First "real" hold (long)

[Dan Luke]

Yesterday, for the first time since I got the instrument rating 5 years
ago, I had to hold for real.

It was a reposition flight from Mobile Downtown to Pensacola to pick up
an Angel Flight. When I checked the weather at home at 6am, fog was
reported everywhere on the central Gulf Coast - the nearest legal
alternate I found was Birmingham. Mobile was below minimums, but PNS
was just at minimums and forecast to improve slightly. When I took off,
BFM was still below minimums for the ILS, and when I checked the PNS
ATIS it was <1/4, indefinite ceiling 100.

The PNS approach controller reported the RVR as 100 with that "are you
sure you want to do this?" tone (don't you just hate to hear that tone
from a controller?), so I told him I'd try one ILS, then go hold a while
if I missed. Sure enough, at DH there was no sign of any lights, so off
to the Saufley VOR I went to wait.

Holding is boring. After a couple of turns to get it nailed, ones
attention tends to wander. It becomes a real effort to remember to
restart the clock outbound each time. I must admit I missed the
outbound flag drop a couple of times in the first 30 minutes and had to
check the GPS to know when to turn back inbound.

It was about this time that a series of technical problems started.
First, the HI bug started sticking, then the portable GPS started losing
satellite link every time I keyed the radio (fixed that by moving the
antenna to a different spot on the glareshield). There were more
problems later.

30 minutes' wait only got the RVR up to 200, so I told Approach I wanted
30 more. I could see the fog becoming patchy south and west of the
airport, but I still had to start considering my fuel state: I might
actually have to fly 250 miles to find somewhere to land with reserves.
Unlikely, but ya gotta go with it. The thought of being above a
thousand square miles of 100' ceilings with low fuel is enough to make
me very conservative.

In the event, after about 20 minutes a C-208 came in and completed the
approach and the rvr was up to 400, so I asked for vectors for another
try. The next technical glitch appeared at the outer marker when the
flaps refused to work until I toggled the handle a few times (at least
it wasn't the landing gear!). That problem dealt with, I headed down
the glide slope with more than usual concentration on keeping the
needles centered; I wanted to make this one. This time I saw enough
lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and that was it: made it.

By the time the Angel Flight pax were loaded (something of an ordeal)
the field had gone from socked-in to VFR. Very typical Gulf Coast
autumn morning.

Post script: more tech problems.
The pax Lightspeed 25XL headset wouldn't power up - no big deal, I'm
used to things like that with that headset. The next thing was more
serious. My WxWorx setup, which has been solid for a year, crapped out
on me. Actually, it was the Sony notebook it's hosted on. The USB com
port the WxWorx receiver is plugged into went away. I like to do a lot
of things in airplanes, but troubleshooting pc com port problems while
IFR with a couple of nervous pax aboard isn't one of them. I wrapped
the cables up and stowed the pc. This might have been a flight killer
if there had been a lot of convective stuff around. Still, it made me
realize how much I like having other features of the system available,
particularly METARs and TAFs.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[john smith]

So what is the cause of the electrical problems?

[Peter R.]

Dan Luke ) wrote:

> Yesterday, for the first time since I got the instrument rating 5 years
> ago, I had to hold for real.
<snip>

Enjoyed your story. Thanks for posting it, Dan.
--
Peter

[Scott Skylane]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Yesterday, for the first time since I got the instrument rating 5 years
> ago, I had to hold for real.
>
> It was a reposition flight from Mobile Downtown to Pensacola to pick up
> an Angel Flight. When I checked the weather at home at 6am, fog was
> reported everywhere on the central Gulf Coast - the nearest legal
> alternate I found was Birmingham. Mobile was below minimums, but PNS
> was just at minimums and forecast to improve slightly. When I took off,
> BFM was still below minimums for the ILS, and when I checked the PNS
> ATIS it was <1/4, indefinite ceiling 100.
>
> The PNS approach controller reported the RVR as 100 with that "are you
> sure you want to do this?" tone (don't you just hate to hear that tone
> from a controller?), so I told him I'd try one ILS, then go hold a while
> if I missed. Sure enough, at DH there was no sign of any lights, so off
> to the Saufley VOR I went to wait.
>
> Holding is boring. After a couple of turns to get it nailed, ones
> attention tends to wander. It becomes a real effort to remember to
> restart the clock outbound each time. I must admit I missed the
> outbound flag drop a couple of times in the first 30 minutes and had to
> check the GPS to know when to turn back inbound.
/snip/

Dan,

Congrats on a successful "hard" IFR flight!
Here's a tip from the real world of holding: Don't busy yourself with
the student excercise of timing every turn. You yourself noticed that
the GPS provided accurate turn indications, and this is how it's done,
after the first few tracks are timed to establish the local conditions.
Or, even better, just ask the controller for legs of a certain
distance (5 miles, or 10), and use the DME or GPS to fly the legs. Much
less busy work!

P.S. Did you really mean RVR's of 100 & 400??? Or maybe 1000 & 4000...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Dan Luke]

"Scott Skylane" wrote:
> Here's a tip from the real world of holding: Don't busy yourself with
> the student excercise of timing every turn. You yourself noticed that
> the GPS provided accurate turn indications, and this is how it's done,
> after the first few tracks are timed to establish the local
> conditions.

I suppose so. I always have this feeling my old CFII is sitting in the
right seat, shaking his head when I don't do something "by the book."

> Or, even better, just ask the controller for legs of a certain
> distance (5 miles, or 10), and use the DME or GPS to fly the legs.
> Much less busy work!
>
> P.S. Did you really mean RVR's of 100 & 400???

That's what the man said.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"john smith" wrote:
> So what is the cause of the electrical problems?


The GPS outages are due to a faulty Cessna radio transmitter; I've had
it happen before. Swapping out the ARC 385 NAV-COM unit will fix that.

The flap thing is probably the control going bad. I'll have it in the
shop this week if I can't fix it myself.

The brand new battery box/controller on the Lightspeed headset has
apparently died. It was installed as part of a $75 upgrade offer from
Lightspeed to add a cell phone jack to the unit. This is typical of
Lightspeed "quality" in my experience.

Still can't figure out what's wrong with the pc com port.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Scott D.]

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:56:11 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:


>
>30 minutes' wait only got the RVR up to 200, so I told Approach I wanted
>30 more. I could see the fog becoming patchy south and west of the
>airport, but I still had to start considering my fuel state: I might
>actually have to fly 250 miles to find somewhere to land with reserves.
>Unlikely, but ya gotta go with it. The thought of being above a
>thousand square miles of 100' ceilings with low fuel is enough to make
>me very conservative.
>
>In the event, after about 20 minutes a C-208 came in and completed the
>approach and the rvr was up to 400, so I asked for vectors for another
>try. The next technical glitch appeared at the outer marker when the
>flaps refused to work until I toggled the handle a few times (at least
>it wasn't the landing gear!). That problem dealt with, I headed down
>the glide slope with more than usual concentration on keeping the
>needles centered; I wanted to make this one. This time I saw enough
>lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and that was it: made it.
>
Sounds alot like a hold I had several years ago at GTU in Texas.
After trying the NDB approach, I went and held for an hour and ten
minutes until the clouds decided to climb up enought to try again.
What made matters worst, was the fact that we had around a 42 knot
tail wind on the outbound leg, which made for a 15 second outbound
just for a 1 min inbound. Talk about work!

When I asked the controler for another shot, it sounded like he was
feeling sorry for me buy the tone in his voice. He asked me to make
one more round while he moved several aircraft around. Then he gave
me the go ahead. It sure was a pretty site when the runway came into
view. I was glad to be on the ground. I needed the break.


Scott D.

[Roy Smith]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> I suppose so. I always have this feeling my old CFII is sitting in the
> right seat, shaking his head when I don't do something "by the book."

Single-pilot IFR is all about task prioritization. Take care of the
important stuff, and don't waste time on the **** that doesn't matter.
As long as you stay in the protected airspace, nobody cares what your
holds look like, or how perfectly timed the legs are.

Save the mental effort for important things like making sure your fuel
planning is right, getting a good picture of the weather from flight
watch so you know when to divert (and where), and briefing the approach
you're about to fly.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, Scott D. <>
wrote:

> What made matters worst, was the fact that we had around a 42 knot
> tail wind on the outbound leg, which made for a 15 second outbound
> just for a 1 min inbound. Talk about work!

In a situation like that, you can make life easier on yourself by asking
for longer legs.

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
> Dan,
>
> > > P.S. Did you really mean RVR's of 100 & 400???
> >
> > That's what the man said.
> >
>
> Then let me ask what Scott implied: How did you manage a CAT I approach
> with minimums of 200 and a half mile (3000 feet!) in that?

Evidently, I didn't. I tried another approach because a Caravan had just
made it in. When I touched down, the vis. looked like at least 1/2 mile, to
me. Remember, less than an hour later the field was VFR so things were
changing rapidly.

> Seems
> impossible to me - 400 and 3000 are quite a difference.

Yes.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> Evidently, I didn't.
>

Got it. Oh, and as others have said: Thanks for sharing the story!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

Thomas Borchert > wrote
> Then let me ask what Scott implied: How did you manage a CAT I approach
> with minimums of 200 and a half mile (3000 feet!) in that? Seems
> impossible to me - 400 and 3000 are quite a difference.

Not to pick nits (OK, to pick nits) but CAT I mins can have an RVR as
low as 1800 ft.

Not 400 though.

Michael

[Dave Butler]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Yesterday, for the first time since I got the instrument rating 5 years
> ago, I had to hold for real.
>
> It was a reposition flight from Mobile Downtown to Pensacola to pick up
> an Angel Flight. When I checked the weather at home at 6am, fog was
> reported everywhere on the central Gulf Coast - the nearest legal
> alternate I found was Birmingham. Mobile was below minimums, but PNS
> was just at minimums and forecast to improve slightly. When I took off,
> BFM was still below minimums for the ILS, and when I checked the PNS
> ATIS it was <1/4, indefinite ceiling 100.

Did you consider postponing the flight until PNS was reporting weather that you
would need to complete the approach? According to my calculations, this was only
a 46 mile flight, so it wouldn't have delayed your arrival at PNS by much, and
would have saved you a bunch of fuel used in holding, not to mention the risk
exposure of being airborne with nowhere to land.

<snip>

> That problem dealt with, I headed down
> the glide slope with more than usual concentration on keeping the
> needles centered; I wanted to make this one. This time I saw enough
> lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and that was it: made it.

.... and you also had the required flight visibility?

<snip>

--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367

[Chip Jones]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > I suppose so. I always have this feeling my old CFII is sitting in the
> > right seat, shaking his head when I don't do something "by the book."
>
> Single-pilot IFR is all about task prioritization. Take care of the
> important stuff, and don't waste time on the **** that doesn't matter.
> As long as you stay in the protected airspace, nobody cares what your
> holds look like, or how perfectly timed the legs are.

From an ATC stand-point, most controllers certainly could care less what a
hold looks like when flown. Personally, I just want you to maintain
assigned altitude and meander in orbit somewhere over the fix in the general
direction assigned. We controllers get really conservative around holding
patterns, and a tightly-flown pattern really doesn't matter. Likely, no one
in ATC-land will even notice if you nail the turns and the times, because
they are looking at a lot of other stuff on the scope. The prudent
controller will be using vertical separation below and above your protected
airspace, and he/she will be adding a lot of extra lateral protection around
your bubble too, just in case.

Chip, ZTL

[Roy Smith]

"Chip Jones" > wrote:
> From an ATC stand-point, most controllers certainly could care less what a
> hold looks like when flown. Personally, I just want you to maintain
> assigned altitude and meander in orbit somewhere over the fix in the general
> direction assigned.

One thing I have noticed is that while ATC doesn't seem to care much
about where you go on the holding side of the fix, if you meander just a
little bit PAST the holding fix, you're likely to get a call politely
enquiring if you have any idea where the hell you are.

[Dan Luke]

"Dave Butler" wrote:
> Did you consider postponing the flight until PNS was reporting weather
> that you would need to complete the approach? According to my
> calculations, this was only a 46 mile flight, so it wouldn't have
> delayed
> your arrival at PNS by much, and would have saved you a bunch
> of fuel used in holding, ...

Good question. Yes, I did consider it, but at the time I took off, my
information was that PNS was at minimums with improvement forecast. I
wanted to get the first leg of the Angel Flight started on time if
possible, because there were other people - next leg pilot, patient's
relatives, etc. - waiting on the flight.

> ...not to mention the risk exposure of being
> airborne with nowhere to land

Well, the airplane has 6+ hours endurance at max range power, so I
wasn't _too_ worried.

>> This time I saw enough lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and
>> that was it: made it.
>
> ... and you also had the required flight visibility?

To be honest, I must say I did not count how many markings I could see
down the runway. I was spring-loaded for another miss if it didn't look
good to me. At DH I had the threshold lights; 100' lower, it looked to
me like I had plenty of vis.

This was not the first ILS I ever flew to minimums but it was the first
one where I _really_ needed the extra 100' to get in. It was a very
rapid transition from total whiteout to not-so-bad.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Michelle P]

Dan,
You have me beat by about 30 minutes. I had to hold once for 30 minutes
to start and approach into Potomac Airfield near Washington, DC.
Michelle

Dan Luke wrote:

>Yesterday, for the first time since I got the instrument rating 5 years
>ago, I had to hold for real.
>
>It was a reposition flight from Mobile Downtown to Pensacola to pick up
>an Angel Flight. When I checked the weather at home at 6am, fog was
>reported everywhere on the central Gulf Coast - the nearest legal
>alternate I found was Birmingham. Mobile was below minimums, but PNS
>was just at minimums and forecast to improve slightly. When I took off,
>BFM was still below minimums for the ILS, and when I checked the PNS
>ATIS it was <1/4, indefinite ceiling 100.
>
>The PNS approach controller reported the RVR as 100 with that "are you
>sure you want to do this?" tone (don't you just hate to hear that tone
>from a controller?), so I told him I'd try one ILS, then go hold a while
>if I missed. Sure enough, at DH there was no sign of any lights, so off
>to the Saufley VOR I went to wait.
>
>Holding is boring. After a couple of turns to get it nailed, ones
>attention tends to wander. It becomes a real effort to remember to
>restart the clock outbound each time. I must admit I missed the
>outbound flag drop a couple of times in the first 30 minutes and had to
>check the GPS to know when to turn back inbound.
>
>It was about this time that a series of technical problems started.
>First, the HI bug started sticking, then the portable GPS started losing
>satellite link every time I keyed the radio (fixed that by moving the
>antenna to a different spot on the glareshield). There were more
>problems later.
>
>30 minutes' wait only got the RVR up to 200, so I told Approach I wanted
>30 more. I could see the fog becoming patchy south and west of the
>airport, but I still had to start considering my fuel state: I might
>actually have to fly 250 miles to find somewhere to land with reserves.
>Unlikely, but ya gotta go with it. The thought of being above a
>thousand square miles of 100' ceilings with low fuel is enough to make
>me very conservative.
>
>In the event, after about 20 minutes a C-208 came in and completed the
>approach and the rvr was up to 400, so I asked for vectors for another
>try. The next technical glitch appeared at the outer marker when the
>flaps refused to work until I toggled the handle a few times (at least
>it wasn't the landing gear!). That problem dealt with, I headed down
>the glide slope with more than usual concentration on keeping the
>needles centered; I wanted to make this one. This time I saw enough
>lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and that was it: made it.
>
>By the time the Angel Flight pax were loaded (something of an ordeal)
>the field had gone from socked-in to VFR. Very typical Gulf Coast
>autumn morning.
>
>Post script: more tech problems.
>The pax Lightspeed 25XL headset wouldn't power up - no big deal, I'm
>used to things like that with that headset. The next thing was more
>serious. My WxWorx setup, which has been solid for a year, crapped out
>on me. Actually, it was the Sony notebook it's hosted on. The USB com
>port the WxWorx receiver is plugged into went away. I like to do a lot
>of things in airplanes, but troubleshooting pc com port problems while
>IFR with a couple of nervous pax aboard isn't one of them. I wrapped
>the cables up and stowed the pc. This might have been a flight killer
>if there had been a lot of convective stuff around. Still, it made me
>realize how much I like having other features of the system available,
>particularly METARs and TAFs.
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Newps]

Chip Jones wrote:

>
> From an ATC stand-point, most controllers certainly could care less what a
> hold looks like when flown. Personally, I just want you to maintain
> assigned altitude and meander in orbit somewhere over the fix in the general
> direction assigned. We controllers get really conservative around holding
> patterns, and a tightly-flown pattern really doesn't matter. Likely, no one
> in ATC-land will even notice if you nail the turns and the times, because
> they are looking at a lot of other stuff on the scope. The prudent
> controller will be using vertical separation below and above your protected
> airspace, and he/she will be adding a lot of extra lateral protection around
> your bubble too, just in case.

And unless you are in a charted holding pattern the idea of a protected
side and unprotected side is pretty funny too.

[Dan Luke]

"Roy Smith" wrote:
> > I suppose so. I always have this feeling my old CFII is sitting in the
> > right seat, shaking his head when I don't do something "by the book."
>
> Single-pilot IFR is all about task prioritization. Take care of the
> important stuff, and don't waste time on the **** that doesn't matter.
> As long as you stay in the protected airspace, nobody cares what your
> holds look like, or how perfectly timed the legs are.

> Save the mental effort for important things like making sure your fuel
> planning is right, getting a good picture of the weather from flight
> watch so you know when to divert (and where), and briefing the approach
> you're about to fly.

Good points, I know, but after 20 minutes of holding you've done all that
and you'e really in need of something else to do! The PNS controller was
doing a good job of updating aircraft on the freq. about conditions at
nearby airports, but calling FW would have been a good idea.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Doug]

Ask for 6 mile legs.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message >...
> "Roy Smith" wrote:
> > > I suppose so. I always have this feeling my old CFII is sitting in the
> > > right seat, shaking his head when I don't do something "by the book."
> >
> > Single-pilot IFR is all about task prioritization. Take care of the
> > important stuff, and don't waste time on the **** that doesn't matter.
> > As long as you stay in the protected airspace, nobody cares what your
> > holds look like, or how perfectly timed the legs are.
>
> > Save the mental effort for important things like making sure your fuel
> > planning is right, getting a good picture of the weather from flight
> > watch so you know when to divert (and where), and briefing the approach
> > you're about to fly.
>
> Good points, I know, but after 20 minutes of holding you've done all that
> and you'e really in need of something else to do! The PNS controller was
> doing a good job of updating aircraft on the freq. about conditions at
> nearby airports, but calling FW would have been a good idea.

[Scott D.]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 07:57:31 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >, Scott D. <>
>wrote:
>
>> What made matters worst, was the fact that we had around a 42 knot
>> tail wind on the outbound leg, which made for a 15 second outbound
>> just for a 1 min inbound. Talk about work!
>
>In a situation like that, you can make life easier on yourself by asking
>for longer legs.

You know, honestly that never really occurred to me. That was about
the first real hold that I ever had to do in about 5 years of flying
so my first thought was, am I actually doing this correctly :) But
that is something to think about if I ever had to do that again.

Today, I was stuck at SAF waiting for the fog to burn off because we
had some avionic/electrical issues on the plane I was flying and I
told my boss that I was not going to fly out of their IFR with some
known issues and that we were going to wait till it went VFR, but in
the mean time, We were out on the flight line when we heard a jet
going missed, we could hear him but could not see him. Then about an
hour later here he came and went again. I knew his pain and felt
sorry for him. Then about another hour later, the fog had lifted
enough and he was able to set it on the ground. It was a Challenger.
I talked to the pilot and asked him how long he had held and he said
that was the longest 2 hours he had ever lived. He said he had enough
fuel for 1 more hour but he didn't thing that "HE" would have made it.


Scott D.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> Ask for 6 mile legs.

You wouldn't need a plane if you had 6 mile legs.

Paul