Question for the controllers here:

The KMIC VOR-A is a pretty vanilla approach. The FAF is the Gopher VOR (GEP)
about 5 miles north of the field. The missed procedure is to go back to GEP and
hold north, left turns -- depicted as a dotted race track on the plate. (The FAA
link seems to be broken for me, at least:
http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/05158VGA.PDF)

I have been vectored into that hold (not entered from a miss) and then cleared
for the approach. At that point, I flew the inbound leg towards the VOR/FAF and
continued down the approach path to KMIC. Seemed logical to me and it certainly
seemed to be what Minneapolis Approach was expecting.

I have a CFII friend who thinks this was improper -- that since the hold was not
depicted on the approach plate (as part of the approach) that I should have
flown the full approach including the procedure turn. I guess his thought is
that I wasn't really receiving vectors since I was in the hold.

Who is right here? Me and Approach, or my friend?

TIA,
Mitty

Mitty > wrote:

> (The FAA link seems to be broken for me, at least:
> http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/05158VGA.PDF)

Yeah, I get some kind of weird redirection loop. But, the airnav link
(http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0503/05158VGA.PDF)
works fine.

> I have been vectored into that hold (not entered from a miss) and then
> cleared for the approach.

I'm not sure what you mean by "vectored into that hold". Do you mean you
were vectored to the final approach course? Or do you mean you were given
veectors to the Gopher VOR and then instructed to hold there? Or something
else? What was the exact wording the controller used?

How were you vectored into the hold if you did not hold?

Sounds like vectors to final to me, in which case you are required to go straight-in
unless you request the procedure turn and are given an amended clearance.

That holding pattern could also be used for timed approaches, in which case you
would also be expected to proceed straight in once cleared for the approach.

Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern until the
weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up correctly and not more
than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you can go straight-in once cleared for
the approach.

The procedure turn is for folks arriving from every which way to GEP.

Mitty wrote:

> Question for the controllers here:
>
> The KMIC VOR-A is a pretty vanilla approach. The FAF is the Gopher VOR (GEP)
> about 5 miles north of the field. The missed procedure is to go back to GEP and
> hold north, left turns -- depicted as a dotted race track on the plate. (The FAA
> link seems to be broken for me, at least:
> http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/05158VGA.PDF)
>
> I have been vectored into that hold (not entered from a miss) and then cleared
> for the approach. At that point, I flew the inbound leg towards the VOR/FAF and
> continued down the approach path to KMIC. Seemed logical to me and it certainly
> seemed to be what Minneapolis Approach was expecting.
>
> I have a CFII friend who thinks this was improper -- that since the hold was not
> depicted on the approach plate (as part of the approach) that I should have
> flown the full approach including the procedure turn. I guess his thought is
> that I wasn't really receiving vectors since I was in the hold.
>
> Who is right here? Me and Approach, or my friend?
>
> TIA,
> Mitty

I think that the first thing you would hear from the controller if you
followed the instructor's method is "Where are you going? If you want the
full procedure, ask for it."

A good rule to follow is this: The easiest way is almost always the correct
way. Remember that the flight test folks have to fly these procedures and
they don't like to be jerked around (I'll admit that flight test is unlikely
to be assigned a hold).

Bob Gardner


"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> Question for the controllers here:
>
> The KMIC VOR-A is a pretty vanilla approach. The FAF is the Gopher VOR
> (GEP) about 5 miles north of the field. The missed procedure is to go
> back to GEP and hold north, left turns -- depicted as a dotted race track
> on the plate. (The FAA link seems to be broken for me, at least:
> http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/05158VGA.PDF)
>
> I have been vectored into that hold (not entered from a miss) and then
> cleared for the approach. At that point, I flew the inbound leg towards
> the VOR/FAF and continued down the approach path to KMIC. Seemed logical
> to me and it certainly seemed to be what Minneapolis Approach was
> expecting.
>
> I have a CFII friend who thinks this was improper -- that since the hold
> was not depicted on the approach plate (as part of the approach) that I
> should have flown the full approach including the procedure turn. I guess
> his thought is that I wasn't really receiving vectors since I was in the
> hold.
>
> Who is right here? Me and Approach, or my friend?
>
> TIA,
> Mitty

On 4/14/2005 6:48 PM, wrote the following:
> How were you vectored into the hold if you did not hold?
>

We were shooting practice approaches in IMC and I flew a low approach at Anoka
(ANE) about 5 miles to the east, then asked for the hold since I wanted it to
update currency.

It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the line
of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further
clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in that area.

While holding, probably during the first full time around, Approach had me climb
to 4000 so he could run someone in under me. I did that. When I told him I was
ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I then asked for another turn in
the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing is 2500), which was approved.

> Sounds like vectors to final to me, in which case you are required to go straight-in
> unless you request the procedure turn and are given an amended clearance.
>
> That holding pattern could also be used for timed approaches, in which case you
> would also be expected to proceed straight in once cleared for the approach.
>
> Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern until the
> weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up correctly and not more
> than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you can go straight-in once cleared for
> the approach.
>

Sounds reasonable. Is that printed somewhere?

> The procedure turn is for folks arriving from every which way to GEP.
>
and not getting vectors.

> Mitty wrote:
>
>
>>Question for the controllers here:
>>
>>The KMIC VOR-A is a pretty vanilla approach. The FAF is the Gopher VOR (GEP)
>>about 5 miles north of the field. The missed procedure is to go back to GEP and
>>hold north, left turns -- depicted as a dotted race track on the plate. (The FAA
>>link seems to be broken for me, at least:
>>http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/05158VGA.PDF)
>>
>>I have been vectored into that hold (not entered from a miss) and then cleared
>>for the approach. At that point, I flew the inbound leg towards the VOR/FAF and
>>continued down the approach path to KMIC. Seemed logical to me and it certainly
>>seemed to be what Minneapolis Approach was expecting.
>>
>>I have a CFII friend who thinks this was improper -- that since the hold was not
>>depicted on the approach plate (as part of the approach) that I should have
>>flown the full approach including the procedure turn. I guess his thought is
>>that I wasn't really receiving vectors since I was in the hold.
>>
>>Who is right here? Me and Approach, or my friend?
>>
>>TIA,
>>Mitty
>
>

Mitty wrote:

>
> I have been vectored into that hold

Which would involve language like "fly headig xxx, direct Gopher,
holding instructions.") You were only vectored to the hold if you were
told you were being vectored into the hold and not "vectors for the
final approach course."


>
> I have a CFII friend who thinks this was improper -- that since the hold
> was not depicted on the approach plate (as part of the approach) that I
> should have flown the full approach including the procedure turn.

You never fly the full approach when vectored unless you specifically
work that out with the controller. If you're last instruction from
Approach was something like "N123, you're 5 miles from Gopher, maintain
3000 until established on the final approach course, turn left heading
xxx cleared VOR A approach into Crystal." then you were being vectored
to final and were not supposed to go back outbound when you got to the
VOR. It's hard to believe a "CFI" could screw this up. This is a
garden variety VOR approach.


I
> guess his thought is that I wasn't really receiving vectors since I was
> in the hold.

It all comes down to the wording. What exactly did the controller say
to you?

Mitty > wrote:
> It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the line
> of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further
> clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in
> that area.

That makes sense. I'm not sure why you said you were "vectored into the
hold", though. You went direct to the VOR and held. Nothing vectorish
about it :-)

> When I told him I was ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I
> then asked for another turn in the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing
> is 2500), which was approved.

OK, here's my take on this. Since you were not vectored to the final
approach course, and were not approaching the FAF along a segment labeled
NoPT, you were required to perform a PT. A racetrack pattern is a
perfectly acceptable way of flying a PT, and it sounds like this is what
you did.

On the other hand, this is a bit of a grey area in my mind. Rather than
second guessing the controller, a quick radio call will eliminate any
possible confusion on both sides. Lack of confusion is always a good thing.

wrote the following:
>> Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern
>> until the weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up
>> correctly and not more than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you
>> can go straight-in once cleared for the approach.

What does the "300 feet higher" have to do with anything? The AIM says:

> 5-4-9. Procedure Turn
>
> a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
> intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
> procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required
> when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach
> course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure
> turn is not authorized.

I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
> Question for the controllers here:
>
> The KMIC VOR-A is a pretty vanilla approach. The FAF is the Gopher VOR
> (GEP) about 5 miles north of the field. The missed procedure is to go
> back to GEP and hold north, left turns -- depicted as a dotted race track
> on the plate. (The FAA link seems to be broken for me, at least:
> http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/05158VGA.PDF)
>
> I have been vectored into that hold (not entered from a miss) and then
> cleared for the approach. At that point, I flew the inbound leg towards
> the VOR/FAF and continued down the approach path to KMIC. Seemed logical
> to me and it certainly seemed to be what Minneapolis Approach was
> expecting.
>
> I have a CFII friend who thinks this was improper -- that since the hold
> was not depicted on the approach plate (as part of the approach) that I
> should have flown the full approach including the procedure turn. I guess
> his thought is that I wasn't really receiving vectors since I was in the
> hold.
>

If you made a turn (or more) in the hold which established your aircraft
inbound on the FAC then you DID fly the full approach.


>
> Who is right here? Me and Approach, or my friend?
>

You and approach.

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> Question for the controllers here:
>
>
> I should have flown the full approach including the procedure turn.
> TIA,
> Mitty

You did. If you were on the protected side (procedure turn) side
of the final approach course you chose a perfectly fine way to
get turned around.

Mitty wrote:

> On 4/14/2005 6:48 PM, wrote the following:
> > How were you vectored into the hold if you did not hold?
> >
>
> We were shooting practice approaches in IMC and I flew a low approach at Anoka
> (ANE) about 5 miles to the east, then asked for the hold since I wanted it to
> update currency.
>
> It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the line
> of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further
> clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in that area.
>
> While holding, probably during the first full time around, Approach had me climb
> to 4000 so he could run someone in under me. I did that. When I told him I was
> ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I then asked for another turn in
> the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing is 2500), which was approved.
>
> > Sounds like vectors to final to me, in which case you are required to go straight-in
> > unless you request the procedure turn and are given an amended clearance.
> >
> > That holding pattern could also be used for timed approaches, in which case you
> > would also be expected to proceed straight in once cleared for the approach.
> >
> > Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern until the
> > weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up correctly and not more
> > than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you can go straight-in once cleared for
> > the approach.
> >
>
> Sounds reasonable. Is that printed somewhere?

The AIM discusses timed approaches, and shows a holding pattern like that one. When
straight-in from such holding patterns was not authorized, IAPs like that used to have a
note "Final Approach from XYZ holding pattern not authorized." But, the procedures folks
were told to stop using that note and make the patterns useable for such approaches.

If you want it in writing you should contact your regional FAA Flight Procedures Office
for clarification. Many things are imperfect with the FAA.

Roy Smith wrote:

> Mitty > wrote:
> > It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the line
> > of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further
> > clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in
> > that area.
>
> That makes sense. I'm not sure why you said you were "vectored into the
> hold", though. You went direct to the VOR and held. Nothing vectorish
> about it :-)
>
> > When I told him I was ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I
> > then asked for another turn in the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing
> > is 2500), which was approved.
>
> OK, here's my take on this. Since you were not vectored to the final
> approach course, and were not approaching the FAF along a segment labeled
> NoPT, you were required to perform a PT. A racetrack pattern is a
> perfectly acceptable way of flying a PT, and it sounds like this is what
> you did.
>
> On the other hand, this is a bit of a grey area in my mind. Rather than
> second guessing the controller, a quick radio call will eliminate any
> possible confusion on both sides. Lack of confusion is always a good thing.
>
> wrote the following:
> >> Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern
> >> until the weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up
> >> correctly and not more than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you
> >> can go straight-in once cleared for the approach.
>
> What does the "300 feet higher" have to do with anything? The AIM says:
>
> > 5-4-9. Procedure Turn
> >
> > a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> > perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
> > intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
> > procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required
> > when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach
> > course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure
> > turn is not authorized.
>
> I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.

That is the criteria for timed IAPs or HILs at FAFs.

If you think it is unreasonable, then do the procedure turn, by all means.

OtisWinslow wrote:

> "Mitty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Question for the controllers here:
> >
> >
> > I should have flown the full approach including the procedure turn.
> > TIA,
> > Mitty
>
> You did. If you were on the protected side (procedure turn) side
> of the final approach course you chose a perfectly fine way to
> get turned around.

In this case the hold is not on the same side of the intermediate segment
as the PT. But, so what?

Roy Smith wrote:

>>>I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.

This is what the guidance to procedures specialists says:

j. The use of notes to prohibit a final approach from a holding pattern has been
DISCONTINUED. The following guidelines apply:
(1) Where a holding pattern is established at a final approach fix in lieu of a
conventional procedure turn, the minimum holding altitude must meet the altitude
limitation requirements of TERPS Volume 1, paragraph 234e(1).

NOTE:
Holding in-lieu-of PT at the FAF is not authorized for RNAV procedures.

(2) Where a holding pattern is established at an intermediate fix in lieu of a
conventional procedure turn, the rate of descent to the final approach fix must
meet the descent gradient requirements of TERPS Volume 1, paragraph 234e(2).

(3) Where a holding pattern is established for the missed approach at an
intermediate or final approach fix, and a holding pattern is used in lieu of a
procedure turn, the MHA for the missed approach must conform to the altitude or
descent gradient requirements of paragraph 855j(1) or (2) above. Missed approach
holding must not be established at the FAF for RNAV procedures.

(4) Where a holding pattern is established for the missed approach at an
intermediate or final approach fix, and a holding pattern is NOT used in lieu of a
procedure turn, establish a conventional procedure turn to permit pilot flexibility
in executing a course reversal and descent to final approach fix altitude. This
paragraph is not applicable to RNAV procedures.

Trying to get the AIM to conform with design intent is an unending game. Why don't
you contact AOPA and have them get the AIM corrected?

In article >, wrote:
> > I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.
>
> That is the criteria for timed IAPs or HILs at FAFs.

Are you talking about TERPs criteria? If so, those rules apply to the
people who design approaches. The pilots who fly them shouldn't have to
know anything about TERPs to figure out how to fly the procedure.

Just did a similar one on my IPC last month - instructor says if
inbound course in hold is within 30 degrees and altitude permits normal
approach, continue the approach. In this case, we had a 31 degree
course difference, so he made me do the PT :-) Needed the practice
anyway.

In article >,
> wrote:
>I think everybody is losing sight of the fact that the idea is to fly
>the approach safely.

BINGO!

We can nit pick on the rules all we want, but in the end what is most
important is that we fly safely! There are things that are legal, but not
safe, and there are things that are safe, but not legal. What we want
to do in stay in the intersection of the two: both safe AND legal.

-- Dane

You're absolutely right about a racetrack being an acceptable course
reversal maneuver. Too many instructors are hung up on the 45-180 printed on
the plate as being somehow blessed by the FAA to the exclusion of all
others.

Bob Gardner

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Mitty > wrote:
>> It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the
>> line
>> of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further
>> clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in
>> that area.
>
> That makes sense. I'm not sure why you said you were "vectored into the
> hold", though. You went direct to the VOR and held. Nothing vectorish
> about it :-)
>
>> When I told him I was ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I
>> then asked for another turn in the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing
>> is 2500), which was approved.
>
> OK, here's my take on this. Since you were not vectored to the final
> approach course, and were not approaching the FAF along a segment labeled
> NoPT, you were required to perform a PT. A racetrack pattern is a
> perfectly acceptable way of flying a PT, and it sounds like this is what
> you did.
>
> On the other hand, this is a bit of a grey area in my mind. Rather than
> second guessing the controller, a quick radio call will eliminate any
> possible confusion on both sides. Lack of confusion is always a good
> thing.
>
> wrote the following:
>>> Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern
>>> until the weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up
>>> correctly and not more than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you
>>> can go straight-in once cleared for the approach.
>
> What does the "300 feet higher" have to do with anything? The AIM says:
>
>> 5-4-9. Procedure Turn
>>
>> a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
>> perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
>> intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in
>> lieu of
>> procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not
>> required
>> when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final
>> approach
>> course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the
>> procedure
>> turn is not authorized.
>
> I don't see anything in there about 300 feet.

I always try and fly an approach in actual with the minimum of
manuevering. It seems in training the emphasis is to fly an approach
with the maximum of manuevering. So when I do some hood work with an
instructor, I usually have to verify which program we are on. I also
like to spend some time on departures, which I think are just as
difficult as approaches, when done in actual. As usual, your mileage
may vary.

I have always thought it was unecessary to do a hold if you are already
established on the final approach course. I see no reason to do a
procedure turn if you are in this hold at the correct altitude. I
certainly hope the regulations agree. I know that ATC agrees with me.
They don't want me up there going around in circles, unless they've
told me to.

> wrote in message ...
>
> In this case the hold is not on the same side of the intermediate segment
> as the PT. But, so what?
>

Right you are. I couldn't get the link to work from the original post .. and
having gone back in thru the FAA site and looked it up I see that now.
However
I'd still do it the same and just come around and finish the approach. I'd
be
sure the controller knew what I was doing .. but seldom do they want you
just out there riding around. They want you on the ground and out
of their airspace in the quickest manner that's safe.