TAS Reporting Question

Chris Arndt

New Member
Situation: IFR in solid IMC on a training flight, EC 145 helicopter.

Flying to my initial destination I was given holding instructions based on traffic sequencing. Due to this expected delay and the 30 min EFC time I slowed from 132KTAS to about 90KTAS for fuel endurance approximately 6 nm before the hold fix. I then reported my change in TAS as it was greater than 5% or 10KTAS.

I know, in reality the controller could probably care less in that specific situation - she was busy with inbound traffic at the airport. But, legally, is this a required report after receiving a holding instruction or is the reduction in TAS a natural expectation of entering the hold?
 
I've never had a pilot mention TAS, IAS and GS, as a controller I only care about IAS, but mostly for sequencing, in my airspace, it's all Mach nbnet anyway, unless arrival spacing for transition
 
I should add, if it's a published hold, the tolerances are built in for the biggest fastest airplane so anything your doing would be inside that
 
I believe on the technical side, you were correct. On the practical side, I can't imagine anyone caring.

Your story reminded me of a situation from many years ago when an instrument student who was one of my peers lost his number two VOR receiver during a training flight. IAW 14 CFR 91.187, he made a report of the loss to ATC. The response from the controller was an assertive "so what!"

However, as far as I know, nobody has ever been violated for telling ATC more than they wanted to hear but there have been bad things happen that could have been been prevented by giving ATC more information. So, while I'm a stickler for correct radio procedures and brevity, I would vote on the side of saying you did the right thing the right way.
 
Practically speaking, I'd guess that when a controller issues an actual (non-training) hold clearance they could care less as long as you stay where you're supposed to be--remain in the protected airspace at your assigned altitude and fly some semblance of a holding pattern.
 
Technically, if you were filed at 132 KTAS and you were 6 miles from your clearance limit you were within 3 minutes and clear to slow to your holding speed per the AIM.

Practically, if I check on with center and hear them issuing holds to aircraft ahead of us going to the same airport I'm just going to ask if we can start slowing without specifying a speed. ATC will either say yes, no, or give us a specific speed.
 
I believe on the technical side, you were correct. On the practical side, I can't imagine anyone caring.

Your story reminded me of a situation from many years ago when an instrument student who was one of my peers lost his number two VOR receiver during a training flight. IAW 14 CFR 91.187, he made a report of the loss to ATC. The response from the controller was an assertive "so what!"

However, as far as I know, nobody has ever been violated for telling ATC more than they wanted to hear but there have been bad things happen that could have been been prevented by giving ATC more information. So, while I'm a stickler for correct radio procedures and brevity, I would vote on the side of saying you did the right thing the right way.

Remember: controllers aren't pilots...mostly, anyway.

So when you comply with 91.187, you need to put the equipment failure in terms they will understand.
 
Back
Top