to require a lap in the hold? I suppose you're right it just doesn't sit right with me.
Also, when/where do you consider the hold entered during a direct entry? Established on the outbound course? Why wouldn't you have entered when you pass over the fix?
 
jweldon said:
Your explanation makes a little more sense, except the hold is non standard, so did you mean to say turning left and flying outbound?
Click to expand...
Yep, you are right. It's left turn hold. A direct entry would be a left turn - a very large left turn of more than 270 degrees. The AIM-standard "appropriate" entry would be parallel in this case.

How much of a hold do you have to fly before you've entered?
Click to expand...
At least some of it. A turn to 112° upon reaching MAGPE does not enter the hold. It avoids the hold. .
Parallel or teardrop entries don't require a lap in the hold since you're established on the inbound course when you turn in, so why would a direct entry be the only entry to require a lap in the hold? I suppose you're right it just doesn't sit right with me.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are saying. If you turn to a heading of 112° at MEGPE, you are not established on the inbound course of the holding pattern which is what the AIM description is talking about. There's no difference among the different hold entries. All of them require a turn outbound or within 30° of outbound. Arriving at MEGPE, a direct entry is a left turn to 292°. A parallel entry is a right turn to 292°. A teardrop entry is a right turn left turn to 262°.

Also, when/where do you consider the hold entered during a direct entry? Established on the outbound course? Why wouldn't you have entered when you pass over the fix?
Click to expand...
Same as all of the entries - once you turn outbound in the holding pattern after crossing MEGPE. When first reaching MEGPE, "in the hold" requires a turn into the area on the left side of the green line.


TheHold.jpg
 
Last edited:
NovemberEcho said:
A third option is there's no one behind you and ATC doesn't care whether you turn or not lol
Click to expand...

But, without asking (and creating another set of radio calls in a potentially busy airspace), how do I know that?

This is a huge part of the problem.

Some controllers care. Some don't. Some times there is somebody behind me and sometimes there isn't.

This is why we have standardization (and rules).
 
CYA. That has happened to me a lot, I just call back with the a request to verify "straight in" and teach my students to do the same. Taking up an extra 5 secs of ATC's time is well worth covering my butt.
 
BobDDuck said:
But, without asking (and creating another set of radio calls in a potentially busy airspace), how do I know that?

This is a huge part of the problem.

Some controllers care. Some don't. Some times there is somebody behind me and sometimes there isn't.

This is why we have standardization (and rules).
Click to expand...

I mostly being facetious
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Arriving at MEGPE, a direct entry is a left turn to 292°. A parallel entry is a right turn to 292°. A teardrop entry is a right turn left turn to 262°.
It
Click to expand...
Just noticed the error but too late to edit. Right or left or even straight might depend on perspective anyway, particularly for parallel and teardrop entries.

Arriving at MEGPE, a direct entry is turn toward the holding side to 292°. A parallel entry is a turn toward the non-holding side to 292°. A teardrop entry is a turn toward the holding side to 262°.
 
Last edited:
Sorry the images are so big...
MidlifeFlyer said:
Yep, you are right. It's left turn hold. A direct entry would be a left turn - a very large left turn of more than 270 degrees. The AIM-standard "appropriate" entry would be parallel in this case.
Click to expand...
That's not true though, the AIM-standard entry would be direct. Superimposing AIM figure 5-3-4 on the plate gives this image:
0QqRFn1.jpg


So if I understand you correctly and you believe me that it should be a direct entry this is what we should end up with:
COOAZDe.jpg


MidlifeFlyer said:
I have no idea what you are saying. If you turn to a heading of 112° at MEGPE, you are not established on the inbound course of the holding pattern which is what the AIM description is talking about. There's no difference among the different hold entries. All of them require a turn outbound or within 30° of outbound. Arriving at MEGPE, a direct entry is a left turn to 292°. A parallel entry is a right turn to 292°. A teardrop entry is a right turn left turn to 262°.
Click to expand...
I wasn't very clear but I was contrasting the direct entry picture above to a different scenario where the teardrop was the appropriate entry:
nu03Ite.jpg


I find it strange that, if I've depicted the approaches correctly, the direct entry requires a lap in the hold but the teardrop (and undepicted parallel) would not require a lap in the hold. It seems akin to shooting an ILS 18 when you're far north of the field and having to somehow do a course reversal. I was interpreting the inbound course to be the FAC so thanks for correcting me, but it seems silly (and required) to do a lap in the hold when you're already semi-aligned with the approach course. Thank god for TAA's.
 
jweldon said:
I find it strange that, if I've depicted the approaches correctly, the direct entry requires a lap in the hold but the teardrop (and undepicted parallel) would not require a lap in the hold. It seems akin to shooting a 18 ILS when you're far north of the field and having to somehow do a course reversal. I was interpreting the inbound course to be the FAC so thanks for correcting me, but it seems silly (and required) to do a lap in the hold when you're already semi-aligned with the approach course. Thank god for TAA's.
Click to expand...
Of course it seems silly. And in the real world you wouldn't do it. ATC would clear you straight in unless there was a reason to have you fly the hold. I think just about everyone has said that in one form or another, with the only real question being what to do if they don't use the proper phrasing.

At this point the only thing we've been discussing is what it means to enter the hold and what the inbound course means. In the case of all three entries, there are three essential things in common. They all involve a turn away from the FAC, not onto it. The all involve a turn toward and ultimately into the holding pattern, And they all involve crossing the holding fix twice before flying the FAC.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Once you are cleared direct to a fix, it is no longer a radar vector... So it is your own navigation.

Around here at least, they are expecting straight in. May not be true everywhere - hence, you should ask.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is correct.

radar.PNG


On this approach, there is no IAF, and radar required. ATC can clear you to REPRE and clear you for the approach, and it would be a radar vector, since there is no IAF.
 
CoffeeIcePapers said:
I don't believe that is correct.

View attachment 39270

On this approach, there is no IAF, and radar required. ATC can clear you to REPRE and clear you for the approach, and it would be a radar vector, since there is no IAF.
Click to expand...
I think his point is, once they clear you to REPRE and you make it the active Direct To waypoint in a GPS or FMS, you are flying self-nav courses, not flying ATC-assigned headings (aka vectors). Radar monitoring, which is required for this approach, doesn't make everything you do a radar vector.

Besides there's no PT issue in this approach since there's no PT to argue about :D
 
BobDDuck said:
But, without asking (and creating another set of radio calls in a potentially busy airspace), how do I know that?

This is a huge part of the problem.

Some controllers care. Some don't. Some times there is somebody behind me and sometimes there isn't.

This is why we have standardization (and rules).
Click to expand...
Well, it's why we're supposed to.
 
milleR said:
Seems a little odd to have higher visibility minimums with vertical guidance than without.
Click to expand...
A little bit of googling, seems like it's a difference of obstacle clearance at MAP. vertical guidance missed approach point is short of the runway, while lnav will be at the runway threshold
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top