Procedure turn and Holding in lieu of procedure turn

[Clip4]

Meanwhile, misinformation continues from someone who has posts bizarre interpretations on a regular basis. Finish any 120-hour commercial students lately?

My interpretation is the same as the FAA council has maintained for over a decade.

When the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins and no expect-further-clearance time is given, the pilot would proceed to the destination airport, and, upon arrival over it, proceed to a fix from which an approach begins. The pilot would then commence the approach as close as possible to the ETA converted from ETE.

Why some of you think this is too much of a burden is a bit baffling.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My interpretation is the same as the FAA council has maintained for over a decade.

When the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins and no expect-further-clearance time is given, the pilot would proceed to the destination airport, and, upon arrival over it, proceed to a fix from which an approach begins. The pilot would then commence the approach as close as possible to the ETA converted from ETE.

Why some of you think this is too much of a burden is a bit baffling.

It's not A burden. We all love to hang around in a holding pattern while ATC lets no traffic in or out until we get around to it.

Actually, it's insane. Always has been once the destination airport started being used as the clearance limit. The destination is not just some fix in the NAS from which an approach doesn't begin. Think about when the rule was written. Exactly how do you get to the destination airport? Here's one I picked at random just by looking at an enroute chart. You don't have RNAV capability so you can't do direct. Oh, I know!!! With no coms, you fly the approach, go missed back to the to the IAF, wait around, and fly it again. Right?

It's a nice theory with no real-world relevance - unless maybe if the outage is controller-side.

 

[Clip4]

Hold? If you aren’t smart enough to list the ETE in your flight plan a small amount less than needed you don’t understand the situation and haven’t allowed for it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hold? If you aren’t smart enough to list the ETE in your flight plan a small amount less than needed you don’t understand the situation and haven’t allowed for it.

Except for one thing - that's exactly what the rule is talking about. Otherwise it wouldn't say wait instill the ETA. It's not talking about perfect timing. Either you accept and support the rule as it or or you realize the way the NAS works in 2022 is different than the world it was written for.

OTOH, I don't think attacking 91.185 is necessary. I think the reg is 90% academic, at least when we are talking about pilot-side lost comm. Here's what has to happen in order to trigger the vertical and lateral rules.

1. Pilot loses com in their solid state system in circumstances where they do not also lose nav.
2. Pilot only has the one radio - the one that failed.
3. Aside of the NAV/COM unit issue, the pilot is completely satisfied that the loss of com is isolated and not part of the beginning of a greater system failure. IOW, not in the least concerned that the next thing will be the "sniff-sniff" of insulation burning. If not, you are welcome to continue as if nothing has happened. I'm treating it as an emergency.
4. You never encounter visual conditions after deciding it's lost comm.

I do think it's essential pilot know and understand the rule as is. And also when not to apply it to follow the AIM guidance to use their best judgment. But that's a lot to happen before those rules are even a consideration.

 

[Clip4]

I always have list an ETE that expires before planned ETA. That way in a 91.185 situation you never need to hold.

I agree with your limitation list until the the issue occurs in the last 50 miles and the cause is a defective PTT.

The other issue is you can be on top in VMC and still have to let down via an IAP due to fuel reserve.

 

[luvflyin]

Except for one thing - that's exactly what the rule is talking about. Otherwise it wouldn't say wait instill the ETA. It's not talking about perfect timing. Either you accept and support the rule as it or or you realize the way the NAS works in 2022 is different than the world it was written for.

OTOH, I don't think attacking 91.185 is necessary. I think the reg is 90% academic, at least when we are talking about pilot-side lost comm. Here's what has to happen in order to trigger the vertical and lateral rules.

1. Pilot loses com in their solid state system in circumstances where they do not also lose nav.
2. Pilot only has the one radio - the one that failed.
3. Aside of the NAV/COM unit issue, the pilot is completely satisfied that the loss of com is isolated and not part of the beginning of a greater system failure. IOW, not in the least concerned that the next thing will be the "sniff-sniff" of insulation burning. If not, you are welcome to continue as if nothing has happened. I'm treating it as an emergency.
4. You never encounter visual conditions after deciding it's lost comm.

I do think it's essential pilot know and understand the rule as is. And also when not to apply it to follow the AIM guidance to use their best judgment. But that's a lot to happen before those rules are even a consideration.

Yeah. It's pretty much academic. Radio failures are rare and there's good ol' AIM 6-4-1 a., where the FAA confesses that they can't figure it out either. But there are questions on the written where what has become common knowledge could be a misinterpretation that can cause an applicant to miss a question. No big thang unless your right at the pass/fail line. But then there are Flight Checks. There was a thread here years ago. Guy flunked his check ride because the DPE was just flat out wrong. I've been on the warpath over this ever since.

 

[dtuuri]

I always have list an ETE that expires before planned ETA. That way in a 91.185 situation you never need to hold.

If "clearance limit" means a holding point short of the destination, which I'm 100% sure that it should because I remember when the rules spelled it out and I followed the change in terminology closely when it happened, then there's no requirement to hold unless you have received holding instructions. Ergo, you don't have to be smart enough to fudge your ETE.

 

[Clip4]

If "clearance limit" means a holding point short of the destination, which I'm 100% sure that it should because I remember when the rules spelled it out and I followed the change in terminology closely when it happened, then there's no requirement to hold unless you have received holding instructions. Ergo, you don't have to be smart enough to fudge your ETE.

When was the last time you got a clearance limit short of destination and why did you accept a clearance short of the destination without an EFC?

 

[Palmpilot]

Nope. The route you fly is governed by 91.185(c)(1). If your clearance limit is your destination, you aren't leaving the clearance limit, and 91.185(c)(3) does not apply....

Good point. The scope of 91.185(c)(3) is set by its heading, which is "Leave clearance limit."

 

[dtuuri]

When was the last time you got a clearance limit short of destination and why did you accept a clearance short of the destination without an EFC?

At this point I must come to the conclusion you just don't get what I'm saying, since all holding patterns are short of the destination whether or not the EFC is timely coming from ATC. Sometimes, it takes them awhile to compute one, maybe even most of the time in real life.

 

[Palmpilot]

Lost com threads probably boost the sales of popcorn by quite a bit.

 

[Palmpilot]

...We all love to hang around in a holding pattern while ATC lets no traffic in or out until we get around to it....

I think that right there would justify exercising emergency authority.

 

[aterpster]

I do think it's essential pilot know and understand the rule as is. And also when not to apply it to follow the AIM guidance to use their best judgment. But that's a lot to happen before those rules are even a consideration.

One of my old IFR Refresher articles from the 1990s was about the absurdity of 91.185.

Just declare (silently if you have to) and press on.

In a light airplane, the chances of losing comm and having (certified) nav are slim to none.

 

[luvflyin]

It's not A burden. We all love to hang around in a holding pattern while ATC lets no traffic in or out until we get around to it.

Actually, it's insane. Always has been once the destination airport started being used as the clearance limit. The destination is not just some fix in the NAS from which an approach doesn't begin. Think about when the rule was written. Exactly how do you get to the destination airport? Here's one I picked at random just by looking at an enroute chart. You don't have RNAV capability so you can't do direct. Oh, I know!!! With no coms, you fly the approach, go missed back to the to the IAF, wait around, and fly it again. Right?

It's a nice theory with no real-world relevance - unless maybe if the outage is controller-side.
View attachment 104599

Getting the destination airport as a clearance limit was very common long before the change to the FAR lost com procedure. There was a time when it was not uncommon to get a new 'cleared short' Clearance Limit while enroute. That still happens occasionally. The big thing that is new since RNAV became more common is getting cleared to destination airport via Direct.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Good point. The scope of 91.185(c)(3) is set by its heading, which is "Leave clearance limit."

It is a good point, but generally, headings are only markers to the subject being discussed and do not add to or limit the substantive language of the paragraph.

 

[luvflyin]

When was the last time you got a clearance limit short of destination and why did you accept a clearance short of the destination without an EFC?

You can get a Clearance Limit short of destination without getting holding instructions or EFC. What's below goes on to explain that the aircraft must be cleared beyond the fix or holding and EFC issued at least 5 minutes before reaching it. The AIM reference that tells about this is 5-3-8.

4−6−1. CLEARANCE TO HOLDING FIX
Consider operational factors such as length of delay, holding airspace limitations, navigational aids, altitude, meteorological conditions when necessary to clear an aircraft to a fix other than the destination airport. Issue the following:
a. Clearance limit (if any part of the route beyond a clearance limit differs from the last routing cleared, issue the route the pilot can expect beyond the clearance limit).
PHRASEOLOGY−
EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE VIA (routing).
EXAMPLE−
“Expect further clearance via direct Stillwater V−O−R, Victor Two Twenty-Six Snapy intersection, direct Newark.”
b. Holding instructions.
1. Holding instructions may be eliminated when you inform the pilot that no delay is expected.
2. When the assigned procedure or route being flown includes a charted pattern, you may omit all holding instructions except the charted holding direction and the statement “as published.” Always issue complete holding instructions when the pilot requests them.

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED TO (fix), HOLD (direction), AS PUBLISHED,
or
CLEARED TO (fix), NO DELAY EXPECTED.
c. EFC. Do not specify this item if no delay is expected.

 

[Palmpilot]

It is a good point, but generally, headings are only markers to the subject being discussed and do not add to or limit the substantive language of the paragraph.

Would it be fair to say that the language is at least ambiguous?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Would it be fair to say that the language is at least ambiguous?

Not the use of the header. But is an airport a "fix"?

 

[luvflyin]

Not the use of the header. But is an airport a "fix"?

When I need a fix I go to cool airports with great restaurants Back to our regularly scheduled program.
FAR 1.1
Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

 

[Clip4]

I think that right there would justify exercising emergency authority.

Delaying someone on the ground constitutes an emergency?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Delaying someone on a the ground constitutes and emergency?

 

[Palmpilot]

Not the use of the header. But is an airport a "fix"?

I've been wondering that ever since someone mentioned it earlier in the thread. However I think the weakness in that argument is that the problematic subparagraph says "If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins..." That kind of leaves it wide open.

Maybe the best thing to hang one's hat on is the rather permissive language in the AIM.

 

[Palmpilot]

Delaying someone on the ground constitutes an emergency?

What I had in mind was a sky full of aircraft wanting to land in a busy terminal area.

 

[tex_an]

Scenario 1: You file an ifr flight plan and my clearance limit is an IAF. You experience NORDO. So 91.185 (c) 3 (i) applies.

I know some pilots recommend filing to a fix. But what if you filed to a fix like this and when you get there the winds are completely bad for that approach and IAF. Since you are expected to fly the approach from my fix, do you fly the approach go missed and proceed to your alternate? I would think the controller would be pulling his hair out. Because he had to close the airspace for a NORDO aircraft and now has to deal with an alternate.

Scenario 2: You file an ifr flight plan and my clearance limit is the airport. You experience NORDO. So 91.185 (c) 3 (ii) applies.
You fly to the airport. Since this is "not a fix from which an approach begins". And its not a fix with a defined holding procedure, rather than making up a hold wouldn't "upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival" apply and you proceed to the appropriate IAF based on the weather/prevailing winds?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've been wondering that ever since someone mentioned it earlier in the thread. However I think the weakness in that argument is that the problematic subparagraph says "If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins..." That kind of leaves it wide open.

Maybe the best thing to hang one's hat on is the rather permissive language in the AIM.

It is. Trying to read exceptions into the rule itself kind of like the folks who try to find some way to weasel around 61.113 or the need for Part 135 certification. "Well, if I read it this way...yeah! That's the ticket!" (with our best John Lovitz impression). Based on the reading given to it by the Chief Counsel's office as recently as 2017, is pretty clear the official FAA position is that (c)(3)(i) applies when the clearance limit is an IAF and (c)((3)(ii) applies when the clearance limit is anything other than an IAF. That's the rule.

I think the reality is different. I think the chances are 90% or better it is a bona fide emergency. Even @Clip4 's failed PTT assumes there's no PTT n the other yoke. The second is, unless that remaining 10% (or if you want' a bigger number, the remaining 40-50%) is due to a widespread ATC outage, ATC is watching and clearing the airspace for just about anything reasonable you might do. (Anyone think getting out of the system as quickly as possible is going to be reported by ATC as a pilot deviation? - I'll disagree with you in advance)/

So I'd rather base my response to lost com into the AIM "good judgment" standard than to a personal interpretation that has already been rejected.

BTW, in over 30 years, I have had two lost com events. My first was on my first solo cross country. Single radio and loose wires. And yeah, NAV was out too. The second was com only. Lost com during returning to Centennial Airport (KAPA) - one of the busiest Class Ds in the US) from doing a Discovery Flight. VFR so nav wasn't an issue. I tried to get the Tower's attention but no light signals. I landed anyway. Too bad my lost comm missed the runway change. There was a jet holding in position on the opposite end. The event ended up being in a runway incursion presentation.

 

[dtuuri]

Scenario 1: You file an ifr flight plan and my clearance limit is an IAF. You experience NORDO. So 91.185 (c) 3 (i) applies.

I know some pilots recommend filing to a fix. But what if you filed to a fix like this and when you get there the winds are completely bad for that approach and IAF.

ATC protects all IAFs for just that eventuality.

Scenario 2: You file an ifr flight plan and my clearance limit is the airport. You experience NORDO. So 91.185 (c) 3 (ii) applies.

Depends whether you put the airport in your route definition. If you did, I hope you have the ability to navigate to it and that you dutifully go there as cleared. If your last fix is somewhere else then I hope you can navigate straight from that fix to the IAF of your choice. If the FAA gives you static, tell 'em you used your emergency authority and followed the rule.

 

[LesGawlik]

When I tried to file to an IAF to the destination airport, CD "corrected" it for me because "there was no place to go." I was told I had to fly to an airport. When I tried to put an IAF in the route, it was kicked out. I was cleared to the destination airport, and the route ignored my IAF. It was a short flight, I had the weather and I wanted to signal the approach I wanted to fly.

 

[Palmpilot]

When I tried to file to an IAF to the destination airport, CD "corrected" it for me because "there was no place to go." I was told I had to fly to an airport. When I tried to put an IAF in the route, it was kicked out. I was cleared to the destination airport, and the route ignored my IAF. It was a short flight, I had the weather and I wanted to signal the approach I wanted to fly.

I haven't checked yet; do ICAO flight plans have a Remarks section?

 

[dtuuri]

It was a short flight, I had the weather and I wanted to signal the approach I wanted to fly.

Sounds like you were essentially already at your destination for ATC purposes and they needed to get you into the flow of other arriving traffic. I suspect there's more to the story. Can you share more details?

 

[luvflyin]

When I tried to file to an IAF to the destination airport, CD "corrected" it for me because "there was no place to go." I was told I had to fly to an airport. When I tried to put an IAF in the route, it was kicked out. I was cleared to the destination airport, and the route ignored my IAF. It was a short flight, I had the weather and I wanted to signal the approach I wanted to fly.

Did you literally file ‘to’ the IAF? It was the last element in the Flight Plan? Or did you file ‘to’ the airport via the IAF with the IAF as the second to the last element in the Flight Plan.

 

[LesGawlik]

Did you literally file ‘to’ the IAF? It was the last element in the Flight Plan? Or did you file ‘to’ the airport via the IAF with the IAF as the second to the last element in the Flight Plan.

I've filed training flight plans both ways via FF. If I put IAFs in the plan, they're dumped. When I filed to the IAF to give ATC an idea what I planned to do, CD said I can't do that "because there's no place to go" and he "fixed" it for me.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I've filed training flight plans both ways via FF. If I put IAFs in the plan, they're dumped. When I filed to the IAF to give ATC an idea what I planned to do, CD said I can't do that "because there's no place to go" and he "fixed" it for me.

I would suggest contacting FF to find out why they’re “dumping” an en route fix from your flight plan.

 

[LesGawlik]

I would suggest contacting FF to find out why they’re “dumping” an en route fix from your flight plan.

It wasn't FF. The plan went in and out of FF fine. It was the ATC computer that gave me a routing without the fix.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It wasn't FF. The plan went in and out of FF fine. It was the ATC computer that gave me a routing without the fix.

Then I suggest contacting ATC and asking them. Ask to talk to the junior programmer in charge of policy.

 

[luvflyin]

I've filed training flight plans both ways via FF. If I put IAFs in the plan, they're dumped. When I filed to the IAF to give ATC an idea what I planned to do, CD said I can't do that "because there's no place to go" and he "fixed" it for me.

Dumped how? Do you mean the Flight Plan is rejected? Or that they just don’t clear you as filed? Filing ‘to’ a fix is not unheard of. Usually used to get a climb to OTP and then cancel. Or to a point somewhere down the road where you know the weather gets better and you just want to cancel then and press on VFR. But to file ‘short’ to fix when your intent is to remain IFR and get an Approach is unusual. I’ve never heard of that before.