A couple of clarifications, please, for the IFR-challenged...

1. Is there a good reason for the holding point for the GPS approach to 30,
to be back 11.8 miles back from the holding point for the LOC approach?
They have established UBWAY right at the marker, so why do they not let the
GPS approaches use it as the hold point as well, instead of sending them all
the way back???

2. What is the controller's expectation (and/or the SOP) for getting into
the LOC approach from a high hold (like 4-5-6 thsnd) over BALES?? My
presumption would be that he expects a descent to 2600 still within the
racetrack?? Once at 2600 (lets say you get to 2600 on the outbound leg) are
you expected to complete the whole racetrack for the last time... or do you
just cut it short, cross BALES, and begin the descent???

Icebound wrote:
> A couple of clarifications, please, for the IFR-challenged...
>
> 1. Is there a good reason for the holding point for the GPS approach to 30,
> to be back 11.8 miles back from the holding point for the LOC approach?
> They have established UBWAY right at the marker, so why do they not let the
> GPS approaches use it as the hold point as well, instead of sending them all
> the way back???

It's not an issue of "making them go back." In most cases ULAKE would be
the IAF...this is where it is conencted to the victor airway. Having the
course reversal there (easy to do with the GPS approach) makes sense and
is agrees with the FAA guidance about what to do when terrain makes the
normal "T-fixed" approach design impractical.


> 2. What is the controller's expectation (and/or the SOP) for getting into
> the LOC approach from a high hold (like 4-5-6 thsnd) over BALES?? My
> presumption would be that he expects a descent to 2600 still within the
> racetrack?? Once at 2600 (lets say you get to 2600 on the outbound leg) are
> you expected to complete the whole racetrack for the last time... or do you
> just cut it short, cross BALES, and begin the descent???
>


The same rule applies here as anywhere else. You're done with the course
reversal once you've crossed the fix established on the inbound couse. If
you need multiple turns around the hold to get down, you need to coordinate
that with ATC.

Ron Natalie wrote:

> It's not an issue of "making them go back." In most cases ULAKE would be
> the IAF...this is where it is conencted to the victor airway. Having the
> course reversal there (easy to do with the GPS approach) makes sense and
> is agrees with the FAA guidance about what to do when terrain makes the
> normal "T-fixed" approach design impractical.

The LOC IAP has the HIL pattern at the FAF. When GPS started, the FAA placed HIL
patterns at the FAF. They found out that created all kinds of
terminal-to-approach mode sequencing issues. So, the criteria were changed to
place the HIL at the intermediate fix (which causes that fix to be designated
IF/IAF although from a criteria standpoint it is an IF, not an IAF...the holding
pattern is what qualifies it as an IAF for the first pass over the fix into the
pattern).