If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

--
David Rind

The NoPT is for that transition only (I assume you knew that). The GS
intercept altitude is not a huge descent from 4000 in my opinion. The
distance from CAHOW to SWANZ is just over 5 miles with 1400 ft to lose - my
math shows that is 280 ft per mile. Even at 120kts that is less than 500 ft
per minute...

NoPT means NoPT; you certainly can ask to go around - but you'd better talk
to someone if you intend to do so. (on a transition that is labeled NoPT)

"David Rind" > wrote in message
...
> If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
> "No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
> authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?
>
> I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
> segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
> The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
> quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
> If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
> you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
> tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
> place where it is spelled out.
>
> --
> David Rind
>
>

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:58:36 -0400, David Rind
> wrote:

>If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
>"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
>authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?
>
>I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
>segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
>The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
>quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
>If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
>you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
>tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
>place where it is spelled out.

If you are on a segment that is marked NoPT, the hold can only be executed
with permission from ATC.

It's pretty clear in AIM 5-4-8 b.3.

======================
When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must
be followed, *except* when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT is
shown on the approach course.
====================
(emphasis mine).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Oops - that should be just over 500 ft per minute.

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
et...
> The NoPT is for that transition only (I assume you knew that). The GS
> intercept altitude is not a huge descent from 4000 in my opinion. The
> distance from CAHOW to SWANZ is just over 5 miles with 1400 ft to lose -
my
> math shows that is 280 ft per mile. Even at 120kts that is less than 500
ft
> per minute...
>
> NoPT means NoPT; you certainly can ask to go around - but you'd better
talk
> to someone if you intend to do so. (on a transition that is labeled NoPT)
>
> "David Rind" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
> > "No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
> > authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?
> >
> > I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
> > segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
> > The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
> > quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
> > If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
> > you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
> > tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
> > place where it is spelled out.
> >
> > --
> > David Rind
> >
> >
>
>

David Rind > wrote in news:c52bkn$hld$1
@reader1.panix.com:

> If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
> "No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
> authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?
>
> I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
> segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
> The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
> quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
> If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
> you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
> tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
> place where it is spelled out.
>

The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
non radar environment.

On 08 Apr 2004 12:44:43 GMT, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

>The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
>you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
>non radar environment.

Would it not be more accurate to say "this all assumes" you are not in a
"radar vectors to final" situation?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"David Rind" > wrote in message
...
>
> If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
> "No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
> authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?
>

ATC authorization is required.


>
> I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
> segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
> The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
> quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
>

Fairly quick descent? If your clearance is via GDM and you've been cleared
for the approach, you can descend to 4000 once you reach GDM. If you reach
4000 by CAHOW, you'll find yourself about 240 feet BELOW the glideslope as
you join the localizer.


>
> If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
> you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT?
>

Yes.


>
> I can't tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
> place where it is spelled out.
>

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
>
> The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition
> (from EEN) you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case).
> This all assumes a non radar environment.
>

If you're cleared via EEN VORTAC you will be expected to do a PT whether or
not you're receiving radar services.

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>
> What are some of the factors in ATC's decision on this request?
>

Other traffic.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net
>>
>> If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
>> "No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
>> authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?
>
> ATC authorization is required.

What are some of the factors in ATC's decision on this request?

The only times I can think of that I'd request a hold would be to configure
my cockpit (which would hopefully have been done prior to entering the
approach segment) or to drop altitude if I'd been cleared inbound high for
whatever reason.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in message >...
> On 08 Apr 2004 12:44:43 GMT, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
> >The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
> >you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
> >non radar environment.
>
> Would it not be more accurate to say "this all assumes" you are not in a
> "radar vectors to final" situation?
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Yes, of course. I had inadvertantly assumed radar environment to mean
radar vectoring. However, I can't think of any time when ATC did not
vector me in a radar environment unless I specifically requested a
full approach.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> § 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
>
> (j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
> approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
> for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
> turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

Yes, of course. This is what says that you cannot do a PT in this
situation without ATC authorization (as I pointed out I understood
in my initial post). My question was whether a holding pattern
in lieu of a PT fell under the same rule. What caused my question
is that in the AIM (5-4-8, section b) the discussion splits limitations
on PTs and on holds in lieu of PTs:

1. In the case of a radar initial approach to a final approach fix or
position, or a timed approach from a holding fix, or where the procedure
specifies NoPT, no pilot may make a procedure turn unless, when final
approach clearance is received, the pilot so advises ATC and a clearance
is received to execute a procedure turn.

3. When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern
must be followed, except when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT
is shown on the approach course.

So that in section 1 above it says you may not do a PT if it says
NoPT, while in section 3 it says you must do a hold in lieu of a PT
unless it says NoPT. Under section 3 alone, it would seem possible
that a hold in lieu of a PT is permitted but not required if it
says NoPT. I write this just to explain why I was unsure. Everyone
here seems to agree that just like a PT, a hold in lieu of a PT
is not permitted if it says NoPT.

--
David Rind

On 8 Apr 2004 15:29:46 -0700, (Andrew Sarangan)
wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in message >...
>> On 08 Apr 2004 12:44:43 GMT, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>>
>> >The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
>> >you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
>> >non radar environment.
>>
>> Would it not be more accurate to say "this all assumes" you are not in a
>> "radar vectors to final" situation?
>>
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>Yes, of course. I had inadvertantly assumed radar environment to mean
>radar vectoring. However, I can't think of any time when ATC did not
>vector me in a radar environment unless I specifically requested a
>full approach.

Well, ATC has certain requirements in order to give you vectors to final.
And those requirements are not always met even in a "radar environment".
For example -- my home base.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

> Well, ATC has certain requirements in order to give you vectors to final.
> And those requirements are not always met even in a "radar environment".
> For example -- my home base.

What are those requirements? Are you talking about MVA?

According to Don Brown of Avweb, the FAC must be painted on the center radar
scope in order to issue vectors:

"As far as the "unable vectors" goes ... for controllers at the Centers, the
FAC (final approach course) must be depicted if we are to vector aircraft to
it. If it's not depicted, we can't vector for it. Period. Again, I don't
believe there is any way for a pilot to know this or find out ahead of time.
All you can do is ask."

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/186645-1.html



"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
> Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
> :
>
> > Well, ATC has certain requirements in order to give you vectors to
final.
> > And those requirements are not always met even in a "radar environment".
> > For example -- my home base.
>
> What are those requirements? Are you talking about MVA?

On 09 Apr 2004 00:37:42 GMT, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

>What are those requirements? Are you talking about MVA?

Oh no. I'm sure someone will correct me if I have it wrong, but there are
requirements for the radar scale display, as well as having the approach
gate and a line representing the final approach course depicted on the
radar screen. I think the line has to be a certain length. There may be
other requirements of which I am not aware.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On 09 Apr 2004 00:37:42 GMT, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

>What are those requirements? Are you talking about MVA?

Just as an addendum, the requirement to have the course depicted on the
screen is certainly true for ARTCC's. Whether it is also true for terminal
radar facilities I'm not sure. I seem to recall some discussions along
that line in the past.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
> :
>
> > Well, ATC has certain requirements in order to give you vectors to final.
> > And those requirements are not always met even in a "radar environment".
> > For example -- my home base.
>
> What are those requirements? Are you talking about MVA?

The "final approach course" and approach gate (radar fix one mile prior to FAF
or 5 miles from the runway threshold, whichever is further) must be displayed
on the ATC video map. If the facility elects not to have the IAP video-mapped
in this manner then vectors to final are not permitted.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On 09 Apr 2004 00:37:42 GMT, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
> >What are those requirements? Are you talking about MVA?
>
> Just as an addendum, the requirement to have the course depicted on the
> screen is certainly true for ARTCC's. Whether it is also true for terminal
> radar facilities I'm not sure. I seem to recall some discussions along
> that line in the past.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Has to be appropriately video-mapped for approach controls as well.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
om...

> Yes, of course. I had inadvertantly assumed radar environment to mean
> radar vectoring. However, I can't think of any time when ATC did not
> vector me in a radar environment unless I specifically requested a
> full approach.

Well, people are coming up with exceptions, although I understand what
you're saying. Here's another: you can be close enough on the far side of an
on-field VOR that you'll be let loose to do the full VOR approach. Last time
I did that at Paine field the tower controller remarked on how quickly I had
done the PT: it was a 90-270 but I had gone far enough out not to need a
slam-dunk.

-- David Brooks