It wasn't a checkride. It was a dumbass instructor on a mock checkride (though given the idiocy of many DPEs, it's quite possible you'd get such a question).
Anyhow, it came from Facebook's IFR group:
www.facebook.com
KJFZ approach entry question
- Thread starter dmspilot
- Start date
Anyhow, it came from Facebook's IFR group:
www.facebook.com
Roger Wilco
Line Up and Wait
And yet, you could.
That was my initial hunch. The CFII may have been a dumbass, but I think that this particular procedure does make for a good discussion. But then, I am a total dumbass. I am kinda surprised that the given scenario didn't involve lost comms.
It was originally posted in IFR PILOT GROUP on Facebook. It is not as clear here, but it was clearly stated on FB that it was a Checkride Prep Question, not a real Clearance received by ATC.
Personally I thought it was a great question, and as expected, a LOT of people said they'd do the Teardrop and many even referenced the HILPT. But there is no HILPT for that approach. The Clearance, had it been given in real life should have been refused as it is unflyable (technically/legally). My guess is that, in real life, if you're coming from the South you'd either get Vectors to Final or you'd get Vectors that positioned you for a Straight In. (Never did hear from a Controller in that area that mentioned what they really do if you're coming from the South.)
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,772
- Display Name
- DISPLAY NAME
Apparently it (or one like it) was a real clearance.
Any question could be a "checkride prep question" (though not necessarily a good one).
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
I thought so too. If a real instruction, it shows even ATC can make mistakes. If a checkride or checkride prep question, I suspect that, however we can quibble about how it was stated, it was for the purpose of pointing out the difference between a HILO and an arrival hold.
Given the number of people there (and I suspect here, whether or not contributed to this thread) who thought it was a HILO, that alone makes it an excellent question.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 17,444
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Display Name
- Luvflyin
- Home Airfield
- KVUO
Thx. I was able to read it. Usually I can’t read Facebook links because I don’t have Facebook. I hate that format where post’s aren’t in chronological order like here. You read a post and look at all the replies to that post and then all the replies to those posts etc. Reddit does that.It wasn't a checkride. It was a dumbass instructor on a mock checkride (though given the idiocy of many DPEs, it's quite possible you'd get such a question).
Anyhow, it came from Facebook's IFR group:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 17,444
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Display Name
- Luvflyin
- Home Airfield
- KVUO
The ATC vectoring limitation might have been concurrent. A 7110.###. Those 3 digit ones would come out between the usual .65 change schedule. They would self cancel when the next .65 change happened.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
LOL! You are assuming people read the posts before commenting. If this was in chronological order, you'd still find most of the "it's a HILO" posts well after several pointed out it is not.Thx. I was able to read it. Usually I can’t read Facebook links because I don’t have Facebook. I hate that format where post’s aren’t in chronological order like here. You read a post and look at all the replies to that post and then all the replies to those posts etc. Reddit does that.
Where was that posted? I don't think I saw it.
dtuuri
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,819
- Location
- Madison, OH
- Display Name
- dtuuri
- Home Airfield
- Homeless, TBD
Ah, it's good to know where Rich Boll hangs out these days. For those not familiar, he was NBAA's representative at the FAA's Aeronautical Chart Forum (ACF), now changed to ACM-IPG. You have to have the patience of Job doing what he does so well. Like @RussR, very knowledgeable and experienced on these issues — good sources of "inside baseball" information. But the rest of us don't know what they know, so we need to stay within more conservative guard rails. We shouldn't throw out the NoPT note as "meaningless" when it implies a course reversal is required while an arrival holding pattern is charted for one.
As to this quote by Matthew Mellon, it may well have occurred at JFZ since the entire approach is contained within Indy Center's airspace while the airport is in Atlanta's.
Last edited:
Here's some more clarification from Rod Machado. He confirms you can't do the Teardrop (or any course reversal) without ATC Clearance to do the Arrival Hold. But he also shows that the Clearance can be all inclusive to do the Hold and then continue with the Approach. That was one area I wasn't sure if it had to be one Clearance into the Hold and then a second one to start the Approach, or it could be combined.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
You lost me on that.
dtuuri
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,819
- Location
- Madison, OH
- Display Name
- dtuuri
- Home Airfield
- Homeless, TBD
Just starting to watch this and right away notice he says the NoPT note applies to a "sector". This is wrong, imo. It applies to three airways, i.e., three radials. In other words, the flip side of that coin is there are 357 other radials that haven't been "TERPed" for a straight-in.
Last edited:
RussR
Final Approach
The problem with this whole thing is that the wording of the note was developed with no consideration for off-airway flight. All aircraft would arrive at the VOR on an airway, so the note only needs to call out those specific airways. When the procedure is developed, there's no real magic to the airway selection. "Okay, these three airways have less than 120 deg of turn, so we will write the note starting at the radial of the first airway and ending with the radial of the last airway." If there were more airways, the note could cover more radials. There's no actual evaluation performed on each radial individually. Any radial that falls within the 120 degree turn limitation will be safe, but the note does not lead you to believe that, nor does it permit that.
dtuuri
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,819
- Location
- Madison, OH
- Display Name
- dtuuri
- Home Airfield
- Homeless, TBD
If no consideration is given to off-airway flight, how can the arrivals between airways be deemed "safe"? Are there no obstructions in those voids?
As to "All aircraft would arrive at the VOR on an airway..." Yes indeed — that is the worrisome limitation of all these types of approach procedure notes. That arrival assumption is purely theoretical since direct flights between fixes have always been allowed and when we plan to arrive other than from an airway, good operating technique dictates we can't extrapolate obstruction clearance beyond the mentioned airways. Maybe times have changed in TERPS, or maybe I have misinterpreted them in the past. If so, can you point me to the paragraph please?
The Hold in this question is not part of the Approach, right? And I've never heard (or received myself) a Clearance to Hold **combined** with an Approach Clearance. (I've never received an Arrival Hold, usually Vectors.)
So I wasn't sure if ATC needed to give one Clearance into the Hold, then once there, give another Clearance for the Approach. But in Rod's video, and I'm assuming he's correct, gave an example of the Clearance that included the Approach Hold and Approach all in one. It makes sense, but sometimes Big Brother just says you can't do it that way.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you have never received an arrival hold you have been lucky. At uncontrolled airports, there is only 1 aircraft cleared for an approach and they own the airspace until they cancel IFR. I have received arrival holds when there is not an aircraft on the IAP to an uncontrolled airport, but the missed procedure for an adjacent airport is a factor.The Hold in this question is not part of the Approach, right? And I've never heard (or received myself) a Clearance to Hold **combined** with an Approach Clearance. (I've never received an Arrival Hold, usually Vectors.)
So I wasn't sure if ATC needed to give one Clearance into the Hold, then once there, give another Clearance for the Approach. But in Rod's video, and I'm assuming he's correct, gave an example of the Clearance that included the Approach Hold and Approach all in one. It makes sense, but sometimes Big Brother just says you can't do it that way.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
I really wouldn't have thought of that without you mentioning it. I haven't seen the video yet, but I'm picturing nothing more complicated than it would be if there was a hold-in-lieu and you needed a turn or extra turn in it. Using the specific scenario where ATC says noting in advance:The Hold in this question is not part of the Approach, right? And I've never heard (or received myself) a Clearance to Hold **combined** with an Approach Clearance. (I've never received an Arrival Hold, usually Vectors.)
So I wasn't sure if ATC needed to give one Clearance into the Hold, then once there, give another Clearance for the Approach. But in Rod's video, and I'm assuming he's correct, gave an example of the Clearance that included the Approach Hold and Approach all in one. It makes sense, but sometimes Big Brother just says you can't do it that way.
ATC: Proceed direct Bluefield. Cleared for the LOC/DME 25 approach.
Pilot: We'll need a turn in the arrival hold to reverse course.
ATC: Approved as requested.
Actually pretty similar to if it were a HILO and you were cleared straight in or wanted an extra turn for some reason.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
The one-in-one-out non-towered approach where you need to hold is probably the most common hold in the piston world, but it's generally at the HILO at an IF (or a custom hold) rather than a charted arrival hold.
RussR
Final Approach
Well, you would be arriving at the VOR at or above the OROCA, or Center's MIA, or otherwise compliant with 91.177, right? You're not on a published route, so you have to comply with off-route rules. Once you get to the facility you're safe as long as you're at or above the published altitude on the approach.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,595
- Display Name
- Jon
- Home Airfield
- KCMA
dtuuri
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,819
- Location
- Madison, OH
- Display Name
- dtuuri
- Home Airfield
- Homeless, TBD
Yes, exactly, in fact that's my point. You can arrive from other directions than the three that have been TERPed if you do the 91.177 homework. I'm talking about the turn tracks after you reach the IAF. A bizjet zooming in at 250 kts in a hurry to reach a bathroom might (I say "might" because I wouldn't know) exceed safe lateral limits if the specialist didn't ever consider someone would arrive from that direction. This is where I think you guys who work behind the curtain have an advantage over those of us who only peek behind it occasionally. We don't know what we don't know so we need to stay within what we do.
Yes, wanting a turn when you were cleared straight in would be very similar. You cannot do the turn without approval, similar to how you can't fly a turn in an Arrival Hold without ATC telling you to do so.
And the video is a pretty basic/tame
for Rod, but it lays everything out with the little plane flying over the Low Enroute.Even doing all my Inst. training in the NYC area, I never got one. It was always Vectors and then they'd bring you around. You would get a Hold for Release frequently out of the Non-Towered Apts.
Outside of the NY area, the only time I remember getting a Hold for Release was out of GCN. Funny thing was, it was off season and I just happened to start up when one plane was coming in.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
I don’t understand why you are equating a comparatively rare arrival hold with a common hold for release.
I have definitely received a straight void time clearance on initial call up for an IFR clearance at a nontowered airport*, but since the days of cell phones that can be connected to a headset, it’s been “hold for release” to call back when ready to go pretty much exclusively.
(*from a pay phone in the rain)
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
Oh, you are going to be in for a shock en route when center clears direct to the fix for a 4 nm HILPT to descend to the procedure altitude and advises radar service terminated.
If you fly in rural areas, void time departure clearances followed by the inability to contact ATC for a long period is the norm.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
If one evaluates the low en route charts around TRACONs, you will normally fund 4 or more published holds scattered around the area ATC can hold you or you can request to allow WX to pass.
Get hold for release all the time at uncontrolled airports that have decent comms with the controlling facility. If you don't have on-the-ground comms, then you have to go the void time route.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
Absolutely.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
I typically get both. If I am "released for departure," I also get "if not off by..."even if I'm sitting at the hold line when I call for the release.
Simply because an Arrival Hold is a delaying option if there is a plane inbound to a one-in, one-out out airport....
A Hold for Release is a delaying option if there is a plane inbound to a one-in, one-out out airport....
So as I said, I never got an Arrival Hold, but I would get a Hold for Release when flying back east. (And yes, an Arrival Hold can be used for Course Reversal and Altitude. But not it's original design intent.)
Define "a long time" for me?
I'd often sit in the runup area for 30+ minutes at a Towered airport waiting for release. And I have to admit that I've done very little IFR in the NW, but I've never had an issue... now that I've jinxed myself. I've had delays at remote airports flying X-US, but usually 10-15 minutes is all.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
A climb from 1500 MSL to 7500 MSL and then another 10 minutes. I have also flown IFR through uncontrolled airspace in ND before the oil boom where radar service was terminated for 40-50 miles.Define "a long time" for me?
And I have to admit that I've done very little IFR in the NW, but I've never had an issue... now that I've jinxed myself. I've had delays at remote airports flying X-US, but usually 10-15 minutes is all.
Flight Following or Radar Services are a VFR thing... The Hold for Release is IFR and has to do with when ATC will allow you to Takeoff.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
“Radar service terminated, report your down time or cancellation this frequency or through Radio” is a fairly common end to an IFR flight.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
I am not talking about VFR. Everywhere you may choose to fly IFR in the US still does not have radar service at lower altitudes. You are accustomed to flying in areas rich with TRACONs. In rural areas, you very unlikely to receive a hold for release.
Yes, in that context it would be IFR.
I get what you're saying, but I think you would hear Radar Contact Lost. At which point you'd start reporting your position as required.
Or as @MauleSkinner used it in reference to being a few miles out from your destination and being switched over to the CTAF on your descent to land.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
It turns out to be a Rod Machado scenario
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 22,000
- Location
- KTTA, North Carolina
- Display Name
- Who you kiddin?
- Home Airfield
- KTTA
I think the bottom line may be that while “flight following” is exclusively a VFR term, “radar service” is not.
Edit: I left our "exclusively" earlier.
Last edited: