Missed approach fix then what?

[RussR]

Well so much for that. Something I’m wondering about though. At MINOE, the controlling obstruction is “ship.” I doubt if there is some permanently anchored boat out there. So how tall is the standard ship?

There is no standard height, it depends on what type of vessel is likely to transit those waters. Realistically for something like a holding pattern, it doesn't much matter. At MINOE, the documented ship height is 280 feet, so basically taller than the tallest aircraft carrier (wiki says 250 feet). So holding could be established as low as 1300 feet (1000 ft of clearance is required). That's a pretty low holding pattern. MINOE's published minimum altitude is 3000, so really the ship or any obstacle could be up to 2000 feet high before it made any difference.

Where it really does matter is at airports that have approaches over water, especially when that water is part of a shipping channel. Typical example is Boston's approaches to runway 4R have a ship height limitation published.

 

[luvflyin]

There is no standard height, it depends on what type of vessel is likely to transit those waters. Realistically for something like a holding pattern, it doesn't much matter. At MINOE, the documented ship height is 280 feet, so basically taller than the tallest aircraft carrier (wiki says 250 feet). So holding could be established as low as 1300 feet (1000 ft of clearance is required). That's a pretty low holding pattern. MINOE's published minimum altitude is 3000, so really the ship or any obstacle could be up to 2000 feet high before it made any difference.

Where it really does matter is at airports that have approaches over water, especially when that water is part of a shipping channel. Typical example is Boston's approaches to runway 4R have a ship height limitation published.

I thought I remembered seeing that at KPHL also, RW35 I think, but I don’t see it now. The AF/D warns about TCAS alerts from transponder equipped ships there. Don’t see that at KBOS. Anyway, what is your take on the Missed Approach Procedure not ending with ‘and hold’ on the KSNA ILS or LOC RWY 20R like it does on most Approaches? And being able to hold at MEA a requirement for the establishment of a Fix on an Airway whether or not a Holding Pattern is published there?

 

[RussR]

Anyway, what is your take on the Missed Approach Procedure not ending with ‘and hold’ on the KSNA ILS or LOC RWY 20R like it does on most Approaches?

I thought I had answered this somewhere here, but it must have been a similar question on another group, maybe Facebook.

There has not always been a requirement for a missed approach to end in a depicted hold. Previously the requirement was for it just to end either in a hold or at a fix on the enroute structure at an altitude that would permit holding (but if that was the case, the holding pattern need not be depicted). That changed in about 2009 to require holding at the end of every missed approach, however ATC can still request it not be charted. There are many procedures where the last major amendment was prior to 2009, some of them may not depict holding due simply to the "airway holding" exception.

 

[luvflyin]

I thought I had answered this somewhere here, but it must have been a similar question on another group, maybe Facebook.

There has not always been a requirement for a missed approach to end in a depicted hold. Previously the requirement was for it just to end either in a hold or at a fix on the enroute structure at an altitude that would permit holding (but if that was the case, the holding pattern need not be depicted). That changed in about 2009 to require holding at the end of every missed approach, however ATC can still request it not be charted. There are many procedures where the last major amendment was prior to 2009, some of them may not depict holding due simply to the "airway holding" exception.

You probably did and I probably read it but don’t remember. So it sounds like if ATC don’t want planes stopping at the Missed Fix, they say don’t Chart it and don’t say ‘and hold’ at the end of the procedure. At the end of the day that doesn’t really prevent someone from doing it. Maybe it should say ‘and do not hold.’ In other words don’t stay there at what has effectively become your Clearance Limit while you’re deciding what to do next. Decide right now if you want go back and try the approach again or do something else. This of course is just an issue if they aren’t talking to you.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not really. What section do you think holding is in? This question isn’t answered in approach section but rather ATC clearances . i still contend the AIM is a mess.

After you brought this up, I started experimenting with how to find the passage that Mark quoted. The headings in the tale of contents seemed vague enough to not be very helpful. Using the search feature of Acrobat Reader, searching for "holding" turned up 443 matches, so that was pretty useless. "Holding pattern" was not much better, at 86 matches. Searching for an exact match to a phrase from the quotation worked, but that's cheating, because you would have to already have the passage that you were searching for. Then I tried using the index. When I looked for "holding pattern," I found instead an entry for "holding," which took me right to it in Chapter 5. (The exact phrase search also found the same passage in Chapter 4.)

A lot of times I find that using the index takes more effort than that, so I agree that it can be challenging to find answers to questions.

 

[ColdWxOps]

Attached are some examples of the approaches I have seen where the missed approach instructions as written represent a threat that need
to managed. Sometimes, the procedure ends at a fix without published holding, sometimes on an assigned heading and sometimes there is missed approach procedure with alternative lost comm. instructions.
I have gone missed approach in actual weather on some approaches such this (foreign countries; not FAA jurisdiction). Frequently, terrain or lack of radar coverage, and language barriers are other existing threats. It is a challenge to have to depend solely VHF communication between the pilot and controller in such situations. So, I tend to clarify the plan with the controller before commencing the approach.
I know that I am referencing examples that are outside FAA jurisdiction, so I may be off topic, but I thought it was something interesting to share.

 

[midlifeflyer]

At the end of the day that doesn’t really prevent someone from doing it. Maybe it should say ‘and do not hold.’

One would hope that the lack of a depicted holding pattern would prevent one from making one up except in a lost comm situation, in which case all bets are off anyway and I'd bet the local ATC facility would prefer the aircraft holding at that location while considering options to wandering around aimlessly.

 

[dtuuri]

View attachment 99894 View attachment 99895 View attachment 99896 View attachment 99897

Attached are some examples of the approaches I have seen where the missed approach instructions as written represent a threat that need
to managed.

I really like the way you put it, "a threat that needs(s) to be managed." In the OP's case there's a (oh how did Columbo always put it?) nagging little detail he noticed, a loose end to be tied down. Around some mountains (can we spell Mexico) a default holding pattern where none is charted might be downright dangerous. I included this discussion in my tutorial, "You Can Expect to Hold (avclicks.com), quite some time ago. Those "loose ends" up the urgency to get them tied down, via radio, because if you go lost comm you're on your own and may not know all the important facts.

 

[dtuuri]

Well so much for that.

Btw, the new 8260.19L is seemingly all botched up. The Table of Contents doesn't match up with the section numbers after 2-10-3. It looks like the revised 2-10-3 is missing. It was supposed to be about "unplanned holding" and the switch in terminology from all "designated reporting points" to only fixes that were "compulsory reporting points". Made me wonder if holding pattern evaluation at MEA was always only meant to done at the latter, but was loosely described as the former, which would have been a huge difference in workload for the TERPsters.

 

[luvflyin]

Btw, the new 8260.19L is seemingly all botched up. The Table of Contents doesn't match up with the section numbers after 2-10-3. It looks like the revised 2-10-3 is missing. It was supposed to be about "unplanned holding" and the switch in terminology from all "designated reporting points" to only fixes that were "compulsory reporting points". Made me wonder if holding pattern evaluation at MEA was always only meant to done at the latter, but was loosely described as the former, which would have been a huge difference in workload for the TERPsters.

I dunno. I remember from a long time ago, being able to hold at the MEA was a requirement to establish and publish a fix. Made sense. You could get a fix as a Clearance Limit and you may not get holding instructions right away and you may go nordo and the rules be enter standard holding on the airway you arrive at the fix on. So it makes sense. A holding pattern will typically be wider than the 4 miles either side of centerline the airway is evaluated for for rocks and stuff. How all this compulsory or not reporting point got all wrapped up in this, I dunno. I have never seen any ATC directive that only Compulsory Reporting Points may given as Clearance Limits.

 

[dtuuri]

I dunno. I remember from a long time ago, being able to hold at the MEA was a requirement to establish and publish a fix.

The last readable version of 8260.19 (8260.19H, par 2-10-3. Unplanned holding at designated reporting points.) says, "Where standard holding cannot be accomplished at the MEA or MRA, any necessary limitations must be clearly indicated on Form 8260-2." So the bottom line is that, without holding instructions, pilots don't know whether the fix can accommodate a default pattern or not. The secret orders are on a Form 8260-2, somewhere. Mountain flyers beware.

 

[aterpster]

The last readable version of 8260.19 (8260.19H, par 2-10-3. Unplanned holding at designated reporting points.) says, "Where standard holding cannot be accomplished at the MEA or MRA, any necessary limitations must be clearly indicated on Form 8260-2." So the bottom line is that, without holding instructions, pilots don't know whether the fix can accommodate a default pattern or not. The secret orders are on a Form 8260-2, somewhere. Mountain flyers beware.

8260-2s are all available at:

Radio Fix and Holding Data Records (8260-2) (faa.gov)

 

[luvflyin]

The last readable version of 8260.19 (8260.19H, par 2-10-3. Unplanned holding at designated reporting points.) says, "Where standard holding cannot be accomplished at the MEA or MRA, any necessary limitations must be clearly indicated on Form 8260-2." So the bottom line is that, without holding instructions, pilots don't know whether the fix can accommodate a default pattern or not. The secret orders are on a Form 8260-2, somewhere. Mountain flyers beware.

That gives rules for ‘unplanned’ holding at designated reporting points. It doesn’t address whether or not that Fix can be established in the first place. But there is some kind of connection to MEA. I’m wondering if the point it is trying to make is that if ‘standard holding’ is to low for the MEA then the ‘non standard’ hold that works must be Charted. ???

 

[dtuuri]

That gives rules for ‘unplanned’ holding at designated reporting points. It doesn’t address whether or not that Fix can be established in the first place. But there is some kind of connection to MEA. I’m wondering if the point it is trying to make is that if ‘standard holding’ is to low for the MEA then the ‘non standard’ hold that works must be Charted. ???

Couldn't it be charted for ATC but not for pilots? Couldn't it be a standard pattern somewhat higher than MEA?

 

[MauleSkinner]

I really like the way you put it, "a threat that needs(s) to be managed." In the OP's case there's a (oh how did Columbo always put it?) nagging little detail he noticed, a loose end to be tied down. Around some mountains (can we spell Mexico) a default holding pattern where none is charted might be downright dangerous. I included this discussion in my tutorial, "You Can Expect to Hold (avclicks.com), quite some time ago. Those "loose ends" up the urgency to get them tied down, via radio, because if you go lost comm you're on your own and may not know all the important facts.

I find it interesting how many pilots prefer an unending vector to a published missed.

 

[luvflyin]

I find it interesting how many pilots prefer an unending vector to a published missed.

That was a reply to post #48 and he said Columbo. So, maybe some do like serpintine vectors

 

[RussR]

Btw, the new 8260.19L is seemingly all botched up. The Table of Contents doesn't match up with the section numbers after 2-10-3. It looks like the revised 2-10-3 is missing. It was supposed to be about "unplanned holding" and the switch in terminology from all "designated reporting points" to only fixes that were "compulsory reporting points". Made me wonder if holding pattern evaluation at MEA was always only meant to done at the latter, but was loosely described as the former, which would have been a huge difference in workload for the TERPsters.

Okay, this is going to get a little murky. Everything below can be considered MY OPINION only, except where I reference the regulations...

I agree that the table of contents has errors (it's the 8260.19i, but capital "i", not lower case "L"). It is my opinion (my opinion only), that the removal of 2-10-3 was intentional, in that the intent was to remove the language about unplanned holding, and therefore remove the concept of unplanned holding.

There is no criteria for how to evaluate unplanned holding in 8260.3E (nor was there in the predecessor reg for holding, the 7130.3). Logically, if at a VOR, if holding could be in any direction, then an evaluation would essentially consist of evaluating 360 holding patterns. Or, I suppose 720 holding patterns if left turns are considered too. What this looks like in practice is a giant circle drawn around the VOR, kind of like an MSA but not as big. However, this methodology is not spelled out in the holding TERPS.

In practice, however, the exception in the previous .19H about documenting any "necessary limitations" on Form 8260-2 is applied routinely, by adding the statement "Holding limited to established patterns" on the -2. This statement disallows unplanned holding. If you go to the link posted above for 8260-2 forms, you will be hard pressed to find one that HAS holding but does NOT have this statement. Here's an example, it has the statement: https://nfdc.faa.gov/webContent/content8260/OK_ROLLS_REV17.pdf

In the .19I, the explanatory paragraph was removed but the example wording remained.

Now, in a quirk of practice vs regulations, this statement is only added to fixes that have established holding documented. If a fix does not have established holding of any sort, it does not get the statement. Does this mean that unplanned holding IS allowed at this fix? Heck if I know. I'd be curious to see what any ATCer's take is on this, if they even access these forms for any purpose.

Moreover, a NAVAID (typically VOR in this use) that does not have established holding will not even HAVE a Form 8260-2 created for it. So there is no form on which to put the limitation.

 

[dtuuri]

Thanks for helping straighten out the confusion. I still have some loose ends to tie down.

I agree that the table of contents has errors (it's the 8260.19i, but capital "i", not lower case "L").

Heh. I typed it correctly when I linked to it earlier. Go figure...

There is no criteria for how to evaluate unplanned holding in 8260.3E (nor was there in the predecessor reg for holding, the 7130.3).

In your opinion, is the AIM's default standard pattern at an enroute reporting point considered "unplanned holding" TERPS-wise if it is different than an established pattern for the fix? I understand missed approach clearance limits have in the past specifically been evaluated for the default pattern if the fix is also an enroute fix with no other charted pattern, so I'm asking about purely enroute ones.

In practice, however, the exception in the previous .19H about documenting any "necessary limitations" on Form 8260-2 is applied routinely, by adding the statement "Holding limited to established patterns" on the -2. This statement disallows unplanned holding.

See? It sounds like the AIM default pattern has not been evaluated at all, despite all the published assurances.

Now, in a quirk of practice vs regulations, this statement is only added to fixes that have established holding documented. If a fix does not have established holding of any sort, it does not get the statement. Does this mean that unplanned holding IS allowed at this fix? Heck if I know. I'd be curious to see what any ATCer's take is on this, if they even access these forms for any purpose.

Yeah, me too. The 8260.19I pretty clearly says at least "compulsory" facilities should get the whole 360 treatment. In bygone days it seemed to say ALL designated reporting point facilities should be so evaluated. I interpreted the latest revision as changing the scope of evaluations from "designated" points to just "compulsory" ones. Your take is the elimination of "unplanned holding". You're probably right, but darn, they ought to do a better job of explaining the changes in the front of the document.

Moreover, a NAVAID (typically VOR in this use) that does not have established holding will not even HAVE a Form 8260-2 created for it. So there is no form on which to put the limitation.

If a compulsory reporting point needs to be evaluated for unplanned holding (my interp) I'd think the form should be filled out. If it doesn't (your interp) maybe the default pattern guidance in the AIM needs some caveats.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That was a reply to post #48 and he said Columbo. So, maybe some do like serpintine vectors

lol…I’ve seen some guys fly “runway heading” like that on V1 cuts.