Flying HILO on an approach

[uncreative]

when flying a hilo depicted on a chart, assuming you are set up with a teardrop or parallel entry, do you normally do the entry and fly just the inbound leg to reverse course, or would you normally do you do the entry, fly the racetrack, and then proceed?

 

[John Collins]

when flying a hilo depicted on a chart, assuming you are set up with a teardrop or parallel entry, do you normally do the entry and fly just the inbound leg to reverse course, or would you normally do you do the entry, fly the racetrack, and then proceed?

Do the entry and proceed inbound, no additional circuits without ATC permission. Pass over the holding fix exactly twice, once for the entry and once passing it on the inbound leg.

 

[nosehair]

Right. It is not a "hold", it is a course reversal which must be done within the airspace of a holding pattern, but it is not a "holding procedure", unless you have been given holding instructions prior to being cleared for the approach.

 

[uncreative]

thanks!

 

[dtuuri]

when flying a hilo depicted on a chart, assuming you are set up with a teardrop or parallel entry, do you normally do the entry and fly just the inbound leg to reverse course, or would you normally do you do the entry, fly the racetrack, and then proceed?

Hey! How's the instrument training going? Did you go steam or glass?

I see you find the AIM guidance less than crystal clear on this point like many others before you. We've had this discussion often here and on the Red Board. The thing is, you want to be set up on the intermediate segment airspeed and configuration-wise before sliding onto the final segment. That means tracking and correcting for wind too, so you can time the final (NPA) and make a missed approach at the proper point. An entry only, assuming "entry" means the manuevering done before the second crossing of the fix, doesn't necessarily give you enough time to properly set up, especially if you did a parallel entry and headed straight for the fix. ATC doesn't expect a lap though, rightly or wrongly, so if you need one to configure and/or to nail down the intermediate course just advise ATC before you go 'round the track.

Good luck, buddy!

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm wondering what part of the following AIM verbiage one might find unclear:

5. A holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn may be specified for course reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is established over an intermediate fix or a final approach fix. The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. For a hold-in-lieu-of-PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded. Maximum holding airspeed limitations as set forth for all holding patterns apply. 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.

But if one finds that confusing, here's the simple explanation -- when a holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn is executed, you cross the fix twice and only twice, and any more or less requires ATC approval.

 

[dtuuri]

I'm wondering what part of the following AIM verbiage one might find unclear:

Quote:
5. A holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn may be specified for course reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is established over an intermediate fix or a final approach fix. The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. For a hold-in-lieu-of-PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded. Maximum holding airspeed limitations as set forth for all holding patterns apply. 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.
​

See above bold, coupled with AIM 5-3-8:

Entry Procedures. (See FIG 5-3-4.)

(a) Parallel Procedure. When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in sector (a), the parallel entry procedure would be to turn to a heading to parallel the holding course outbound on the nonholding side for one minute, turn in the direction of the holding pattern through more than 180 degrees, and return to the holding fix or intercept the holding course inbound.

​

So, I can empathize with newbies even if you think they're just dumb. Course reversals and HILPTs are meant to establish the aircraft on the intermediate course, but parallel entries don't necessarily do that. "Additional circuits" also implies at least one full circuit has occurred which isn't the case except during a direct entry.

Why don't you submit a suggestion that the AIM be changed to read like you say, re: just crossing the fix twice? Nice and succinct. What could they possibly find to oppose it? Of course, if they did... why, then you'd have been (gasp) wrong.

dtuuri

 

[flyingron]

I'd just go over to the west side of the Island and land at Kona.

 

[uncreative]

Went with steam gauge/430W. So far doing instrument attitude flying in the practice area, hopefully building a good foundation. Doing partial panel unusual attitudes at night was interesting. Moving onto holds next, hence the question.

Thanks for the well wishes!

Hey! How's the instrument training going? Did you go steam or glass?


Good luck, buddy!

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

Went with steam gauge/430W. So far doing instrument attitude flying in the practice area, hopefully building a good foundation. Doing partial panel unusual attitudes at night was interesting. Moving onto holds next, hence the question.

I don't think I'm breaking any part of my contract with PIC by saying we use the same general order of training as discussed in PIC founder Peter Dogan's book "Instrument Flight Training Manual":

• Basic instrument flying (full panel and primary flight instrument inop)
  • Six configurations (climb, cruise, cruise descent, approach level, approach descent, nonprecision descent)
  • Four fundamentals (S&L, turns, climbs, descents)
  • UA recoveries
• Basic radio navigation
  • Orientation, interception, and tracking with VOR/ADF/GPS (as appropriate)
  • DME arcs
• Basic procedures
  • Procedure turns using 5T's
  • Holding at VOR's, NDB's, intersections, and GPS waypoints (as appropriate)
• Nonprecision approaches
• Precision approaches
• IFR flights with departure, enroute, arrival, and approaches
• Practice flight test

 

[petrolero]

So, I can empathize with newbies even if you think they're just dumb.

I think you are confusing this whole issue and insulting on top of that. I see nothing to indicate that he thinks they are "just dumb".

Course reversals and HILPTs are meant to establish the aircraft on the intermediate course,

Do you mean inbound course? Well, yes, that and to reverse course.

but parallel entries don't necessarily do that.

Yes they do. Read the entry procedure again. You are parallel on the outbound portion (by a very small amount) and then you do your 235 deg turn and intercept the inbound leg or hold fix, whichever comes first.

You seem to think that because you're parallel to the inbound course that something is amiss. But that's the procedure. It's baked into the design.

"Additional circuits" also implies at least one full circuit has occurred which isn't the case except during a direct entry.

Yes it is the case. It is a course reversal and the parallel or teardrop entry (not direct - because it is a course reversal and you wouldn't use that entry) is a circuit for the purpose of a HILPT.

Why don't you submit a suggestion that the AIM be changed to read like you say, re: just crossing the fix twice? Nice and succinct. What could they possibly find to oppose it? Of course, if they did... why, then you'd have been (gasp) wrong.

Or you could submit your suggestion. I think Ron's explanation is the right one. And he is not the only one who uses it and many pilots have passed check rides using it.

 

[dtuuri]

I think you are confusing this whole issue and insulting on top of that.

Lose the attitude, bub, I'm not in the mood.

I see nothing to indicate that he thinks they are "just dumb".

His barbs are too subtle for you I guess.

Do you mean inbound course? Well, yes, that and to reverse course.

If there's no FAF, I mean "final approach segment". Otherwise I meant "intermediate segment". Guess I figured everybody knew I was playing fast and loose with the language.

Yes they do. Read the entry procedure again.

Tracking straight to the fix doesn't "establish" you on the course you're aiming for.

Or you could submit your suggestion. I think Ron's explanation is the right one. And he is not the only one who uses it and many pilots have passed check rides using it.

Everybody including myself goes by that. Newbies always seem to have trouble understanding (and some die-hard not-so-newbies) because of the way the AIM is written. I can see why it's written that way--the folks who write that stuff work at desks. I can see why pilots and ATC do something else--they want to land not mill around. But acting like anybody who can't make sense of it is deficient (you need more sensitivity training) is an uncalled for slap in the face.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think you are confusing this whole issue and insulting on top of that. I see nothing to indicate that he thinks they are "just dumb".

Don't worry about it. dturri has a slight tendency to find a way to parse a sentence to make it more complicated than the concept it is presenting. Nothing bad about it; I think it's one of the right/left brain things, but this is how I understand his analysis:

In the direct and teardrop, since the only "proper" AIM procedure results in intercepting the inbound, one is completing a circuit.

But in the parallel entry, one might (a) intercept the inbound but there is also (b ) the potential for heading direct to the holding fix*.

Because of the later possibility, it means the parallel entry does not involve completing a circuit so you need to go around again.

A global view would say there's no reason for a difference; a semantic view will say the concept is therefore unclear.

* In reality, there is a third possibility, which actually supports dturri's reading (although I don't agree with it). If you do the AIM parallel entry perfectly in no wind and do standard rate turns, you will proceed directly to the holding fix. It requires an inbound headwind or a larger than standard rate bank angle to intercept the inbound course. An inbound tailwind will result in overshooting the IAF/FAF and intercepting the FAC inside the FAF, which is not good for a stabilized approach.

 

[dtuuri]

Don't worry about it. dturri has a slight tendency to find a way to parse a sentence to make it more complicated than the concept it is presenting. Nothing bad about it; I think it's one of the right/left brain things...

Isn't that funny? If asked, I might have said the same about your explanations and most others too. I really do try to keep it pithy though. Here's a good comparison of three explanations for Jaybird about TAAs:

Quote: Originally Posted by dtuuri

It supports RNAV in that you can arrive from any direction not just on a published route. The crew should have seen the altitudes there and not descended below.

dtuuri

Quote: Originally Posted by Everskyward

The second paragraph in John's post alludes to it.

Quote:
In the case of a TAA, one does not normally see feeder routes as any airway that passes thru the TAA (sometimes more than 60 NM across) can consider the TAA segment as the feeder route based on RNAV navigation.
​

Instead of individual feeder routes to the initial approach fix the whole TAA is a "feeder route" with a minimum altitude. This allows ATC more flexibility for transitioning airplanes from the enroute structure to the approach.

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

Quote:
TAAs are the method by which aircraft are transitioned from the RNAV en route structure to the terminal area with minimal ATC interaction.
​

That allows ATC to route aircraft direct (gasp) to the IAF from within the TAA and the minimum altitude is already stated.

Quote: Originally Posted by John Collins

In high traffic areas such as at major airports you won't see many TAA's as the most efficient method of arrival and approach is via vectors to final or following an RNAV STAR. However, at the outlying airports, the TAA essentially provides the infrastructure to use RNAV to navigate direct to the IAF and start the approach with a minimum of ATC involvement. So you enter on base or final without the need of a procedure turn. It is sort of like own navigation vectors to final. If you are coming off an airway, still no problem because the TAA is so large an area of airspace that you can be cleared direct off an airway to the approach IAF without the need of a single feeder route. The entire TAA is a feeder route that is based on you being able to navigate via RNAV.

You could put mine on a single Powerpoint slide, Everskyward's looks like a one page homework assignment and John Collins' like an article for Time magazine.

Btw, I liked your assessment of the '5 Ts' as a way to avoid learning.

dtuuri

 

[Ghery]

I'd just go over to the west side of the Island and land at Kona.

Nice. Having flown in and out of both I really wouldn't care which. They're both easy.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Btw, I liked you assessment of the '5 Ts' as a way to avoid learning.

dtuuri

Thanks.

It's always fun and never nasty when we disagree. I like that.

 

[dtuuri]

It's always fun and never nasty when we disagree. I like that.

Me too, but boy... some guys and gals around here, whew! They have nooooo sense of humor!

dtuuri

 

[petrolero]

Lose the attitude, bub, I'm not in the mood.

I'm not interested in your mood, I was just responding to what you wrote. You suggested that Ron thought others were stupid. Amazing omniscience.

His barbs are too subtle for you I guess.

A barb is a barb. What you wrote, that he thinks people are "just dumb" is an unnecessary insult.

Ron's comments on instrument procedures and regs are strikingly objective and well referenced. I think that is why he has so much credibility around here. Not sure what it is about this one that got you so upset.

If there's no FAF, I mean "final approach segment". Otherwise I meant "intermediate segment". Guess I figured everybody knew I was playing fast and loose with the language.

I understood what you meant.

Tracking straight to the fix doesn't "establish" you on the course you're aiming for.

I lost track. Are we still talking about the parallel entry?

I don't track directly to the fix after turning off the parallel (but if I did it really wouldn't be that big a deal). I was taught to turn 235 or more off the parallel course and it establishes me on the inbound course to the holding fix.

But I thought your point was that with the parallel entry you fly the parallel slightly off the actual inbound course. If that was indeed your point, then my rebuttal is simply that it's OK. The FAA knows this and accounts for it in the design of the procedure based on the max speed for the given holding altitude.

Everybody including myself goes by that. Newbies always seem to have trouble understanding (and some die-hard not-so-newbies) because of the way the AIM is written. I can see why it's written that way--the folks who write that stuff work at desks. I can see why pilots and ATC do something else--they want to land not mill around. But acting like anybody who can't make sense of it is deficient (you need more sensitivity training) is an uncalled for slap in the face.

dtuuri

Newbies get confused by many many things in flying. Veterans do too.

I assure you I didn't "slap" you anywhere. I just called you out on the insult. Take a deep breath and fly on.

 

[dtuuri]

Not sure what it is about this one that got you so upset.

I wasn't upset, you were. Cap'n Ron wasn't upset either or he would have shot back, if history is any indication.

But I thought your point was that with the parallel entry you fly the parallel slightly off the actual inbound course.

No, Midlifeflyer explained it well above.

The FAA knows this and accounts for it in the design of the procedure based on the max speed for the given holding altitude.

I know how they design holding patterns well enough from studying the original FAA Order 7130.8 written in 1964. I can send you a link to aterpster's TERPS website where you can see it yourself if you want, minus page 4 which is missing there. If you want to see that (it mentions the importance of "establishing" on the inbound course in the design criteria) I can PM that to you too (I requested it from the FAA and they dug it out of an old microfiche file for me).

I assure you I didn't "slap" you anywhere. I just called you out on the insult.

Not you! Cap'n Ron was dissing anybody who can't understand the AIM, I was defending the justifiably AIM-confused. Or, he might have been taking a shot at me, who knows?

dtuuri