LOC BC RWY 17

I'm guessing that it gives ATC the option of having you hold there over the VOR and then when traffic permits clearing you direct to the IAF since it provides a heading and altitude from the VOR to the NDB.
 
Look at the low altitude enroute chart, and imagine you were northeast bound on V77 or northwest bound on V159 to STJ... flying the hold would let you get turned around (and descend as necessary) onto that feeder route back to Amazon for the approach. That's my guess.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Look at the low altitude enroute chart, and imagine you were northeast bound on V77 or northwest bound on V159 to STJ... flying the hold would let you get turned around (and descend as necessary) onto that feeder route back to Amazon for the approach. That's my guess.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. The hold is an "arrival" holding pattern as depicted by the legend, which shows three types of holds, a hold in lieu of a procedure turn (thick black line), a missed approach hold (broken line)and an arrival hold (thin black line). In some mountainous locations the arrival hold may be necessary to descend to an altitude at which the approach may commence, although that doesn't apply in this case.

Regardless, it doesn't indicate NoPt for the feeder route, so at AZN, you still have to turn outbound and perform the procedure turn and are not authorized to just hit AZN and turn inbound.
 
John Collins said:
Regardless, it doesn't indicate NoPt for the feeder route, so at AZN, you still have to turn outbound and perform the procedure turn and are not authorized to just hit AZN and turn inbound.
Click to expand...
Interesting... why didn't they indicate NoPT there? That's a 171 degree turn to get established on the localizer outbound from AZN... wouldn't ATC normally clear you straight in after leaving the arrival hold?
 
John Collins said:
Regardless, it doesn't indicate NoPt for the feeder route, so at AZN, you still have to turn outbound and perform the procedure turn and are not authorized to just hit AZN and turn inbound.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's entirely true. If you are in a radar environment receiving vectors, you would not turn around at AZN and fly the PT.

Including a NoPT on that segment would certainly help clarify things, but I find it hard to believe that ATC would want you to enter the hold at STJ to reverse course just to reverse course two more times before the approach, especially when they could easily clear you direct to AZN and then fly the published approach (ADF is required for the approach) in the first place.

If I was on that approach and there was any question about vectoring vs flying the published approach, I would ask ATC if they wanted me to fly it straight in or fly outbound from AZN for the PT.
 
John Collins said:
I think you are correct. The hold is an "arrival" holding pattern as depicted by the legend, which shows three types of holds, a hold in lieu of a procedure turn (thick black line), a missed approach hold (broken line)and an arrival hold (thin black line). In some mountainous locations the arrival hold may be necessary to descend to an altitude at which the approach may commence, although that doesn't apply in this case.

Regardless, it doesn't indicate NoPt for the feeder route, so at AZN, you still have to turn outbound and perform the procedure turn and are not authorized to just hit AZN and turn inbound.
Click to expand...

Coming in at that angle, to AZN, how would you get back around for your PT? Just cross AZN and then teardrop around to the left?
 
Technically you would have to do the procedure turn. If it were non-radar and I had to do it I would cross the IAF and then just do a big left hand turn back to the final approach course. You can turn around however you want on the side indicated by the barb.

In the real world in real IFR given that's a radar environment you'd be getting vectors to final and you wouldn't be doing the procedure turn.
 
azure said:
Interesting... why didn't they indicate NoPT there? That's a 171 degree turn to get established on the localizer outbound from AZN... wouldn't ATC normally clear you straight in after leaving the arrival hold?
Click to expand...

No.

They could vector you to final in which case they could clear you straight in, but if you fly the full approach, you are expected to fly the procedure turn. The feeder route takes you to the IAF and doesn't have a NoPt, so you would be expected to fly the feeder to the NDB as the IAF, turn left to intercept the outbound leg, do the procedure turn, and fly over the NDB the second time (FAF) and start down.
 
John Collins said:
No.

They could vector you to final in which case they could clear you straight in, but if you fly the full approach, you are expected to fly the procedure turn. The feeder route takes you to the IAF and doesn't have a NoPt, so you would be expected to fly the feeder to the NDB as the IAF, turn left to intercept the outbound leg, do the procedure turn, and fly over the NDB the second time (FAF) and start down.
Click to expand...
You could just past the IAF, turn left all the way back to the inbound, and proceed inbound.
 
John Collins said:
No.

They could vector you to final in which case they could clear you straight in, but if you fly the full approach, you are expected to fly the procedure turn. The feeder route takes you to the IAF and doesn't have a NoPt, so you would be expected to fly the feeder to the NDB as the IAF, turn left to intercept the outbound leg, do the procedure turn, and fly over the NDB the second time (FAF) and start down.
Click to expand...
IF you're flying the approach own nav, yes, I get that, that's implied by the plate -- and it's why I asked why the approach is designed that way. Is it a question of not being able to determine the fix accurately enough using ADF and marker beacon alone to then find the MAP by timing?

Others have said pretty much as I was thinking, that in a radar environment, you'd normally be given a vector to intercept the localizer and a straight-in clearance. Is that not true?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not sure that's entirely true. If you are in a radar environment receiving vectors, you would not turn around at AZN and fly the PT.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you are receiving vectors, the controller could vector you to 2 miles outside the gate and clear you for a straight in approach. But on your own navigation, even in a radar environment, you have to follow the procedure, you can't just join the approach at the FAF and turn inbound, which is what you would be doing if you went straight in from the feeder to the FAF.

Including a NoPT on that segment would certainly help clarify things, but I find it hard to believe that ATC would want you to enter the hold at STJ to reverse course just to reverse course two more times before the approach, especially when they could easily clear you direct to AZN and then fly the published approach (ADF is required for the approach) in the first place.
Click to expand...
How can you have a NoPt segment which is a feeder route that connects directly with the FAF with no initial or intermediate segment? Can you find an approach that has such a NoPt feeder route without at least an intermediate segment? Flying straight in without getting established on the final approach course using the associated Nav aid, where on the feeder route you are using a different frequency VOR and then transitioning to a Localizer frequency at the FAF which is a back course, would be interesting to say the least. As a practical matter, it would require two Nav units one tuned to the VOR and the other tuned to the localizer back course. Using the procedure turn could easily be accomplished with a single Nav unit, Use the VOR and the 176 radial, wait for the NDB to reverse, start the left turn, switch to the localizer frequency, fly the front course outbound, perform the procedure turn and fly the back course inbound, wait for the NDB reversal, descend to minimums. Either time the descent or use a separate DME.

If I was on that approach and there was any question about vectoring vs flying the published approach, I would ask ATC if they wanted me to fly it straight in or fly outbound from AZN for the PT.
Click to expand...

Always a good idea.
 
jesse said:
You could just past the IAF, turn left all the way back to the inbound, and proceed inbound.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, that is not following the procedure. You can get vectors to final, but that would intercept the final approach course on the intermediate segment after the procedure turn, usually no closer than 3 NM from the FAF.
 
John Collins said:
I don't think so, that is not following the procedure. You can get vectors to final, but that would intercept the final approach course on the intermediate segment after the procedure turn, usually no closer than 3 NM from the FAF.
Click to expand...
Once you fly past the IAF, you are then to do the procedure turn. The procedure turn can be done however you'd like as long as you remain on the barbed side. So if you fly past teh IAF you are then on the approach, a turn to the left followed by intercepting the FAC inbound would count as the turn.

As per the aim:
1. On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the maneuvering side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree $ 260 degree course reversal. Racetrack entries should be conducted on the maneuvering side where the majority of protected airspace resides. If an entry places the pilot on the non-maneuvering side of the PT, correction to intercept the outbound course ensures remaining within protected airspace. Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.
Click to expand...

Something like this would be easy and legit:
locbc17.jpg
 
Last edited:
It provides a published hold to stack people up if more than one happens to be arriving, or if one is arriving while another is trying to depart.
 
I think we need to check with Wally, but I think you would also find that hold published on a low enroute chart for that area (bed time for me with an early start tomorrow so I don't have the time to look it up). It could be part of an alternate missed approach hold (Which isn't required to be published on the chart, however ATC has the textural version).

As far as it being on the low enroute chart.... it's been a while, but I kinda remember reading a requirement or perhaps something else that requires them to publish holds that are depicted on feeder routes when they are part of an approach. That hold would be published on the low-enroute chart so you would not have to have the APP plate open if you were needed to sit in the parking lot until someone ahead of you cancled

Bob
 
Just checked the low en-route chart, and I didn't see it there.

I notice that most instrument approaches have a published hold somewhere on the inbound side. It makes sense to be able to hold there when traffic is departing or other traffic is shooting an approach. Such things are important for a non-radar environment. This has happened at Williamsport more than once. Even in a radar environment, it's a good way to help reduce ATC's workload. I figure that's a good idea when there are a bunch of planes going into the same place at the same time. They run into workload issues, same as us.

By the way, Bob, your signature is exactly how I feel about the commercial and airline transport pilot certificates, and what I preach to my students (not to mention how I conduct my flying). :thumbsup:
 
jesse said:
Once you fly past the IAF, you are then to do the procedure turn. The procedure turn can be done however you'd like as long as you remain on the barbed side. So if you fly past teh IAF you are then on the approach, a turn to the left followed by intercepting the FAC inbound would count as the turn.

As per the aim:


Something like this would be easy and legit:
locbc17.jpg
Click to expand...

Absolutely, that would be a legitimate and good way to fly the approach.
 
Attached is the form for STJ, which documents that holding pattern.

This form is primarily for the use of STJ VOR but it includes the holding pattern as well. Diverse holding is also authorized at SJT VOR, which means ATC is not limited to the use of the pattern in discussion. At many mountainous location holding is indeed limited to the established pattern and this form will so state.

Note further this holding pattern is associated with the approach in question and with the VOR Runway 17 IAP.

In the case of the VOR Runway 17 IAP this pattern is the hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn (HILPT) as indicated by the bold type in the plan view and its inclusion in the profile view.

But, on the approach in question the pattern is shown in light type in the plan view.

So, what it is NOT is a HILPT; it is not an alternate missed approach pattern or the chart would have it so indicated. (Or perhaps it is and the OKC folks screwed up...wouldn't be the first time.)

The VOR is a feeder fix for this approach; i.e., STJ to AZN 162 degrees, 4.7 n.m., 2,700. The procedure turn (east of the LOC) is mandatory when arriving along that feeder route. If local ATC is using the holding pattern for either timed approaches or straight-in approaches they are dead wrong. Then again, stuff like that does have a way of happening on a local, ad hoc basis.

So, why is the pattern on the approach chart? Usually, patterns like this one that are not associated with the procedure are charted at the local ATC facility's request. Why? Only the procedure designer who did the design of this procedure knows, and perhaps someone in ATC at STC and Kansas City TRAON knows. I hope they do.:)

It is an unusual environment in that STJ runs its own approach control when the tower is open, but KC TRACON runs it during the other hours.

The "bottom line," this is what I call a "dangling holding pattern." It is decidedly not part of the IAP, thus I would treat it as superfluous data unless, or until, ATC issues some type of clearance to use the hold pending an approach clearance. But, that doesn't make much sense because that would set me up for a mandatory procedure turn, which I doubt they want if they have adequate radar coverage.

If someone is sufficiently interested a call to the STJ tower manager would be a good place to start.
 

Attachments

  • STJ 82602.pdf
    9.4 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Great info, Wally...thanks!

Where does it say that diverse holding is authorized? I see the remark

HOLDING RESTRICTIONS:
HOLDING LIMITED TO ESTABLISHED PATTERN.
Click to expand...
 
FlyNE said:
Great info, Wally...thanks!

Where does it say that diverse holding is authorized? I see the remark
Click to expand...

You're right. I skimmed the form and presumed the designers wouldn't limit the pattern because it's quite flat around there. Having said that, as long as ATC uses their radar they can do diverse holding anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top