Course reversal/holding pattern question:

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,321
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
RNAV(GPS) 14 at KJVL:

jvl.png



Yesterday I was shooting numerous practice approaches at JVL. After an ILS to 4, approach broke me off early(flying into opposing traffic) and I turned southeast and requested the GPS 14 approach. Cleared to direct TAYOR for the approach.

Cross TAYOR, do the parallel entry, inbound on the final approach course, when we cross TAYOR inbound the CFI wants me to turn right to do a lap in the holding pattern. I say no, I don't think we are supposed to do that without permission from ATC.. as they are not expecting an aircraft to make an additional lap in the holding pattern unless specifically requested to lose altitude.

Is that correct? I realize it's a very simple question, but I have been digging and can't find the answer, but I swore I read it somewhere...

Granted we were doing the approach VFR, but I still bet the controller would have wondered what we were doing and likely queried me... Anyways the instructor didn't argue and said "yeah you're right"... but as usual, it made me question myself.. although I'm 94% certain I'm right this time:)
 
ATC is only going to really care if they have other traffic. If they are vectoring you, IMO they should tell you if they want you to do the hold. If they vector you in, and dont tell you, you don't have to, but that rule may be vectors to final. The fact that you arent really on an IFR clearance but are on a practice approach confuses things. You really should ask ATC , I'd say "clarify if you want me to do the hold or not" or some such question. In IMC I don't do any extra holds. If Im vectored straight in, I just go on in unless they tell me to do the hold. If Im vectored in at an angle greater than 30 degrees or so, I do the hold, but just the minimum around and then straight in.

But of course yours was practice. In real IMC I try and keep my manuvering to a minimum. Its safer.
 
Last edited:
Considering I would have needed to make nearly a 180 degree turn at TAYOR, there's really no question about whether or not I needed to do the holding pattern course reversal. My question pertains to "extra" laps in the holding pattern.
 
If you're VFR, no one cares.

If you're IFR, notification is in order. There are some cases where you might HAVE to do an extra lap, such as entering the hold very high. When in doubt, ask.
 
I don't think you do unless instructed to. But if you are talking to ATC, ask.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
RNAV(GPS) 14 at KJVL:

jvl.png



Yesterday I was shooting numerous practice approaches at JVL. After an ILS to 4, approach broke me off early(flying into opposing traffic) and I turned southeast and requested the GPS 14 approach. Cleared to direct TAYOR for the approach.

Cross TAYOR, do the parallel entry, inbound on the final approach course, when we cross TAYOR inbound the CFI wants me to turn right to do a lap in the holding pattern. I say no, I don't think we are supposed to do that without permission from ATC.. as they are not expecting an aircraft to make an additional lap in the holding pattern unless specifically requested to lose altitude.

Is that correct? I realize it's a very simple question, but I have been digging and can't find the answer, but I swore I read it somewhere...

Granted we were doing the approach VFR, but I still bet the controller would have wondered what we were doing and likely queried me... Anyways the instructor didn't argue and said "yeah you're right"... but as usual, it made me question myself.. although I'm 94% certain I'm right this time:)
Click to expand...

You're right
 
No, you are not expected to do an additional turn in holding once you're established.

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook, page 4-50, also AIM 5-4-9 (a)(5), with as far as I can tell, identical wording:

"The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance."

This is fairly basic stuff. Did your CFI just want you to make a lap around the hold for practice, maybe?
 
Why would you do a random lap in the hold?

You were correct just do a normal entry to get established inbound.

If you have a GNS or similar box, activate the approach from TAYOR and see how it sequences it, it won't be flying a extra lap in the hold ether.


Did your CFI want you to practice holding or something? Perhaps it was just poor CFI/student communication
 
RussR said:
No, you are not expected to do an additional turn in holding once you're established.

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook, page 4-50, also AIM 5-4-9 (a)(5), with as far as I can tell, identical wording:

"The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance."

This is fairly basic stuff. Did your CFI just want you to make a lap around the hold for practice, maybe?
Click to expand...
Yep. Same language appears in the AIM at 5-4-9.a.5
 
Only cross the IAF twice in cases such as these. Once out bound, once inbound. Altitude loss or ATC instructions notwithstanding.
 
IMO you are correcto! ;)

You weren't given holding instructions but was cleared for the (practice) approach. Hit Taylor, outbound and then inbound for the approach. If you needed extra time and/or lose altitude you should advise ATC first.
 
RussR said:
No, you are not expected to do an additional turn in holding once you're established.

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook, page 4-50, also AIM 5-4-9 (a)(5), with as far as I can tell, identical wording:

"The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance."

This is fairly basic stuff. Did your CFI just want you to make a lap around the hold for practice, maybe?
Click to expand...

Thank you Russ, I was looking for the cite, I knew it was somewhere... just couldn't find it.

I'll query him tomorrow. We WERE VFR so he might have wanted a lap around for practice, but if he did, he sure didn't say anything about it.
 
James331 said:
Why would you do a random lap in the hold?

You were correct just do a normal entry to get established inbound.

If you have a GNS or similar box, activate the approach from TAYOR and see how it sequences it, it won't be flying a extra lap in the hold ether.


Did your CFI want you to practice holding or something? Perhaps it was just poor CFI/student communication
Click to expand...

Yeah the 430W showed direct TAYOR and then a parallel to get reversed and guidance straight down the final approach course, the other side of the hold was white.

I do think it was just a non-communication situation and he wanted to see the hold, but I will show him the passage cited above just to be sure we are on the same page. With all his experience I can't imagine he doesn't know the procedure when IFR.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Yeah the 430W showed direct TAYOR and then a parallel to get reversed and guidance straight down the final approach course, the other side of the hold was white.

I do think it was just a non-communication situation and he wanted to see the hold, but I will show him the passage cited above just to be sure we are on the same page. With all his experience I can't imagine he doesn't know the procedure when IFR.
Click to expand...

Learn how to suspend sequencing in your 430W. Sometimes you might be instructed to hold there, or on another fix further out. I've had ATC instructed holds at an IAF even in my few months as an instrument pilot. It does happen.
 
Yep, I have a pretty good handle on that now. Using the box a lot in the air as well as the one on the computer at home:)
 
When you are cleared for the approach, the ATC guy is assuming you know what to do. It is up to you to decide whether or not a procedure turn is needed. If the ATC controller specifies "straight-in" you better not do a procedure turn. If you aren't positive, you MUST ask the controller to clarify (that is a FAR).
For your specific situation when told direct Taylor, cleared approach. I would have responded with "Direct Taylor, procedure turn, cleared approach" Then once I would be situated inbound I would say "61X, inbound"

The procedure turn is meant to get you flying in the right direction, safely. If your plan is to loiter there for another loop, you'd better let him know. Please be courteous of the other pilots though, there could be someone waiting for you with somewhere to go.
 
I wouldn't have said, "direct taylor, procedure turn, cleared approach," if approaching from an angle where a parallel entry was going to result. In that situation, nobody is thinking it's a straight-in, so the extra level of detail isn't needed. I would only seek clarification if I was NW of Taylor and the controller did not specify "cleared straight-in RNAV RWY 14 approach." That's the one that causes more confusion.

I would really take your CFII to task on this one and ask exactly why he/she thought it was ok to do the second lap of the hold. Being VFR would NOT be a valid reason. Unless you hear "no separation services provided" as part of the clearance, you are actually receiving separation service from the controller while shooting a VFR practice approach and his clearance is predicated upon him/her knowing what you'll be doing. I would suspect your CFII thought the 'full' lap of the hold was required as opposed to him/her thinking, "eh, let's just do an extra one for practice, and since we're VFR, it doesn't matter."

If the CFII thought the extra lap was required, then I would also suspect there are other significant procedural gaps in their knowledge regarding approach procedures. I hate to paint with too broad a brush, but it's not uncommon for double I's to be shaky on some of the minutia of approach procedures. This is a biggie, though.
 
It's pretty straightforward. Unless it says NoPT you are supposed to do one turn around it, the entry is that turn. No need for another, unless others have said you need to do it to lose altitude or what not in which case I would advise ATC, but most likely they would already be aware of that and tell you to advise them when ready to proceed inbound.
 
coma24 said:
I wouldn't have said, "direct taylor, procedure turn, cleared approach," if approaching from an angle where a parallel entry was going to result. In that situation, nobody is thinking it's a straight-in, so the extra level of detail isn't needed. I would only seek clarification if I was NW of Taylor and the controller did not specify "cleared straight-in RNAV RWY 14 approach." That's the one that causes more confusion.

I would really take your CFII to task on this one and ask exactly why he/she thought it was ok to do the second lap of the hold. Being VFR would NOT be a valid reason. Unless you hear "no separation services provided" as part of the clearance, you are actually receiving separation service from the controller while shooting a VFR practice approach and his clearance is predicated upon him/her knowing what you'll be doing. I would suspect your CFII thought the 'full' lap of the hold was required as opposed to him/her thinking, "eh, let's just do an extra one for practice, and since we're VFR, it doesn't matter."

If the CFII thought the extra lap was required, then I would also suspect there are other significant procedural gaps in their knowledge regarding approach procedures. I hate to paint with too broad a brush, but it's not uncommon for double I's to be shaky on some of the minutia of approach procedures. This is a biggie, though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. He is big on practicing holds, so I don't agree that he thought it was required, but that he wanted me practicing it. But, I agree that this was not the place to be practicing a hold.

I will revisit it with him, just to be sure. So far in 10+ hours of flying since the situation in question, I have not seen him make a mis-step like that. And yes I'm still a student but I'd like to think my approach procedure knowledge is pretty good... Good enough at least to catch his error:)

I also agree that there's no need to let the controller know you're doing the procedure turn. If cleared to the IAF and the approach, there's no other way to get reversed. The controller is going to expect the course reversal.
 
When you practice, instructors tend to have you MAXIMIZE manuvering in the approach. It gets the student more practice manuvering, but teaches things that dont happen when on an IFR flight plan. When you fly IFR for real, its best to MINIMIZE manuvering in the approach. It kind of confuses the student.

The one that gets me is if coming am straight in, but NOT on radar vectors, and the pilot comes to a hold, he is supposed to go around once!! But not if he is being vectored.
 
This just gets to show that one needs to communicate well at all times. With a CFI (or I hope that it was actually a CFII) as well as with ATC.
If one needs to perform a maneuver that is not expected by ATC, one should advise ATC. One never knows whether there is a fast jet incoming in 2 minutes when one would be in the hold, blocking the arrival.
 
coloradobluesky said:
The one that gets me is if coming am straight in, but NOT on radar vectors, and the pilot comes to a hold, he is supposed to go around once!! But not if he is being vectored.
Click to expand...
The difference is that vectors don't bring you to the FAF. They bring you to an "approach gate" outside the FAF so you can be stabilized.
 
All I see is the extra risk of having to go around in the hold. Less time spent in IMC, IMO, the less likely a mishap in IMC. IMC mishaps are higher risk than VFR or being on the ground. ERGO, skip the hold when coming straight in is a good idea. Also uses fuel and takes time to hold for no gain in safety. I see holding as LESS safe and MORE expensive than not holding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top