Distance Holds

[Mike H]

Last time I flew that approach, the hold at DOCKY was 1 min legs- but that was in 2009, too

Looking at current approach plates, the hold at Facon VOR for the RNAV 26 at KFTG has 7 mile legs too, which suggests that Midlife is on the right track about traffic separaton with KDEN's approaches

Also for Nosehair, if it's a "holding patteren shaped PT", why do the mised approach instructions say HOLD at DOCKY (or for the RNAV 26 at KFTG, HOLD at Falcon VOR)?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Looking at current approach plates, the hold at Facon VOR for the RNAV 26 at KFTG has 7 mile legs too, which suggests that Midlife is on the right track about traffic separaton with KDEN's approaches

As does the hold for the VOR/GPS at Tri-County.

But actually, I'm thinking that the Chief Counsel opinion I linked to suggests that I was on the wrong track. It says that you can shorten that 7-NM at will unless ATC specifically includes the 7 miles in the clearance.

FWIW, I'm a bit uncomfortable with that - what does "hold as published" mean in this context if not an instruction to fly 7 NM legs (hard to let go of an opinion even with facts). It sounds to me too much like that "rules say but ATC expects" conundrum that comes of from time to time (the PT-required issue is another one). If I shorten the legs, until I'm happy that ATC doesn't care (any controllers here to help?), I plan to continue to let them know my plan to shorten the pattern.

 

[Landis]

I've always treated hold times/distances as LIMITS and not necessarily TARGETS. If it's a standard 1-minute or 1:30 hold then just make sure you're under your speed limit and go for those times. If it's a 5-mile hold, make sure you turn within 5-miles.

For a teardrop entry I'll go outbound at 30° for a minute and then come back in - anything more and the turn back to intercept the inbound leg gets more interesting (especially when /A).

The purpose of the hold is to keep you in some particular bit of airspace. If you screw up the entry but stay on the protected side, I'm sure we can be entertainment to those watching on the scopes but not a concern in terms of separation.

 

[Mike H]

As does the hold for the VOR/GPS at Tri-County.
.

Actually, my current approach plate still shows 1 minute legs. However, it looks as though ALL of the other local RNAV approaches (KLMO, KAPA, KBJC, KFTG & KFNL) have gone to either 6 or 7 mile distance legs, while the ILS & VOR approaches still retain 1 minute legs.

Now I'm wondering if maybe somebody just decided it would be kinda cool to change all the RNAV approaches and see how long it took for people to notice.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

You're right, Mike. I must have been thinking of a different approach.

 

[Mike H]

I have to admit, if you hadn't brought it up, I might never have properly scrutinized my approach plates and noticed the change

 

[///AMG]

The purpose of the hold is to keep you in some particular bit of airspace. If you screw up the entry but stay on the protected side, I'm sure we can be entertainment to those watching on the scopes but not a concern in terms of separation.

And I'd argue that as long as you are on the protected side and in the lateral limits of the protected airspace, there is no such thing as screwing up the entry. Maybe on a checkride with an FAA examiner, but the AIM entry procedures are not always the answer every time.

 

[Landis]

And I'd argue that as long as you are on the protected side and in the lateral limits of the protected airspace, there is no such thing as screwing up the entry. Maybe on a checkride with an FAA examiner, but the AIM entry procedures are not always the answer every time.

Exactly.

 

[MikeD]

As does the hold for the VOR/GPS at Tri-County.

But actually, I'm thinking that the Chief Counsel opinion I linked to suggests that I was on the wrong track. It says that you can shorten that 7-NM at will unless ATC specifically includes the 7 miles in the clearance.

FWIW, I'm a bit uncomfortable with that - what does "hold as published" mean in this context if not an instruction to fly 7 NM legs (hard to let go of an opinion even with facts). It sounds to me too much like that "rules say but ATC expects" conundrum that comes of from time to time (the PT-required issue is another one). If I shorten the legs, until I'm happy that ATC doesn't care (any controllers here to help?), I plan to continue to let them know my plan to shorten the pattern.

It does make sense though. I mean, so long as one stays within the limit of a distance leg, shortening it shouldnt make a difference to, say, collision avoidance. Only one aircraft will be holding at a particular altitude, ATC isn't going to climb/descend people through there, so leg length shouldn't really shouldn't matter so long as its comfortable for the particular aircraft.

Still, it does beg the question of what the definition of "as published" would be in terms of a defined-leg length hold.

 

[boondr]

As does the hold for the VOR/GPS at Tri-County.

But actually, I'm thinking that the Chief Counsel opinion I linked to suggests that I was on the wrong track. It says that you can shorten that 7-NM at will unless ATC specifically includes the 7 miles in the clearance.

FWIW, I'm a bit uncomfortable with that - what does "hold as published" mean in this context if not an instruction to fly 7 NM legs (hard to let go of an opinion even with facts). It sounds to me too much like that "rules say but ATC expects" conundrum that comes of from time to time (the PT-required issue is another one). If I shorten the legs, until I'm happy that ATC doesn't care (any controllers here to help?), I plan to continue to let them know my plan to shorten the pattern.

I am going to say with a situation like this there may be a case where you're on the outbound leg @ 4 miles and the controller, expecting you to continue outbound for an additional 3 miles uses that for separation with crossing traffic but even that is a calculated risk because as I previously stated the patterns flown are so random it is ridiculous.

 

[gotWXdagain]

I would still like to hear the answer to the "As published" question, because really that FAA link on the previous page answers nothing; how often are they NOT going to say 'hold as published' when the depicted pattern is right there? If its not a published hold, ATC will specify what they want, if it is a published hold, will they not, 99% of the time, say 'hold as published' ?