Holds vs PT

roncachamp said:
Even if the hold had been charted, assuming Ron's quote of the controller is correct, the controller erred in not issuing the holding direction.
Click to expand...
You mean "Hold northeast of Lawrence as published"? Yes, he should have said that, and may have, but it still didn't help much since we didn't which radial or direction of turn.

In any event, the lesson for pilots is that when a controller says "hold as published," you may need more information to find out where it's published, and if you're close to the fix, don't be afraid to say, "Can't find it, request detailed instructions."
 
Ron Levy said:
In any event, the lesson for pilots is that when a controller says "hold as published," you may need more information to find out where it's published, and if you're close to the fix, don't be afraid to say, "Can't find it, request detailed instructions."
Click to expand...
That's the main lesson. Whether or not controllers should know what holding patterns are depicted on what charts and whether or not pilots should be able to find the published hold on their own charts is irrelevant. Sometime things do not work out as they should because people are imperfect and so is the system.
 
roncachamp said:
Well, assuming there were several people waiting for THAT approach into THAT airport, where do you think ATC would put them?
Click to expand...

In a hold on a feeder route somewhere.

If ATC DOES stack planes in that hold, they would have to be at a significantly higher altitude than the missed approach hold altitude for obvious reasons.

What issue with the missed approach?
Click to expand...

While an airplane is on an approach to an uncontrolled field, or basically any time they are not in radar contact, all of that airspace belongs to the airplane on the approach. If that airplane needs to do a missed approach, ATC can't really clear another airplane for the approach until he deals with the missed.

Where would the second missed approach airplane go?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
In a hold on a feeder route somewhere.
Click to expand...

There are no feeder routes to this approach. None are needed as the IAF is part of the enroute structure.

If ATC DOES stack planes in that hold, they would have to be at a significantly higher altitude than the missed approach hold altitude for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

The bottom plane in the stack would have to be at least 1000 feet above the published missed approach holding altitude if another aircraft was to be cleared for the approach. I believe we covered that earlier.

While an airplane is on an approach to an uncontrolled field, or basically any time they are not in radar contact, all of that airspace belongs to the airplane on the approach. If that airplane needs to do a missed approach, ATC can't really clear another airplane for the approach until he deals with the missed.
Click to expand...

True, and again, I believe we already covered that.

Where would the second missed approach airplane go?
Click to expand...

Same place, FTZ VORTAC. He just wouldn't be cleared for the approach until the prior aircraft reported out of 2500 for 3500 or greater.

It appears you'd prefer to use lateral separation over vertical separation, you tend to run out of airspace rather quickly that way. With vertical you only need 1000 feet, lateral would require multiple holding patterns that don't overlap each other or any airways you'd like to use.

Manual separation is pre-planned separation, you just can't do it on the fly. Holding pattern protected airspace varies with the type of fix, distance from the NAVAID, and maximum holding altitude. Even a small pattern such as No. 6, which would only be used at low altitudes, requires 13 miles to clear at the furthest point from the holding fix.
 
roncachamp said:
It appears you'd prefer to use lateral separation over vertical separation, you tend to run out of airspace rather quickly that way.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I just think that if you are going to stack people up in the same hold as the missed approach, things can get bottled up in a hurry.

Reality is, at a place like Washington, MO it won't be an issue because you more than likely won't have more than two airplanes AT MOST vying for that airspace at the same time. Moot point.

This is an academic exercise, for the most part.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Not at all. I just think that if you are going to stack people up in the same hold as the missed approach, things can get bottled up in a hurry.

Reality is, at a place like Washington, MO it won't be an issue because you more than likely won't have more than two airplanes AT MOST vying for that airspace at the same time. Moot point.

This is an academic exercise, for the most part.
Click to expand...

Okay. What's the reason the aircraft are holding in your academic exercise?
 
roncachamp said:
Okay. What's the reason the aircraft are holding in your academic exercise?
Click to expand...

Ok, you have a Cessna Pilot's Association convention in Washington, Missouri. It starts at a given time of day and 10 of the attendees end up arriving at the same time. Weather has been up and down all day long. More or less at minimums for the approach. And, for whatever reason, radar coverage is not available so the full approach has to be done.

Obviously they cannot all shoot the approach at the same time. So they have to be stacked in a hold somewhere. Foristell VOR seems like the logical place.

The first airplane to shoot the approach gets in but the weather is right at minimums. Since he has canceled his IFR, the airspace is now clear for the next person in line to shoot the approach. But the ceiling has dropped enough that he has to miss the approach and does the published missed approach back to Foristell. Explain to me how this would work.

Hey, I am just trying to learn here. It just seems to me like you wouldn't want a missed approach hold at the same place as where people are stacked up to shoot the approach to the same runway.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, you have a Cessna Pilot's Association convention in Washington, Missouri. It starts at a given time of day and 10 of the attendees end up arriving at the same time. Weather has been up and down all day long. More or less at minimums for the approach. And, for whatever reason, radar coverage is not available so the full approach has to be done.

Obviously they cannot all shoot the approach at the same time. So they have to be stacked in a hold somewhere. Foristell VOR seems like the logical place.

The first airplane to shoot the approach gets in but the weather is right at minimums. Since he has canceled his IFR, the airspace is now clear for the next person in line to shoot the approach. But the ceiling has dropped enough that he has to miss the approach and does the published missed approach back to Foristell. Explain to me how this would work.
Click to expand...

What's to explain? He (No. 2) goes back to FTZ and reenters the hold. The guy that was holding immediately above him (No.3) is still holding at the same altitude, he couldn't be cleared lower until No. 2 canceled IFR because the whole IAP has to be protected, including the missed approach.

Now, if No. 2 makes it in and cancels IFR No. 3 is then cleared for the approach and Nos.4 through 10 get lower sequentially as lower holding aircraft report out of their previously assigned altitudes. The lowest available altitude, 2500 in this case, is left open to allow for a missed approach.

Hey, I am just trying to learn here. It just seems to me like you wouldn't want a missed approach hold at the same place as where people are stacked up to shoot the approach to the same runway.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to be a problem to me.
 
Ron Levy said:
While my trainee is going around in the hold, I look further -- guess what I find -- the ILS 05 approach (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0811/00654I5.PDF) has a published missed approach hold at the LWM VOR -- northeast, 057 radial, right turns. Not on the other approach charts, not on the L-chart.
Click to expand...
This is not that uncommon. In some areas different approaches, even similar ones, have different holds.

The GPS 35R and the NDB 35R at KAPA used to be virtually identical (the RNAV (GPS) approach recently changed substantially) except for the location of the missed hold. "Hold at CASSE as published" makes no sense just looking at the GPS chart, while "Hold at DOCKY as published" made equal (non) sense when looking solely at the NDB.

Just as realistic or unrealistic as a pilot expecting that the controller knows what is on each of the charts in your lap is a controller expecting that the pilot knows that the hold being assigned is on the next page. Probably the same for the "should"s in both cases.
 
Everskyward said:
That's the main lesson. Whether or not controllers should know what holding patterns are depicted on what charts and whether or not pilots should be able to find the published hold on their own charts is irrelevant. Sometime things do not work out as they should because people are imperfect and so is the system.
Click to expand...
This is so true.

Today, I attempted to file through a flight planner. It wouldn't accept the routing. So, I called flight service. His system would not accept it, either.

The routing was departing KAUS, intercept the R-222 radial for V-17 off CWK then direct BETTI. Intercept the R-105 STV for BETTI then fly direct STV via V-222. Then, outbound STV on R-345 for V-568 direct to LLO. Afterward, outbound to KAQO. All of this can be seen on the L-19 Low Altitude Enroute Chart. Access it here then click on the "L-19" button at the top right corner of the chart.

According to the FSS briefer, the only option the system would accept was depart KAUS, fly direct to CWK (North of KAUS) then outbound to BETTI during which we would pass by KAUS to the west. Also, I remarked "Student XC. No DPs, No STARS."

When I called for a clearance, I specifically requested a clearance as filed. But, the system automatically plugged in the Austin Two Departure which is what the clearance controller saw. So, I was given that departure with a Llano transition. This would completely bypass the intended training route. The controller said my only option was fly to AMUSE and then to Llano.

Just prior to departure, I called clearance again asking if we could modify. He started mentioning the presidential TFR near Temple. I was more than confused as we were going nowhere near Temple. I pretty much gave up in hopes of getting something changed when handed off to center. He did say we could ask for a specific radial with DME. I'm wondering, how is that better than specifying a very specific fix in the system?

After getting handed off to departure, I asked him if we could get direct BETTI, Stonewall then Llano. He said Stonewall was not on my routing. I responded that it was originally but had been removed by the "automated" system. Apparently the other note of "Student XC" had also been ignored by the system. The controller ask me if this was IFR training. "Affirmative."

He said, "Let me see what I can do." A minute later, he came back with "Fly heading 220, direct BETTI, direct Stonewall, direct Llano, direct Llano airport." My reply: "Awesome, thank you very much!" He told me the problem was the system would not recognize "BETTI."

Another instructor later told me I might try GARDS which is not on a victor airway but it should go through on a flight plan. The question remains, will it always give me a DP regardless of my remark of "No DP"?

There has to be an easier way to plan a student XC while on an active IFR flight plan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KennyFlys said:
The routing was departing KAUS, intercept the R-222 radial for V-17 off CWK then direct BETTI. Intercept the R-105 STV for BETTI then fly direct STV via V-222. Then, outbound STV on R-345 for V-568 direct to LLO. Afterward, outbound to KAQO. All of this can be seen on the L-19 Low Altitude Enroute Chart. Access it here then click on the "L-19" button at the top right corner of the chart.
Click to expand...
What exactly was the route you were giving them?
 
KennyFlys said:
According to the FSS briefer, the only option the system would accept was depart KAUS, fly direct to CWK (North of KAUS) then outbound to BETTI during which we would pass by KAUS to the west. Also, I remarked "Student XC. No DPs, No STARS."
Click to expand...
I think the problem here is that the system will not allow you to file from the airport to intercept a radial or an airway. The system wants you to file to a fix first.

KennyFlys said:
When I called for a clearance, I specifically requested a clearance as filed. But, the system automatically plugged in the Austin Two Departure which is what the clearance controller saw.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that there are canned routes between departure and destination airports which are automatically assigned. Sometimes what you put in remarks is ignored. Other times they will not issue you the SID per se, but they will read off the exact procedure from the text of the SID. I have heard them do that to someone before.

KennyFlys said:
After getting handed off to departure, I asked him if we could get direct BETTI, Stonewall then Llano. He said Stonewall was not on my routing. I responded that it was originally but had been removed by the "automated" system. Apparently the other note of "Student XC" had also been ignored by the system. The controller ask me if this was IFR training. "Affirmative."

He said, "Let me see what I can do." A minute later, he came back with "Fly heading 220, direct BETTI, direct Stonewall, direct Llano, direct Llano airport." My reply: "Awesome, thank you very much!" He told me the problem was the system would not recognize "BETTI."
Click to expand...
The best strategy I have found to get the routing you want is to negotiate with the controller themselves.
 
Everskyward said:
I think the problem here is that the system will not allow you to file from the airport to intercept a radial or an airway. The system wants you to file to a fix first.
Click to expand...
My first point in the route was a fix. It was "BETTI."

It is my understanding that there are canned routes between departure and destination airports which are automatically assigned. Sometimes what you put in remarks is ignored. Other times they will not issue you the SID per se, but they will read off the exact procedure from the text of the SID. I have heard them do that to someone before.
Click to expand...
That pretty much describes what happen.

The best strategy I have found to get the routing you want is to negotiate with the controller themselves.
Click to expand...
The exact act that got us what we wanted.
 
KennyFlys said:
My first point in the route was a fix. It was "BETTI."
Click to expand...
That was hard to tell from what you wrote here. You seem to imply that you want to intercept the radial then go direct BETTI.
The routing was departing KAUS, intercept the R-222 radial for V-17 off CWK then direct BETTI. Intercept the R-105 STV for BETTI then fly direct STV via V-222. Then, outbound STV on R-345 for V-568 direct to LLO. Afterward, outbound to KAQO.
Click to expand...
Were you using this many words with the FSS briefer? All you needed to say was departure KAUS direct BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO destination KAQO.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
What exactly was the route you were giving them?
Click to expand...

Departing: KAUS

Routing: V17 BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO

Destination: KAQO

It didn't specify an intercept but apparently if your initial place of routing involves a victor airway, the initial point must be the VOR just prior to that segment of the victor airway. Even so, you'd think the clearance controller would look at it and simply issue BETTI as the initial fix, particularly if a student XC is specified. Maybe the controllers aren't allowed to rethink what the computers kick out.
 
KennyFlys said:
Departing: KAUS

Routing: V17 BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO

Destination: KAQO

It didn't specify an intercept but apparently if your initial place of routing involves a victor airway, the initial point must be the VOR just prior to that segment of the victor airway. Even so, you'd think the clearance controller would look at it and simply issue BETTI as the initial fix, particularly if a student XC is specified. Maybe the controllers aren't allowed to rethink what the computers kick out.
Click to expand...

Yeah you need to get something 'solid' before that airway. V17 isn't exactly a defined point in space. Some sort of fix before it.
 
jesse said:
Yeah you need to get something 'solid' before that airway. V17 isn't exactly a defined point in space. Some sort of fix before it.
Click to expand...
That's the funny thing. I asked clearance for direct BETTI.

They said it had to be AMUSE which would result in direct LLO after departure; completely defeating our purpose.

I still don't know how the interference with Temple came up.
 
jesse said:
Yeah you need to get something 'solid' before that airway. V17 isn't exactly a defined point in space. Some sort of fix before it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think the two choices are to go direct BETTI, if you can, and eliminate V17, or if you don't have an IFR GPS do what the controller suggested and file to CWK.
 
Everskyward said:
Agreed. I think the two choices are to go direct BETTI, if you can, and eliminate V17, or if you don't have an IFR GPS do what the controller suggested and file to CWK.
Click to expand...
The intended practice was for navigation via only VORs. The GPS was... shall we say? "INOP"? :D

I filed /G so they knew we had it in a hitch but it seems we might have gotten what we wanted had we filed /U. That just doesn't seem right since we're flying a G-1000. Besides, it would be my luck that would be a misleading statement and could lead to a potential violation the way my luck went.
 
KennyFlys said:
This is so true.

Today, I attempted to file through a flight planner. It wouldn't accept the routing. So, I called flight service. His system would not accept it, either.

The routing was departing KAUS, intercept the R-222 radial for V-17 off CWK then direct BETTI. Intercept the R-105 STV for BETTI then fly direct STV via V-222. Then, outbound STV on R-345 for V-568 direct to LLO. Afterward, outbound to KAQO. All of this can be seen on the L-19 Low Altitude Enroute Chart. Access it here then click on the "L-19" button at the top right corner of the chart.

According to the FSS briefer, the only option the system would accept was depart KAUS, fly direct to CWK (North of KAUS) then outbound to BETTI during which we would pass by KAUS to the west. Also, I remarked "Student XC. No DPs, No STARS."

When I called for a clearance, I specifically requested a clearance as filed. But, the system automatically plugged in the Austin Two Departure which is what the clearance controller saw. So, I was given that departure with a Llano transition. This would completely bypass the intended training route. The controller said my only option was fly to AMUSE and then to Llano.

Just prior to departure, I called clearance again asking if we could modify. He started mentioning the presidential TFR near Temple. I was more than confused as we were going nowhere near Temple. I pretty much gave up in hopes of getting something changed when handed off to center. He did say we could ask for a specific radial with DME. I'm wondering, how is that better than specifying a very specific fix in the system?

After getting handed off to departure, I asked him if we could get direct BETTI, Stonewall then Llano. He said Stonewall was not on my routing. I responded that it was originally but had been removed by the "automated" system. Apparently the other note of "Student XC" had also been ignored by the system. The controller ask me if this was IFR training. "Affirmative."

He said, "Let me see what I can do." A minute later, he came back with "Fly heading 220, direct BETTI, direct Stonewall, direct Llano, direct Llano airport." My reply: "Awesome, thank you very much!" He told me the problem was the system would not recognize "BETTI."

Another instructor later told me I might try GARDS which is not on a victor airway but it should go through on a flight plan. The question remains, will it always give me a DP regardless of my remark of "No DP"?

There has to be an easier way to plan a student XC while on an active IFR flight plan.
Click to expand...

BETTI is an airway fix, there's no way the FDP computer isn't going to recognize it. Next time you might want to bypass FSS and file it yourself via DUAT. The format for the route is:

KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO

Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.
 
roncachamp said:
Next time you might want to bypass FSS and file it yourself via DUAT. The format for the route is:

KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO

Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.
Click to expand...

I tried this route

BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO

via DUATS and it worked fine as long as you omit the punctuation like:

BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO

Now, whether you get it as filed or not is a completely different story.
 
Just make sure you have the systems on board to navigate direct from the airport to BETTI -- and a couple of VOR's alone ain't enough for that unless there's a VOR at the departure airport with a radial to fly to BETTI.
 
KennyFlys said:
Departing: KAUS

Routing: V17 BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO

Destination: KAQO

It didn't specify an intercept but apparently if your initial place of routing involves a victor airway, the initial point must be the VOR just prior to that segment of the victor airway. Even so, you'd think the clearance controller would look at it and simply issue BETTI as the initial fix, particularly if a student XC is specified. Maybe the controllers aren't allowed to rethink what the computers kick out.
Click to expand...

I've run into a similar problem before (although I can't remember exactly how I resolved it with the briefer). For filing purposes, you can't have the V17 before BETTI because KAUS is not on V17. That's why he wanted you to file to CWK first - it's the closest point to KAUS to "hop on to" V17. Otherwise, there's no way for the computer to really know where on V17 you're starting from. It could be anywhere from CWK to SAT.

Published departures notwithstanding, it would've been nice if clearance guy understood the training nature of the flight and given you a "fly heading xxx to intercept V17..." Oh well.

Looking at L19, it seems as though the 205 Radial of CWK passes right over KAUS. I wonder if it would've been possible to file KAUS to MARCS intersection, then V222 to Stonewall?
 
roncachamp said:
BETTI is an airway fix, there's no way the FDP computer isn't going to recognize it. Next time you might want to bypass FSS and file it yourself via DUAT. The format for the route is:

KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO

Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.
Click to expand...
I first tried it via AOPA RTFP. That failed. It seems if the briefer can't put it in manually, why would a computer be able to?

As far as a DP, it's a given thanks to the computer that gives AUS clearance. A DP is automatically added to every clearance.
 
TeenDoc said:
I tried this route

BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO

via DUATS and it worked fine as long as you omit the punctuation like:

BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO

Now, whether you get it as filed or not is a completely different story.
Click to expand...
I used to use DUAT. I'll start trying that again.

I have an IFR trip planned this Saturday but it's a much longer route so we'll see what happens. I told the student to make the first fix at GARDS.
 
[SIZE=-1]BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

[SIZE=-1]KAUS to KAQO: TC=305° : MC= 299° : [SIZE=-1]ST. LINE= 62nm : [SIZE=-1]AIRWAY=104nm : [SIZE=-1]Extra=68%[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
Click to expand...
Fltplan.com took it just like that for me.
 
KennyFlys said:
It was.... "NO DP" in remarks. It was ignored. Clearance gave me the Austin Two Departure with the Llano transition.
Click to expand...

Kenny...

Read the man's post. He's a controller. He knows his stuff. You don't suppress anything with "NO DP" in the remarks - The remarks aren't touched by the computers. The route is. Go back and read the post again, and you'll see that you suppress the DP by putting an asterisk after KAUS in the route.
 
roncachamp said:
BETTI is an airway fix, there's no way the FDP computer isn't going to recognize it. Next time you might want to bypass FSS and file it yourself via DUAT. The format for the route is:

KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO

Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.
Click to expand...

Very elegant. I just learned something new.

TeenDoc said:
I tried this route

BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO

via DUATS and it worked fine as long as you omit the punctuation like:

BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO
Click to expand...

duat.com /= duats.com :fingerwag: Wonder if DUATS will suppress the preferential departure somehow like DUAT?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Kenny...

Read the man's post. He's a controller. He knows his stuff. You don't suppress anything with "NO DP" in the remarks - The remarks aren't touched by the computers. The route is. Go back and read the post again, and you'll see that you suppress the DP by putting an asterisk after KAUS in the route.
Click to expand...
When I give the routing to FSS, I would reasonably expect them to code the information to provide what I'm requesting. Then again, although Lockheed is doing much better than they started out, I guess they don't know all those "tricks" and tools to better input flight plans. This might be worth filing a note on their web site.

Steven is referring to using DUAT to enter that format which I will certainly try. I have a copy of that post to keep at my desk for use even on tomorrow.

So, as far as I knew by telling the flight briefer "No DPs", it was suppressed. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Edit: Just like Richard, this is very new to me. I'm gonna have to ping our resident controller/CFI on this one as well to see what he knows about it.

Steven, I do appreciate the help. Any other tricks like that or similar would be great to know. If you can come up with some kind of list of this and similar information to help with filing, I think it would be a great sticky to have in this forum.

Sudden question.... Shouldn't that format work when using RTFP since its information is filed through DUAT?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alaskaflyer said:
duat.com /= duats.com :fingerwag: Wonder if DUATS will suppress the preferential departure somehow like DUAT?
Click to expand...
I don't think either one will suppress the preferential departure. Just because DUAT or DUATS or any other service will let you file a certain route doesn't mean that is the route you are going to be assigned in your clearance. Kenny was having problems getting the system to accept his flight plan.... I think.
 
Last edited:
What Mari said. No matter how you file it, you are likely to get something else if that's what works for the controllers.

A lot of it depends on the density of air traffic. Out here in PA where we do IFR hops from one D or E airport to another without getting near any major airspace, you can pretty much guarantee that you'll get what you file, unless they are doing you a favor and filing you something that is more direct. This is especially common when you can't go direct (no IFR GPS) and you don't file as well as you could have (like me).

When you've got the IFR GPS in your plane, though, just file direct and you usually get it. What is also not uncommon around here is to get cleared direct (or your clearance as filed) and then have it change as you get closer to bigger airspace. That has happened to me on multiple occasions.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't think either one will suppress the preferential departure.
Click to expand...
Correct. I did try both; DUAT and DUATS. Neither took the KAUS* entry and both rejected V17 as the initial "fix." Only BETTI was accepted.

Everskyward said:
Kenny was having problems getting the system to accept his flight plan.... I think.
Click to expand...
...and having the system grant the route he filed which is never guaranteed even if the system "takes" the route you file.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Had no idea. :smile:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top