New Arrival Holding at Las Cruces, NM

[aterpster]

Attached are two recently revised (Aug 18 cycle) approach procedures for Las Cruces, New Mexico: the RNAV Rwy 30 and the ILS or LOC Rwy 30. Also attached for reference is the low-altitude airway structure in the Las Cruces area. Note that both IAPs have a holding pattern at MOLLY intersection/waypoint. The ILS chart’s hold at MOLLY is straight-forward enough, it is the missed approach hold and is depicted as FAA charts depict missed approach holding patterns.

But, the RNAV hold at MOLLY is for a different purpose, it is an arrival holding pattern. Arrival holding patterns are briefly explained in the AIM in a note (AIM 5-4-9 a. 5. Note below text). The note states that arrival holding patterns aren’t a part of the approach procedure and, as such, require a separate clearance.

So, when are you expected to fly the RNAV 30 arrival holding pattern at MOLLY? Only when ATC instructs you to by issuing the MOLLY hold? Or, is the pilot expected to ferret out the limitations of when the MOLLY hold is necessary? I believe it is not at all clear except only to FAA approach designers.

Looking at the airways in the area, it is apparent the arrival hold would be necessary arriving along V611 from the north. But, what about arriving along V94 from the west or from the east? For those who understand present-day RNAV design criteria would know that course changes are limited to 90 degrees when turning from an airway onto an IAP. But, it is a bit much to expect a pilot to sort that out. So, technically, in addition to arriving on V611, the arrival hold is also required for arrivals on V94 from the west, but not from the east.

Controllers don’t understand this any better than pilots because they aren’t approach designers, either. I believe the FAA is opening up yet another of its seemingly endless supply of Pandora’s Boxes. I suspect most pilots will ignore the arrival pattern from either direction on V94, but probably not on V611.

If you are cleared to hold at MOLLY, since it is not part of the approach, it is not in your database. So, unless your RNAV avionics have the “Hold at Waypoint” function you will have to do an ad hoc “roll your own” hold at MOLLY. Note the course is 098, not 094 that constitute V94.

One final point, the turn from V94 onto the ILS is okay in either direction because ILS is permitted to have a 120 degree course change when transitioning from an airway, instead of the 90 degree limitation for RNAV. And, with the ILS presumably (hopefully?) an arrival from the north would be routed over DMN for the DMN-JOSPO feeder route.

Another recent example of this arrival holding pattern application is in Tulsa at KRVS, RNAV Rwy 19.

Back to the Las Cruces ILS Rwy 30: Note the designers use the DMN 094 radial, 46.7 DME although MOLLY is beyond the changeover point for V94. And, although the TCS 146 radial at MOLLY appears to be an optional method of determine the ILS missed approach holding fix, it is not. This is because of the wording of the missed approach text and the fact that the ILS chart is annotated “DME required,” and the MRA for MOLLY is 10,000 using TCS. The LR LOM has been decommissioned.

Clear as mud, or more opaque? I know, just request radar vectors and hope the center is prepared to provide them.

 

[Sluggo63]

With the "Confusing Jepp Chart" thread in mind, I checked how Jepps handles this. They just put a note that the procedure isn't authorized for arrivals on V611 S-SE bound or V94 E bound. So, if I'm flying towards MOLLY on one of those airways, I'd read the note and tell ATC that I need a hold to get turned around, or more than likely, ask for the approach from COSES (which is not on the Gov't plate, now that I look back at it... Interesting...)

 

[aterpster]

With the "Confusing Jepp Chart" thread in mind, I checked how Jepps handles this. They just put a note that the procedure isn't authorized for arrivals on V611 S-SE bound or V94 E bound. So, if I'm flying towards MOLLY on one of those airways, I'd read the note and tell ATC that I need a hold to get turned around, or more than likely, ask for the approach from COSES (which is not on the Gov't plate, now that I look back at it... Interesting...)

That's the old Jepp chart prior to August 18.

 

[Sluggo63]

That's the old Jepp chart prior to August 18.

Disregard, then. Thanks. I guess they show it the same way...

 

[luvflyin]

My first take on it is that the intent of the holding pattern being published on the chart is to reduce verbiage. Just like CRATT out west a ways. Commonly used holding patterns are published on charts this way so the controller can just say "as published" instead of doing the whole east of, on this radial, left turns boogie. This is the first I recall ever seeing them do that on Approach Charts when the holding pattern is not part of the procedure as it would be if it was in Bold lines.

 

[aterpster]

My first take on it is that the intent of the holding pattern being published on the chart is to reduce verbiage. Just like CRATT out west a ways. Commonly used holding patterns are published on charts this way so the controller can just say "as published" instead of doing the whole east of, on this radial, left turns boogie. This is the first I recall ever seeing them do that on Approach Charts when the holding pattern is not part of the procedure as it would be if it was in Bold lines.

That is true that part of the reason it is charted is to reduce verbiage. But, what is not understood it is mandatory from a RNAV criteria standpoint to use the arrival pattern when arriving on V-94 from the west. It should be apparent when arriving on V611, however. (the operative word is "should.")

 

[coloradobluesky]

That hold is not on a radial. That is a hold on a bearing. Unusual. Could be confusion calling it out
'hold east of MOLLY intersection '
'on 278 bearing to MOLLY'
'left hand turns'
or some such
Does the current AIM have an example of this type of hold now?

 

[luvflyin]

That hold is not on a radial. That is a hold on a bearing. Unusual. Could be confusion calling it out
'hold east of MOLLY intersection '
'on 278 bearing to MOLLY'
'left hand turns'
or some such
Does the current AIM have an example of this type of hold now?

Yeah. It wouldn't be radial. Course To would probably be the proper term.

4−6−4. HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS
When issuing holding instructions, specify:
a. Direction of holding from the fix/waypoint.
b. Holding fix or waypoint.
NOTE−
The holding fix may be omitted if included at the beginning
of the transmission as the clearance limit.
c. Radial, course, bearing, track, azimuth, airway,
or route on which the aircraft is to hold.
d. Leg length in miles if DME or RNAV is to be
used. Specify leg length in minutes if the pilot
requests it or you consider it necessary.
e. Direction of holding pattern turns only if left
turns are to be made, the pilot requests it, or you
consider it necessary.
PHRASEOLOGY−
HOLD (direction) OF (fix/waypoint) ON (specified radial,
course, bearing, track, airway, azimuth(s), or route.)
If leg length is specified,
(number of minutes/miles) MINUTE/MILE LEG.
If direction of turn is specified,
LEFT/RIGHT TURNS.

 

[EdFred]

Why does one show holding on a course of 278 (not aligned with the airway) and the other 274 (aligned with the airway) ?

 

[aterpster]

Why does one show holding on a course of 278 (not aligned with the airway) and the other 274 (aligned with the airway) ?

Part of the reason they did these amendments sooner than the normal schedule was the Mag Var of the airport had shifted more than 3 degrees. Could be the two VORs have declination adjustments for the airway, whereas the instrument procedures design computer used current local magnetic variation. Just a guess on my part.

 

[luvflyin]

Attached are two recently revised (Aug 18 cycle) approach procedures for Las Cruces, New Mexico: the RNAV Rwy 30 and the ILS or LOC Rwy 30. Also attached for reference is the low-altitude airway structure in the Las Cruces area. Note that both IAPs have a holding pattern at MOLLY intersection/waypoint. The ILS chart’s hold at MOLLY is straight-forward enough, it is the missed approach hold and is depicted as FAA charts depict missed approach holding patterns.

But, the RNAV hold at MOLLY is for a different purpose, it is an arrival holding pattern. Arrival holding patterns are briefly explained in the AIM in a note (AIM 5-4-9 a. 5. Note below text). The note states that arrival holding patterns aren’t a part of the approach procedure and, as such, require a separate clearance.

So, when are you expected to fly the RNAV 30 arrival holding pattern at MOLLY? Only when ATC instructs you to by issuing the MOLLY hold? Or, is the pilot expected to ferret out the limitations of when the MOLLY hold is necessary? I believe it is not at all clear except only to FAA approach designers.

Looking at the airways in the area, it is apparent the arrival hold would be necessary arriving along V611 from the north. But, what about arriving along V94 from the west or from the east? For those who understand present-day RNAV design criteria would know that course changes are limited to 90 degrees when turning from an airway onto an IAP. But, it is a bit much to expect a pilot to sort that out. So, technically, in addition to arriving on V611, the arrival hold is also required for arrivals on V94 from the west, but not from the east.

Controllers don’t understand this any better than pilots because they aren’t approach designers, either. I believe the FAA is opening up yet another of its seemingly endless supply of Pandora’s Boxes. I suspect most pilots will ignore the arrival pattern from either direction on V94, but probably not on V611.

If you are cleared to hold at MOLLY, since it is not part of the approach, it is not in your database. So, unless your RNAV avionics have the “Hold at Waypoint” function you will have to do an ad hoc “roll your own” hold at MOLLY. Note the course is 098, not 094 that constitute V94.

One final point, the turn from V94 onto the ILS is okay in either direction because ILS is permitted to have a 120 degree course change when transitioning from an airway, instead of the 90 degree limitation for RNAV. And, with the ILS presumably (hopefully?) an arrival from the north would be routed over DMN for the DMN-JOSPO feeder route.

Another recent example of this arrival holding pattern application is in Tulsa at KRVS, RNAV Rwy 19.

Back to the Las Cruces ILS Rwy 30: Note the designers use the DMN 094 radial, 46.7 DME although MOLLY is beyond the changeover point for V94. And, although the TCS 146 radial at MOLLY appears to be an optional method of determine the ILS missed approach holding fix, it is not. This is because of the wording of the missed approach text and the fact that the ILS chart is annotated “DME required,” and the MRA for MOLLY is 10,000 using TCS. The LR LOM has been decommissioned.

Clear as mud, or more opaque? I know, just request radar vectors and hope the center is prepared to provide them.

There are all kinds of what appear to be charting discrepencies around there. The change over point on V94 is halfway so doesn't even belong on the chart. COSES displayed as 43DME from DMN doesn't fit with that changeover point. I haven't looked at EWM's "unusable" data but the voices in my head tell me that given some of the terrain west of EWM, the changeover point is really somewhere between COSES and MOLLY.

The "Alternate Missed Apch Fix" on the ILS approach has me scratching my head. An "alternate missed approach procedure" should be required because the missed approach is predicated on a NAVAID other than the one used for the approach. But this one goes to to the "same fix" that the regular missed approach goes to.

As far as flying the hold on the RNAV approach it looks like you'll have to put up the 278 Course To MOLLY. The GPS I know, Garmin430, that would be push the OBS button on the Garmin and then twist the OBS knob on the CDI/HSI to 278. Then you hand fly it, or with an Autopilot you can twist the heading bug and let it make the turns. Either way, you have to know how to enter and fly the hold and know what headings to use.

 

[aterpster]

I believe it is a lousy bit of procedure design. The airway is a different matter. That comes from a source that probably hasn't been changed in eons. The DME from DMN on the missed approach for MOLLY is closer to EWM but there is terrain not far west of EWM. The fix, as published, had to pass flight inspection.

 

[aterpster]

The "Alternate Missed Apch Fix" on the ILS approach has me scratching my head. An "alternate missed approach procedure" should be required because the missed approach is predicated on a NAVAID other than the one used for the approach. But this one goes to to the "same fix" that the regular missed approach goes to.

You have to see source to see the reason. The MOLLY for the alternate missed approach is predicated on EWM in the event DMN is inoperative.

 

[luvflyin]

You have to see source to see the reason. The MOLLY for the alternate missed approach is predicated on EWM in the event DMN is inoperative.

Ah. Same fix, different way to get there and define it. What is the Alternate Procedure and what's it's altitude? On the arrival holding pattern it seems to me the simple solution to take the mystery out of when to fly it and when not and how to get it in the airplanes GPS data base is to make it a HILPT. Now, slap in a couple NoPt IAF's to each side.

 

[aterpster]

Ah. Same fix, different way to get there and define it. What is the Alternate Procedure and what's it's altitude? On the arrival holding pattern it seems to me the simple solution to take the mystery out of when to fly it and when not and how to get it in the airplanes GPS data base is to make it a HILPT. Now, slap in a couple NoPt IAF's to each side.

The alternate missed approach is identical to the primary missed approach except MOLLY is predicated on EWM instead of DMN. That is to keep the approach useable when DMN is OTS. Having worked with this stuff a lot, I have found over the years controllers simply aren't trained about alternate missed approaches and where they are published. The exception is a facility that does timed approaches because they use both missed approaches when conducting timed approaches.

As to making MOLLY a HILPT, criteria won't permit it. With RNAV it must be at the IF. Would an HILPT fit at MENDZ? It appears so but it would have created a feeder route problem because MENDZ is fairly close to V-94. It certainly could have been done though by making a new WP from somewhere east of MOLLY an NoPT IAF, making DMN a feeder WP, and making another feeder WP on V-611. RNAV criteria is much more restrictive than it used to be. There are issues of turn anticipation distances, magnitude of course change, etc. That's why NoPT is okay on the ILS arriving at MOLLY from the west but not okay on the RNAV Rwy 30.

 

[luvflyin]

........ Having worked with this stuff a lot, I have found over the years controllers simply aren't trained about alternate missed approaches and where they are published........

As to making MOLLY a HILPT, criteria won't permit it. With RNAV it must be at the IF. Would an HILPT fit at MENDZ? It appears so but it would have created a feeder route problem because MENDZ is fairly close to V-94. It certainly could have been done though by making a new WP from somewhere east of MOLLY an NoPT IAF, making DMN a feeder WP, and making another feeder WP on V-611. RNAV criteria is much more restrictive than it used to be. There are issues of turn anticipation distances, magnitude of course change, etc. That's why NoPT is okay on the ILS arriving at MOLLY from the west but not okay on the RNAV Rwy 30.

Very true on controllers and alternate missed approach procedures. A common "interpretation" is that vectoring an airplane that has begun a missed approach is an "alternate procedure." This sometimes gets taken to the point of "making up" missed approach procedures and issuing them to pilots along with the approach clearance.

It looks like until 'arrival holds' can get plugged into GPS's/FMS's etc, we will have to do it by hand.

 

[aterpster]

Very true on controllers and alternate missed approach procedures. A common "interpretation" is that vectoring an airplane that has begun a missed approach is an "alternate procedure." This sometimes gets taken to the point of "making up" missed approach procedures and issuing them to pilots along with the approach clearance.

It looks like until 'arrival holds' can get plugged into GPS's/FMS's etc, we will have to do it by hand.

What we need is a redesign of the RNAV 30 at KLRU so it has a real HILPT. An arrival hold is intended for limited, unambiguous purposes such as RNAV-A at KRBG (Roseburg, OR).

As to alternate missed approaches attached is the pertinent portion of the KLRU ILS Rwy 30. I have highlighted the alternate missed approach. These source forms are the only place alternate missed approaches are published. This was brought up sometime ago at the Aeronautical Charting Forum. It was pointed out these forms don't get to the working controllers. The FAA response was awful; that the source forms are sent to the appropriate ATC facilities and it's up to them to train their controllers.

 

[luvflyin]

What we need is a redesign of the RNAV 30 at KLRU so it has a real HILPT. An arrival hold is intended for limited, unambiguous purposes such as RNAV-A at KRBG (Roseburg, OR).

As to alternate missed approaches attached is the pertinent portion of the KLRU ILS Rwy 30. I have highlighted the alternate missed approach. These source forms are the only place alternate missed approaches are published. This was brought up sometime ago at the Aeronautical Charting Forum. It was pointed out these forms don't get to the working controllers. The FAA response was awful; that the source forms are sent to the appropriate ATC facilities and it's up to them to train their controllers.

I think there is probably more awareness of Alternate Missed Approach procedures since they started making so many more of them and publishing the Fix on the Chart. Making MOLLY an IAF/IF should make it ok to make it a HILPT, wouldn't it? I'm sure I've seen IF's followed by more IF's, some with dog legs. That application at RBG doesn't seem any more or less ambiguous to me than this approach.

 

[aterpster]

I think there is probably more awareness of Alternate Missed Approach procedures since they started making so many more of them and publishing the Fix on the Chart. Making MOLLY an IAF/IF should make it ok to make it a HILPT, wouldn't it? I'm sure I've seen IF's followed by more IF's, some with dog legs. That application at RBG doesn't seem any more or less ambiguous to me than this approach.

I believe so. That would make MENDZ a stepdown within the intermediate. The maximum length of an intermediate segment is 10 miles, but that would work here. The recently changed criteria are in Order 8260.58A, which is impossible to read. It is all formulas now. The designers don't have to understand it because the two computers they use have all those formulas built in. One of the big limitations is the distance of turn anticipation. But, they presumably had to apply that to MOLLY as it is now. Even if the offset is acceptable it is not a desirable design option.

 

[luvflyin]

I guess at the end of the day it boils down to you have to fly the pattern yourself if you get it and it's up to you to know when you need to get it.

 

[aterpster]

I guess at the end of the day it boils down to you have to fly the pattern yourself if you get it and it's up to you to know when you need to get it.

There is a lot of rumbling going on about it, so stay tuned.

 

[luvflyin]

There is a lot of rumbling going on about it, so stay tuned.

What's the chief complaint? The construction of the approach or that the holding pattern isn't in the airborne database?

 

[aterpster]

What's the chief complaint? The construction of the approach or that the holding pattern isn't in the airborne database?

It's a de facto HILPT, which is not permitted by the policy in Order 8260.19G. It is not part of the IAP, thus it requires a separate clearance. It's not clear to the pilot (or controller) when it is NoPT and when it is not. That is a big step backwards. It's not at the IF, which is required for an RNAV HILPT.

 

[luvflyin]

I really think it's purpose is to reduce verbiage. Does the approach data form say it is there at ATC request? Being an uncontrolled airport, approach is run by the Center and probably below Radar coverage. There is probably a lot of holding done there waiting for the airplane ahead to land or cancel. Even if planes aren't put in holding awaiting their turn, it's likely that Center likes to give a turn in that pattern rather than vectoring airplanes around to the southwest before giving direct MOLLY and cleared approach to meet the 90 degree rule.

I think the one at RGB might be there for the same reasons. The one at RVS doesn't fit that though. Controlled airport in the flatlands, probably 10 miles from the Radar antennae, run by a Terminal Radar Approach Control. They should be running them down the chute 3 miles apart there. Maybe they do hold frequently there waiting to hit the holes in the TUL flow.

Of course none of that changes that these "kinda like but not really HILPT's" are popping up on charts and have us scratchin our heads about them. And until some solution is found to get them in the Airborne GPS Nav's as a part of the Approach we are gonna have to program the pattern in ourselves or just hand fly (or bug fly) it.

 

[aterpster]

I really think it's purpose is to reduce verbiage. Does the approach data form say it is there at ATC request? Being an uncontrolled airport, approach is run by the Center and probably below Radar coverage. There is probably a lot of holding done there waiting for the airplane ahead to land or cancel. Even if planes aren't put in holding awaiting their turn, it's likely that Center likes to give a turn in that pattern rather than vectoring airplanes around to the southwest before giving direct MOLLY and cleared approach to meet the 90 degree rule.

The forms are too big to upload here but they are still on the FAA coordination website:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/fli...&tab=coordination&nasrId=LRU#searchResultsTop

Not only did ZAB not request the arrival hold they weren't aware of it when we asked them two days before the effective date. As to radar, the coverage is excellent. If you look on the sectional you will see a radome 15 miles northwest of the airport. That is the ARSR for the area.

I think the one at RGB might be there for the same reasons.

That one fits the definition of an arrival hold that is not a de facto HILPT.

 

[luvflyin]

I'm running out of ideas why. Did the FAA just do it, or did it come out of that Charting Forum that meets a couple times a year? Those arrival holds aren't brand new. They are in the 2013 edition of the Aeronautical Chart Users Guide.

 

[luvflyin]

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/fli...&tab=coordination&nasrId=LRU#searchResultsTop

Not only did ZAB not request the arrival hold they weren't aware of it when we asked them two days before the effective date. As to radar, the coverage is excellent. If you look on the sectional you will see a radome 15 miles northwest of the airport. That is the ARSR for the area.

There it is. Chart arrival holding at MOLLY to allow procedure to be flown from all airways. I'm going to guess these are going to start showing up more and more where airways going to an IAF don't meet the 90 degree rule. This approach recently got a big overhaul. Did the ones at RBG and RVS also just get a big overhaul? Maybe they'll do it piecemeal as approaches come up for review rather than try to get the holds on all Charts that fit the criteria ASAP. One thing I'm wondering is how long that holding pattern at MOLLY has been around. Did they just recently create and Chart it? Or has it been there for awhile and just now got Charted. Did the folks at ZAB say what they have been doing to meet the 90 degree rule?

 

[aterpster]

There it is. Chart arrival holding at MOLLY to allow procedure to be flown from all airways. I'm going to guess these are going to start showing up more and more where airways going to an IAF don't meet the 90 degree rule. This approach recently got a big overhaul. Did the ones at RBG and RVS also just get a big overhaul? Maybe they'll do it piecemeal as approaches come up for review rather than try to get the holds on all Charts that fit the criteria ASAP. One thing I'm wondering is how long that holding pattern at MOLLY has been around. Did they just recently create and Chart it? Or has it been there for awhile and just now got Charted. Did the folks at ZAB say what they have been doing to meet the 90 degree rule?

Trouble is, that language was invented by a particular design section for the Central Service Area. All of the designers are required to adhere to the policies set forth in FAA Order 8260.19G. Some play a bit fast and loose with that order, which belongs to Flight Standards Service (AFS). AFS owns Part 97 instrument approach services, not AIS. AIS is a subordinate design entity in the Air Traffic Organization. Used to be many years ago AFS did the actual design work as well as control design policy.

Here is the pertinent policy in Order 8260.19G:

8-2-5 g. (5) An arrival holding pattern may be established at the beginning of an initial segment when requested by ATC to support local operational needs. An arrival holding pattern must not be used to function as a “hold-in-lieu of procedure turn” in order to accommodate descent gradient requirements and/or used to mandate a course reversal.

The arrival hold at RBG meets that policy (that procedure was developed 7 years ago). The arrival holds at RVS and particularly LRU, do not.

AFS attempts to keep ambiguity out of instrument approach procedures. With procedure turns or HILPTs you have feeder routes and initial approach segments that either have the "NoPT" designation or they do not. They do when alignment and descent gradient limitations are met. They do not have "NoPT" when either, or both, of those limitation are not met. No so with an arrival holding pattern that masquerades as an HILPT, such as at MOLLY for the RNAV Rwy 30.

 

[luvflyin]

Yeah. The Service Center concept seems to cause problems. There are all kinds of questions that come up like "why do the charts look like that here but not over there?" It happens on IFR and VFR charts. Makes it kinda hard to figure out what the 'intent' is sometimes. I guess it was supposed to be a step in the right direction to have 3 places doing this stuff instead of 9 regions. Or was it 3 places instead of 1, AFS. Anyway, it does seem sometimes like no one is in charge anymore. The inmates have taken over the asylum so to speak.

The HPILT thing I brought up here is not so much about actually establishing an HILPT in it's own right, just using one as a means of getting that ArrivalHold into the GPS/FMS airborne data base to reduce tasks required if it has to be flown. That seems to open up a new can of worms.

Can you give me the link to find Radio Fix And Holding Data Record's? Do they make them for RNAV waypoints?

 

[aterpster]

Attached is MOLLY. It is both an intersection and a waypoint. Yes, there is an 8260-2 for every RNAV WP. There isn't an link to their library of 8260-2s unless you are an authorized users of the (sorta) design program TARGETS. New or revised 8260-2s appear on the NFDC website for a short period of time. NFDC.FAA.GOV. The revised MOLLY 8260-2 should have been in the coordination package, but they dropped that ball, too. Note the date, it was revised the date the procedure became effective.

The history of IAP design was first in each of the 9 regional offices. Then, it was moved to each flight inspection field office. Then, flight inspection was moved from AFS to AVN, and centralized in OKC. Flight inspection, although now headquartered in OKC still has the same field offices. Having all the airplanes in OKC wouldn't make sense. Unlike the AIS designers, most of the flight inspection pilots wear the white hats. If they see something about a procedure they don't like, they have absolutely authority to force a change. But, the pilots aren't trained in TERPs, so their input is limited to what the see as a safety issue. The course change from V94 eastbound may not have even been subject to flight inspection. They probably inspected the holding pattern from some direction, but not all three.

An FAA friend of mine agrees that the MOLLY arrival is a mess. He feels they should have extended the intermediate segment to MOLLY and made it an IF/IAF HILPT. Although he didn't call it lazy design work as such, that was the implication.

 

[aterpster]

As a result of a meeting between the boss of AIS and the AFS TERPs folks, it was agreed that Las Cruces will be repaired and arrival holding is okay so long as there is a note "arrival not authorized on V94 eastbound or V611." Should see a revision fairly soon. Having said that, they should construct a HILPT.

 

[luvflyin]

As a result of a meeting between the boss of AIS and the AFS TERPs folks, it was agreed that Las Cruces will be repaired and arrival holding is okay so long as there is a note "arrival not authorized on V94 eastbound or V611." Should see a revision fairly soon. Having said that, they should construct a HILPT.

If the arrival holding is okay, then the problem of more than a 90 degree turn is solved. All you have to do is make the turn in holding. Yeah, you have to get clearance to do it. Noting that the procedure is NA from V611 and V94 eastbound while the solution to making it ok is right there on the Chart seems kinda silly to me. Yeah, putting it in bold lines as an HILPT would take the mystery out of it. If they must/will not do that, then maybe the note could say "turn in holding required for arrivals on...............

Establishing a holding pattern at MOLLY was at ATC request. That was done for the new missed approach for the ILS.

 

[aterpster]

If the arrival holding is okay, then the problem of more than a 90 degree turn is solved. All you have to do is make the turn in holding. Yeah, you have to get clearance to do it. Noting that the procedure is NA from V611 and V94 eastbound while the solution to making it ok is right there on the Chart seems kinda silly to me. Yeah, putting it in bold lines as an HILPT would take the mystery out of it. If they must/will not do that, then maybe the note could say "turn in holding required for arrivals on...............

Establishing a holding pattern at MOLLY was at ATC request. That was done for the new missed approach for the ILS.

Indeed, but that is a different holding pattern at Molly for a different procedure and different reason. There are three holding patterns on the MOLLY 8260-2. One for the WP and two for the intersection (primary and alternative ILS missed approach procedures).

The RNAV 30 will be revised by NOTAM to add "arrival not authorized for arrival on V94 eastbound or from V611."

 

[luvflyin]

Indeed, but that is a different holding pattern at Molly for a different procedure and different reason. There are three holding patterns on the MOLLY 8260-2. One for the WP and two for the intersection (primary and alternative ILS missed approach procedures).

The RNAV 30 will be revised by NOTAM to add "arrival not authorized for arrival on V94 eastbound or from V611."

Yeah. Got that. One off of DMN, one of off EWM and the WP. All really the same pattern with very minor magnetic bearing differences to accommodate the NAV being used. Ground track should remain the same except for the outbound end being time on 2 of them and DME on the other. My point was there wasn't a holding pattern at MOLLY until these approaches both got revised at the same time and it was done at ATC request.

I learned something interesting through all this. I was scratching my head over the Expanded Service Volume study. DMN and EWM are both L VORTACS (maybe H) so it didn't seem like that should be an issue. Turns out it wasn't about frequency protection. It was about to many airborne DME's could be interrogating the NAVAID at the same time and overloading it making DME unreliable. I always wondered why TACAN had a limit on how many airplanes could be using it at once. Now I know.

 

[aterpster]

FDC 6/2819 - IAP LAS CRUCES INTL, LAS CRUCES, NM.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, AMDT 2...
NOTE: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MOLLY ON V611 SOUTH/SOUTHEAST
BOUND OR ON V94 EASTBOUND. 26 AUG 15:55 2016 UNTIL 07 APR 15:55 2017 ESTIMATED.
CREATED: 26 AUG 15:55 2016

 

[Gucci Pilot]

I see those arrival holds quite a bit at Air Force bases. We have them on both the ILS 6/24 at KWRI.

 

[aterpster]

I see those arrival holds quite a bit at Air Force bases. We have them on both the ILS 6/24 at KWRI.

Those are the correct use of an arrival hold.