Holding Patterns.

Say, I have an idea! Let's not put "holding patterns" under the "Technical Talk" section. I like technical talk to be about things that have solid technical references to bandy about, not this nebulous flying stuff.

This is kinda like asking "which way does the wind blow?"...too many answers.

Belongs on the "CFI Corner" wher you can give and get all the different kinds of answers that us CFI's like to come up with as seen on this thread...but it ain't "technical", it's "technique".;)
 
tgrayson said:
The idea that you need to make *two* reports to ATC is silly.
Click to expand...
I agree. If ATC tells me to report established in, as a practical matter, that's the time they are interested in, not the earlier time of entry. So instead or reporting when I would report if they didn't say anything, I report when they ask me to.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I agree. If ATC tells me to report established in, as a practical matter, that's the time they are interested in, not the earlier time of entry. So instead or reporting when I would report if they didn't say anything, I report when they ask me to.
Click to expand...

That's reasonable, although it still begs the question about whether you or they know what they asked you to do. :) Different controllers apparently have different ideas about what it means and it's still not "established" that they care which definition you use, since they're asking *you* to determine the fact.

FWIW, the Canada equivalent to the AIM defines "established in the hold." Interesting that our own publication does not, when the two documents are much in harmony. Intentional or omission?
 
Ok, I got a response from Air Traffic Publications:

Thank you for reporting this concern and request. I am copying someone who can initiate the discovery and implementation of this request if justified.

XXXXXX - This is an interesting observation and, should it be found as a part of controller lexicon, may need to be added. Please direct this to an appropriate office for consideration.

​
 
The below is copied from the AIM.

Notice the subtle difference in language pertaining to "established in a holding pattern", then later on " maintain last assigned altitude until leaving the holding pattern and established on the inbound course".

Here's a question for y'all. When you are cleared for an approach from a hold...and have not yet intercepted the holding course...do you descend? Or do you wait until intercepting the holding course to descend to the holding altitude??





3. If an aircraft is established in a published holding pattern at an assigned altitude above the published minimum holding altitude and subsequently cleared for the approach, the pilot may descend to the published minimum holding altitude. The holding pattern would only be a segment of the IAP if it is published on the instrument procedure chart and is used in lieu of a procedure turn.

m. For those holding patterns where there are no published minimum holding altitudes, the pilot, upon receiving an approach clearance, must maintain the last assigned altitude until leaving the holding pattern and established on the inbound course. Thereafter, the published minimum altitude of the route segment being flown will apply. It is expected that the pilot will be assigned a holding altitude that will permit a normal descent on the inbound course.
 
B767Driver said:
Here's a question for y'all. When you are cleared for an approach from a hold...and have not yet intercepted the holding course...do you descend? Or do you wait until intercepting the holding course to descend to the holding altitude??
Click to expand...

The airspace is protected at the published holding altitude and this protection extends to the entry.

But I see what you're saying. If we defined "established in the hold" to mean only intercepting the inbound course, it may arguably be not legal to descend during the entry phase.
 
tgrayson said:
But I see what you're saying. If we defined "established in the hold" to mean only intercepting the inbound course, it may arguably be not legal to descend during the entry phase.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

How do you teach this, TG?

Do you descend once you reach this holding fix on the entry?
 
I have always taught to never descend blindly without course guidance upon entering a hold. Begin the descent to the MHA once established with course guidance on the inbound course.
 
Once you are in protected airspace you could descend. The question arises...how do you know where you are without first becoming established on the course?

When I used to give checkrides I had FAA guys recommend different ways. Some were okay to descend once you hit the holding fix...some wanted to see course guidance. I never put an applicant in the position to have to make that decision. I would always work out a clearance with ATC to descend to the minimum altitude right away.
 
B767Driver said:
Exactly.
How do you teach this, TG?
Do you descend once you reach this holding fix on the entry?
Click to expand...

Yes. I know the airspace is protected for the entry, even on the "nonholding" side, which has at least 3.5 miles of primary airspace, followed by 2 miles of secondary airspace. This is the reason for the max airspeeds for entering hold.

You don't have course guidance on the outbound, and neither the teardrop nor the direct are any worse in this regard. Parallel is somewhat more risky, but at least you aren't flying away from the course. You may have a partial deflection of the needle. It'd take quite a bit of wind to blow you 5.5 miles away from the course.
 
meritflyer said:
I have always taught to never descend blindly without course guidance upon entering a hold. Begin the descent to the MHA once established with course guidance on the inbound course.
Click to expand...

Both the holding pattern and procedure turn areas are protected for "blind" letdowns; you fly parts of these maneuvers with dead reckoning anyway, so letting down to the published altitude isn't any different. I'm a bit more conservative with regards to the PT, for two reasons:
  1. It's easy for a student to become confused over when it's ok to have a "blind" letdown vs when it is not.
  2. Many examiners may not understand that "blind" letdowns are ok.
 
B767Driver said:
Once you are in protected airspace you could descend. The question arises...how do you know where you are without first becoming established on the course?
Click to expand...

If you follow AIM recommended entries, you'd have a hard time leaving the protected airspace.

When I used to give checkrides I had FAA guys recommend different ways. Some were okay to descend once you hit the holding fix...some wanted to see course guidance.
Click to expand...
I never knew this was debated. Were the FAA guys of a mind to fail applicants for not doing it their way, or did it remain a recommendation?
 
meritflyer said:
I know several students who have busted their instrument checkride doing the VOR RWY 5 into KCGZ and descended "prematurely" at the HILO.
Click to expand...

If an examiner failed a candidate of mine on that, I'd have some serious words with him, FSDO, and I'd bring the FAAs Flight Procedures into it as needed.

Here's a question: there's a hold there and you have to make an entry. Surely you would accept that TERPS criteria allow a hold to be entered safely? At what altitude do you think they evaluate the safety of the maneuver, if not the altitude published?
 
tgrayson said:
If you follow AIM recommended entries, you'd have a hard time leaving the protected airspace.

I never knew this was debated. Were the FAA guys of a mind to fail applicants for not doing it their way, or did it remain a recommendation?
Click to expand...

Im my experience, not all guys were technically correct in some of the instrument procedures.

When I was an active CFI, I believe I taught pilots to descend at the entry fix. Many times the holding pattern was a course reversal...and I wanted the person to descent at the earliest opportunity to be in a position to fly the approach and get stabilized.

Another big one, and I never saw this until I went to work for some Part 135 and 121 outfits, is that they want you to track the radial outbound during a parallel entry into a hold. I never taught this as a GA instructor. And basically, it should be a technique...but at some places it was procedure.

With FMS airplanes...it's really not an issue. You just let the FMS do its thing. The FMS will stay within the protected airspace, but it's an ugly thing to watch.
 
B767Driver said:
track the radial outbound during a parallel entry into a hold. I never taught this as a GA instructor. And basically, it should be a technique...but at some places it was procedure.
Click to expand...

And it makes intercepting the inbound that much more difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top