Holds

N

N467PS

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 14, 2013
Messages
6
Display Name
Display name:
Bob
Doing my IR ground school. If I enter a hold in lieu of procedure turn at a VOR using a parallel entry, when I've reversed course and re-crossed the VOR have I completed the required hold? From my reading it seems that the answer should be yes, but I'll never actually have completed the full holding pattern.
I guess if the entire purpose was the course reversal then I've done that.
Please clarify.
 
Yes, correct. I'm pretty new at this myself, but once you're established inbound, you can proceed. Normally you find them when they can't provide the 10nm outbound due to terrain, and, or, they want you to be able to descend to the published IAF without having to dive bomb.

Although, there was a guy who was established inbound and then flew the hold anyway because that's how it was published and that's how he interpreted it. ATC got mad at him and said he messed up the sequencing and spacing and reported him. But the FAA gave him right. Not recommended, but not illegal.
 
Last edited:
Ditto. Yes, correct. The HILO only requires crossing the fix twice. Once when you enter the hold and once when you cross the fix on the way onto the final approach course.
 
Yes

Lieu = instead
 
Last edited:
Put that way it does seem quite obvious. What was less obvious was whether just passing through the holding fix twice, with very little of the hold pattern actually completed fit the definition of a hold.

Thanks.
 
N467PS said:
Put that way it does seem quite obvious. What was less obvious was whether just passing through the holding fix twice, with very little of the hold pattern actually completed fit the definition of a hold.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's the AIM description of how to fly a HILO. See AIM 5-4-9, ¶(a)(5):
 
midlifeflyer said:
Actually, it's the AIM description of how to fly a HILO. See AIM 5-4-9, ¶(a)(5):
Click to expand...
The OP may have a slightly older textbook. The AIM used to say, not long ago, a procedural track must be flown "exactly as depicted". The AIM still says you need to be "established on the inbound course" after the entry. Parallel entries don't necessarily establish on the inbound course by definition and, speaking of definition, there is no definition of where the "entry" ends. Besides all that, the AIM paragraph cited does not say "The HILO only requires crossing the fix twice." It does say if additional circuits are desired to notify ATC. In other words, additional means more than the first one and by your definition there is not even a first one. That said, I agree with you. :) Everybody wants to head for homeplate as soon as they are pointed in that general direction, including ATC. If you don't want to, let ATC know and go around the race track.

The irony is, by either the conventional wisdom or the AIM's strict construction, inbound courses within 30° to the fix are probably the most likely to get "established", yet require the most racetrack maneuvering to be considered "completed". The reason is distance. With no DME, etc., you don't know when to slow down on the intermediate segment.

dtuuri
 
The AIM section cited above is defining. However, I think it's easier to think of it this way:

  • When a HPILPT is required, you cross the holding fix twice and only twice, and anything else requires specific approval by the controller.
  • When a HPILPT is not required, you cross the holding fix once and only once, and anything else requires specific approval by the controller.
The usual next question is "When is a HPILPT required?" The answer is that any time it is depicted, it is required, unless you are:

  • Receiving vectors to final
  • On a NoPT route
  • Already holding at the fix at the depicted altitude
  • "Cleared straight in" for the approach by ATC (not to be confused with a straight-in landing clearance from Tower at tower-controlled airports)
 
Last edited:
N467PS said:
Put that way it does seem quite obvious. What was less obvious was whether just passing through the holding fix twice, with very little of the hold pattern actually completed fit the definition of a hold.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'd say you completed the hardest part of the holding pattern once you finish crossing the second time.
 
Hold the phone, folks. This is not a "hold" unless you have been given specific holding instructions prior to the approach.
If you are going straight into an approach, the course reversal procedure must be executed within the holding pattern airspace, but is not making another lap around as if you were holding.
 
nosehair said:
Hold the phone, folks. This is not a "hold" unless you have been given specific holding instructions prior to the approach.
If you are going straight into an approach, the course reversal procedure must be executed within the holding pattern airspace, but is not making another lap around as if you were holding.
Click to expand...
Do you have an official FAA reference which says that regarding compliance with 61.57(c)(1)(ii) in contradiction to all the sources cited above? Otherwise, while I respect your opinion as to the wisdom of doing this, I don't see any way to argue that this regulation requires what you say.

And like the issue of how much of an approach must be flown in instrument conditions to count for 61.57(c)(1)(i), I really don't want anyone to ask the Chief Counsel for an official interpretation on point, because like that other issue, it's a question whose answer I do not we can stand.
 
Last edited:
I take multiple checkrides every year, both with the Air Force and the FAA. 90% of the time when they want me to demonstrate holding, it is done as a HILO on a GPS approach with me demonstrating the entry(crossing the fix twice) with no additional laps around the track. No EFC time, no wind drift on the outbound, just the entry. If my Air Force examiners count it as a hold and the 4 FAA examiners count it as a hold...I'm counting it as a hold.
 
Ron Levy said:
Do you have an official FAA reference which says that regarding compliance with 61.57(c)(1)(ii) in contradiction to all the sources cited above? Otherwise, while I respect your opinion as to the wisdom of doing this, I don't see any way to argue that this regulation requires what you say.
Click to expand...
The reg says "holding procedures". It's all in how that is interpreted. The AIM describes holding procedures that would satisfy this requirement and the reasonable level of knowledge and skill of those many varied procedures may not be demonstrated by simply making the course reversal portion of an approach procedure.

And like the issue of how much of an approach must be flown in instrument conditions to count for 61.57(c)(1)(i), I really don't want anyone to ask the Chief Counsel for an official interpretation on point, because like that other issue, it's a question whose answer I do not we can stand.
Click to expand...
I would never do that. :)
 
nosehair said:
The reg says "holding procedures". It's all in how that is interpreted.
Click to expand...
There is no indication that anyone in Flight Standards is interpreting it the way you say. OTOH, nobody in the FAA (and I've discussed this with a few) has ever disagreed with my interpretation. So, if this concerns you this much, you go right ahead and count only holds where you do an entry plus another lap or two so you can do timing/drift corrections (usually takes me two full laps after the entry to be sure I've nailed that), but I'm completely comfortable doing it the way I suggested (cross the fix twice and it counts for 61.57(c)(1)(ii) recent experience) and recommending that others do it that way -- and I'm pretty conservative when it comes to the regulations.
 
Ron Levy said:
There is no indication that anyone in Flight Standards is interpreting it the way you say. OTOH, nobody in the FAA (and I've discussed this with a few) has ever disagreed with my interpretation. So, if this concerns you this much, you go right ahead and count only holds where you do an entry plus another lap or two so you can do timing/drift corrections (usually takes me two full laps after the entry to be sure I've nailed that), but I'm completely comfortable doing it the way I suggested (cross the fix twice and it counts for 61.57(c)(1)(ii) recent experience) and recommending that others do it that way -- and I'm pretty conservative when it comes to the regulations.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: well put :thumbsup:
 
dtuuri said:
The OP may have a slightly older textbook. The AIM used to say, not long ago, a procedural track must be flown "exactly as depicted". The AIM still says you need to be "established on the inbound course" after the entry. Parallel entries don't necessarily establish on the inbound course by definition and, speaking of definition, there is no definition of where the "entry" ends. Besides all that, the AIM paragraph cited does not say "The HILO only requires crossing the fix twice." It does say if additional circuits are desired to notify ATC. In other words, additional means more than the first one and by your definition there is not even a first one. That said, I agree with you. :) Everybody wants to head for homeplate as soon as they are pointed in that general direction, including ATC. If you don't want to, let ATC know and go around the race track.

The irony is, by either the conventional wisdom or the AIM's strict construction, inbound courses within 30° to the fix are probably the most likely to get "established", yet require the most racetrack maneuvering to be considered "completed". The reason is distance. With no DME, etc., you don't know when to slow down on the intermediate segment.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Well, that was a nice exercise in oversimplifying simple language and a simple concept. :D
 
and how would this be enforced? By the time the hold log book entry is challenged.... the tapes are gone.:nonod:

I see this as much to do about nothing......:dunno:
Ron Levy said:
There is no indication that anyone in Flight Standards is interpreting it the way you say. OTOH, nobody in the FAA (and I've discussed this with a few) has ever disagreed with my interpretation. So, if this concerns you this much, you go right ahead and count only holds where you do an entry plus another lap or two so you can do timing/drift corrections (usually takes me two full laps after the entry to be sure I've nailed that), but I'm completely comfortable doing it the way I suggested (cross the fix twice and it counts for 61.57(c)(1)(ii) recent experience) and recommending that others do it that way -- and I'm pretty conservative when it comes to the regulations.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
and how would this be enforced? By the time the hold log book entry is challenged.... the tapes are gone.:nonod:

I see this as much to do about nothing......:dunno:
Click to expand...
There is some value in the questioning and discussion of interpretation — exercises the brain and teaches the art — even if there are no practical ramifications.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well, that was a nice exercise in oversimplifying simple language and a simple concept. :D
Click to expand...
It was to reassure the OP he isn't misunderstanding what the books say. If they said what others want said, others wouldn't have to say something else instead. To answer the OP: The "entire" purpose of the HILPT is not just "course reversal" it's also to establish on the inbound course.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
It was to reassure the OP he isn't misunderstanding what the books say. If they said what others want said, others wouldn't have to say something else instead. To answer the OP: The "entire" purpose of the HILPT is not just "course reversal" it's also to establish on the inbound course.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
No doubt that ultimately, the "entire" purpose of a course reversal is to enable a simple transition to the final approach course. Still a simple concept. But we pilots do a fantastic job of making the simple complicated. I suspect its part of our tendency to be macho about avaiation and think we're special.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No doubt that ultimately, the "entire" purpose of a course reversal is to enable a simple transition to the final approach course. Still a simple concept. But we pilots do a fantastic job of making the simple complicated. I suspect its part of our tendency to be macho about avaiation and think we're special.
Click to expand...

I'll leave the psychoanalysis to someone else, I just want the OP to know the AIM and the common interpretation of same are at odds. It would be normal to have trouble reconciling the difference. Questioning it shows more understanding, IMHO, than saying there is no difference. :)

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
I'll leave the psychoanalysis to someone else, I just want the OP to know the AIM and the common interpretation of same are at odds. It would be normal to have trouble reconciling the difference. Questioning it shows more understanding, IMHO, than saying there is no difference. :)

dtuuri
Click to expand...
I guess I don't have much understanding then. :dunno:
 
midlifeflyer said:
I guess I don't have much understanding then. :dunno:
Click to expand...
I dunno either. My focus is on the OP, conventional wisdom, a parallel entry that returns to the fix rather than establishing on the inbound course (not "transition to final", btw) and the AIM requirement that the hold is not considered complete until so established. He or she gets an "A" in my book for noticing the conflict. It would be wrong to infer the OP didn't (failed to) understand the AIM when it's written poorly to begin with.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
I dunno either. My focus is on the OP, conventional wisdom, a parallel entry that returns to the fix rather than establishing on the inbound course (not "transition to final", btw) and the AIM requirement that the hold is not considered complete until so established. He or she gets an "A" in my book for noticing the conflict. It would be wrong to infer the OP didn't (failed to) understand the AIM when it's written poorly to begin with.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

There's nothing preventing you from establishing yourself on the inbound course during a parallel entry - you don't have to fly direct the fix on the way back. Hell, there's nothing even stating you must use a parallel entry. Do whatever you want but stay on the protected side. FWIW, if I don't use a direct entry I use the teardrop. No need for a parallel entry.

Obviously its a bit different for the OP as he's still training...but in real life there's no need for that silliness :D
 
Last edited:
Turningfinal said:
Obviously its a bit different for the OP as he's still training...but in real life there's no need for that silliness :D
Click to expand...

Well, that's your story. There is reason, but I doubt I would sway you. I teach the right way, so it applies to all aircraft you may ever need to fly. If you plan to be stuck in a bug smasher all your life flying IFR in pretty much VFR weather all the time, you don't have to do it the right way.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Well, that's your story. There is reason, but I doubt I would sway you. I teach the right way, so it applies to all aircraft you may ever need to fly. If you plan to be stuck in a bug smasher all your life flying IFR in pretty much VFR weather all the time, you don't have to do it the right way.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I'm all ears, particularly if there's a safety reason why flying a teardrop on the protected side of the hold instead of a parallel is not recommended.

FWIW, I was recommended this technique by my DPE following my IR checkride.
 
Last edited:
Turningfinal said:
I'm all ears, particularly if there's a safety reason why flying a teardrop on the protected side of the hold instead of a parallel is not recommended.

FWIW, I was recommended this technique by my DPE following my IR checkride.
Click to expand...
I also have a preference for teardrop as opposed to parallel when near the difference between them. And when it's not, I try to intercept before the fix, especially without GPS when the holding fix is a DME fix.
 
The reason for the parallel entry is that it consumes less airspace than the teardrop when coming from the parallel sector under the most adverse wind conditions and at the maximum permitted airspeed. This is rarely of consequence for an aircraft that uses a holding speed well below the maximum permitted.
 
John Collins said:
The reason for the parallel entry is that it consumes less airspace than the teardrop when coming from the parallel sector under the most adverse wind conditions and at the maximum permitted airspeed. This is rarely of consequence for an aircraft that uses a holding speed well below the maximum permitted.
Click to expand...
That's a nice succinct explanation, John. But at what point does "rarely of consequence" become consequential?

I compare holding airspace protection to the similarly-sized Category A procedure turn area having both a 5 nm limit (1/2 normal) and limited to aircraft having maximum indicated approach speeds below 91 kts. They're the same size, approximately, but when it's a holding pattern, safety at the higher permitted speeds depends on flying the expected entries; the PT depends upon flying expected speeds. If you fly the entries the airspace was designed to cover, you'll know you're safe. If you don't use them, you simply don't know for sure. Since choosing and then flying the appropriate entry is easy-peasy, there's no excuse not to do it the way it's designed to be flown, IMO.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top