Newbie holding questions

[JohnK]

I am getting ready to start IFR training next week, and there are a
couple of questions regarding holding that I have been pondering.
(Searched through here already, but couldn't find the answers...at
least spelled out for me ;)

When being assigned a hold, will ATC usually assign an altitude as
well? None of the samples I've seen in the FAA text or the AIM mention
an altitude in a clearance, and it made me wonder what happens when a
large volume of aircraft are holding at a busy airport waiting to land.
Do they "stack 'em and rack 'em" (like it looked the two times I've
flown into LHR), or do they have them hold all over the place (which I
observed on the BOS Airport Monitor a few weeks ago when that snowstorm
rolled through.)

Secondly, what happens there is a holding pattern used to enter an
approach to landing, and there are multiple aircraft landing? For
example, if there were several planes flying into Charlottesville (CHO)
from the east (GVE VOR, 17 nm), wouldn't everyone be entering the
holding pattern at 3300', thus creating a collision hazard? Or would
ATC only clear one aircraft at a time for the approach? Which doesn't
seem to do much for volume, but normally isn't an issue at a place like
CHO unless there is a football game....

Thanks in advance.

JohnK
PP-ASEL, IA student

[Peter R.]

JohnK > wrote:

> When being assigned a hold, will ATC usually assign an altitude as
> well?

In the Northeast US, I always hear altitude included in the holding
instruction.

>
> Secondly, what happens there is a holding pattern used to enter an
> approach to landing, and there are multiple aircraft landing?

At airports without radar coverage for the approach, only one aircraft will
be cleared for the published approach at a time. Other aircraft inbound
will be placed in a hold well outside of the approach until the aircraft on
approach cancels IFR, either in the air or on the ground.

At airports that have radar coverage on the approach (controlled or
uncontrolled) aircraft are simply vectored to the final approach course and
any published course reversals are bypassed.


--
Peter

[Roy Smith]

JohnK > wrote:
>When being assigned a hold, will ATC usually assign an altitude as
>well?

If you're IFR, you *always* have an altitude assignment. Sometimes
it's a single altitude (maintain 3000), sometimes it's a limit (at or
above 4000). If a new altitude is not explicitly issued along with
the holding instructions, you last assigned altitude still applies.


> what happens when a large volume of aircraft are holding at a busy
> airport waiting to land.

A lot of fuel gets wasted :-)

> Do they "stack 'em and rack 'em" (like it looked the two times I've
> flown into LHR), or do they have them hold all over the place (which I
> observed on the BOS Airport Monitor a few weeks ago when that snowstorm
> rolled through.)

In theory, they could have multiple aircraft holding at the same fix
at different altitudes. The one on the bottom is cleared to land, the
ones above get cleared down to lower altitudes, and new arrivals get
thrown onto the top of the stack. In practice, that never happens any
more. Flow control procedures at busy airports are supposed to ensure
that flights don't get cleared for takeoff until a slot is available
for them at their destination. Still, **** happens and sometimes you
end up with more flights arriving at once than can land, so you gotta
do something with them. Delaying vectors are more common than holding
stacks.

> Secondly, what happens there is a holding pattern used to enter an
> approach to landing, and there are multiple aircraft landing?

Virtually all real IFR traffic these days is given vectors to final.
None of this holding at the IAF **** unless you're in training, or out
in the boonies somewhere and there's no radar coverage.

[Peter R.]

Roy Smith > wrote:

> Delaying vectors are more common than holding
> stacks.

Which strategy ATC chooses to use to slow approaching aircraft is probably
related to location, rather than the type.

For aircraft approaching NY or Boston airports, I have found that holds are
more common than delaying vectors when the weather really falls apart.

--
Peter

[John Kirksey]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> JohnK > wrote:
>
> > When being assigned a hold, will ATC usually assign an altitude as
> > well?
>
> In the Northeast US, I always hear altitude included in the holding
> instruction.
>
> >
> > Secondly, what happens there is a holding pattern used to enter an
> > approach to landing, and there are multiple aircraft landing?
>
> At airports without radar coverage for the approach, only one aircraft
will
> be cleared for the published approach at a time. Other aircraft inbound
> will be placed in a hold well outside of the approach until the aircraft
on
> approach cancels IFR, either in the air or on the ground.
>
> At airports that have radar coverage on the approach (controlled or
> uncontrolled) aircraft are simply vectored to the final approach course
and
> any published course reversals are bypassed.
>
>
> --
> Peter

Makes sense, thanks Peter!

John K

[[email protected]]

Peter R. wrote:


>
> At airports without radar coverage for the approach, only one aircraft will
> be cleared for the published approach at a time. Other aircraft inbound
> will be placed in a hold well outside of the approach until the aircraft on
> approach cancels IFR, either in the air or on the ground.
At some locations timed approaches permit more than one approach at a
time, provided the holding pattern meets criteria and the missed
approach does not conflict with the inbound tracks.

Timed approaches were once used a lot, then over time diminished in
their use, and now they are on the increase again.

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> At some locations timed approaches permit more than one approach at a
> time, provided the holding pattern meets criteria and the missed
> approach does not conflict with the inbound tracks.
>
> Timed approaches were once used a lot, then over time diminished in
> their use, and now they are on the increase again.

Thanks, Tim.

What are some example of airports where timed approaches are in use?

--
Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

Is there any airport that uses timed approaches? I though this was FAA
legacy stuff. Could be useful during high traffic fly-ins if there is
no radar though I guess.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"JohnK" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I am getting ready to start IFR training next week, and there are a
> couple of questions regarding holding that I have been pondering.
> (Searched through here already, but couldn't find the answers...at
> least spelled out for me ;)
>
> When being assigned a hold, will ATC usually assign an altitude as
> well?
>

No, an altitude is not specifically part of a holding instruction. There'd
be no need to issue an altitude if you're to hold at the currently assigned
altitude.


>
> None of the samples I've seen in the FAA text or the AIM mention
> an altitude in a clearance, and it made me wonder what happens when a
> large volume of aircraft are holding at a busy airport waiting to land.
> Do they "stack 'em and rack 'em" (like it looked the two times I've
> flown into LHR), or do they have them hold all over the place (which I
> observed on the BOS Airport Monitor a few weeks ago when that snowstorm
> rolled through.)
>

They may do both and also employ other floe control measures.


>
> Secondly, what happens there is a holding pattern used to enter an
> approach to landing, and there are multiple aircraft landing? For
> example, if there were several planes flying into Charlottesville (CHO)
> from the east (GVE VOR, 17 nm), wouldn't everyone be entering the
> holding pattern at 3300', thus creating a collision hazard? Or would
> ATC only clear one aircraft at a time for the approach? Which doesn't
> seem to do much for volume, but normally isn't an issue at a place like
> CHO unless there is a football game....
>

At CHO they will be radar sequenced for the approach, football game or not.

[Jim Macklin]

An EFC should always be part of a hold clearance, if they
forget, ask.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "JohnK" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| >
| > I am getting ready to start IFR training next week, and
there are a
| > couple of questions regarding holding that I have been
pondering.
| > (Searched through here already, but couldn't find the
answers...at
| > least spelled out for me ;)
| >
| > When being assigned a hold, will ATC usually assign an
altitude as
| > well?
| >
|
| No, an altitude is not specifically part of a holding
instruction. There'd
| be no need to issue an altitude if you're to hold at the
currently assigned
| altitude.
|
|
| >
| > None of the samples I've seen in the FAA text or the AIM
mention
| > an altitude in a clearance, and it made me wonder what
happens when a
| > large volume of aircraft are holding at a busy airport
waiting to land.
| > Do they "stack 'em and rack 'em" (like it looked the two
times I've
| > flown into LHR), or do they have them hold all over the
place (which I
| > observed on the BOS Airport Monitor a few weeks ago when
that snowstorm
| > rolled through.)
| >
|
| They may do both and also employ other floe control
measures.
|
|
| >
| > Secondly, what happens there is a holding pattern used
to enter an
| > approach to landing, and there are multiple aircraft
landing? For
| > example, if there were several planes flying into
Charlottesville (CHO)
| > from the east (GVE VOR, 17 nm), wouldn't everyone be
entering the
| > holding pattern at 3300', thus creating a collision
hazard? Or would
| > ATC only clear one aircraft at a time for the approach?
Which doesn't
| > seem to do much for volume, but normally isn't an issue
at a place like
| > CHO unless there is a football game....
| >
|
| At CHO they will be radar sequenced for the approach,
football game or not.
|
|

[JPH]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Is there any airport that uses timed approaches? I though this was FAA
> legacy stuff. Could be useful during high traffic fly-ins if there is
> no radar though I guess.
>

In the USAF, we used timed approaches off and on in the Approach Control
facilities (RAPCONS), works well when you have lots of recoveries of
similar type aircraft from the same area and they all need a complete
procedure from the IAF for proficiency.
When I was in the USAF, they also used a compressed version of timed
approaches that crammed a whole lot of recovering airplanes into a small
area. It was called ASLAR (Aircraft Surge Launch and Recovery) and was
designed for periods when the radar was inop or it was inadvisable to
turn the radar on, and weather was IFR. It required pilot proficiency
and training in ASLAR and specific airspeeds to be flown at specific
points on the procedure so that a following aircraft would not overtake
a preceding aircraft. ASLAR also had the capacity to allow a wingman to
"drag" behind the lead on final so that by the time they got to the
runway they had full runway separation. It was more efficient than
using radar in some situations.

JPH

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Xk0vf.40491$QW2.2848@dukeread08...
>
> An EFC should always be part of a hold clearance, if they
> forget, ask.
>

An EFC is not issued when no delay is expected.

[Jim Macklin]

But if no delay is expected and you have a radio failure
without an EFC, just how long are you expected to hold?

If you are given a clearance to hold w/o an EFC there is
still some delay expected, otherwise ATC would not issue a
hold. Make them say how much delay or give an EFC/EAC time
or you'll be holding until the fuel runs out. Maybe the
book does not require ATC to issue a time, but my sense of
self-preservation wants to know.

If I'm told to expect a hold, perhaps there are weather
delays or even a traffic situation [maybe a NORDO ahead]
I'll ask for a reduced speed, perhaps I filed 260 KTAS and
can slow to 200-220 KTAS and avoid holding and still give
them time.

If I have requested a hold for training, I'll tell them I
want 3 or four turns and I'll try to do it away from the FAF
to ease the load on the system.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Xk0vf.40491$QW2.2848@dukeread08...
| >
| > An EFC should always be part of a hold clearance, if
they
| > forget, ask.
| >
|
| An EFC is not issued when no delay is expected.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:%D0vf.40496$QW2.15228@dukeread08...
>
> But if no delay is expected and you have a radio failure
> without an EFC, just how long are you expected to hold?
>

You're not expected to hold.


>
> If you are given a clearance to hold w/o an EFC there is
> still some delay expected, otherwise ATC would not issue a
> hold.
>

If a delay was expected an EFC would have been issued.


>
> Make them say how much delay or give an EFC/EAC time
> or you'll be holding until the fuel runs out. Maybe the
> book does not require ATC to issue a time, but my sense of
> self-preservation wants to know.
>

How much delay? The answer is "None." The book says do not specify an EFC
if no delay is expected. If your sense of self-preservation can't live with
that don't fly IFR.

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 03:35:47 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:Xk0vf.40491$QW2.2848@dukeread08...
>>
>> An EFC should always be part of a hold clearance, if they
>> forget, ask.
>>
>
> An EFC is not issued when no delay is expected.

If no delay is expected, then why be put in the hold in the first place?

If no EFC and radios go belly up while in IMC, when would you know to leave
the hold?

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> If no delay is expected, then why be put in the hold in the first place?
>

It's a tool of nonradar separation, it's called a "paper stop". Let's say
two aircraft are estimated to cross at a fix eight minutes apart. Minimum
separation is ten minutes, so some action must be taken. The later aircraft
is issued a hold prior to the common fix. Since the first aircraft is
expected to pass the common fix before the second aircraft reaches the
holding fix no delay is expected and no EFC is issued.


>
> If no EFC and radios go belly up while in IMC, when would you know to
> leave
> the hold?
>

Without an EFC I wouldn't enter the hold. It's a moot point anyway,
whatever caused my comm radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the
same way and I won't be able to identify the holding fix.

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 03:57:35 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> How much delay? The answer is "None." The book says do not specify an EFC
> if no delay is expected.

I respectfully disagree as there is time frame in your book.taken from
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0404.html

5. When no delay is expected, the controller should issue a clearance
beyond the fix as soon as possible and, whenever possible, at least
5 minutes before the aircraft reaches the clearance limit.

So, if you don't give me a clearance beyond my fix, then the pilot should
expecting an EFC if he has to hold over a fix.

In other words, as soon as I have to enter a hold, I should be expecting an
EFC as now there is a delay. After all, you have me spinning in circles.

My expected time enroute does not include time to hold over a fix.

Allen

[Roy Smith]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> whatever caused my comm radios to go belly up will affect my nav
> radios the same way

The most common cause of radio failure is electrical failure, which
will indeed take out both your com and your nav, but there are
scenarios which will just take out your com. I've once had a relay in
the audio panel go TU and do exactly that. I once had a com radio
fail in a way that just produced intensly loud static.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I respectfully disagree as there is time frame in your book.taken from
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0404.html
>
> 5. When no delay is expected, the controller should issue a clearance
> beyond the fix as soon as possible and, whenever possible, at least
> 5 minutes before the aircraft reaches the clearance limit.
>
> So, if you don't give me a clearance beyond my fix, then the pilot should
> expecting an EFC if he has to hold over a fix.
>
> In other words, as soon as I have to enter a hold, I should be expecting
> an
> EFC as now there is a delay. After all, you have me spinning in circles.
>
> My expected time enroute does not include time to hold over a fix.
>

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0406.html#4-6-1

See subparagraph c.

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:22:11 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> If no EFC and radios go belly up while in IMC, when would you know to
>> leave
>> the hold?
>>
>
> Without an EFC I wouldn't enter the hold. It's a moot point anyway,
> whatever caused my comm radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the
> same way and I won't be able to identify the holding fix.

Not true. Stuck mic comes to mind quickly. Squelch set too high would be
second in mind. Something could fry within the com unit....

NAV still works, and before radios went south, at least the EFC would allow
me to navigate predictably. Again, realizing remotely possible, the rules
and regs did build this in with the EFC feature.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The most common cause of radio failure is electrical failure, which
> will indeed take out both your com and your nav, but there are
> scenarios which will just take out your com. I've once had a relay in
> the audio panel go TU and do exactly that. I once had a com radio
> fail in a way that just produced intensly loud static.
>

I have headset jacks that bypass the audio panel

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Not true. Stuck mic comes to mind quickly.
>

A stuck mic is not a situation where the radios have gone belly up, it's a
situation that illuminates a light on the panel and is soon rectified.


>
> Squelch set too high would be second in mind.
>

I don't set the squelch too high.


>
> Something could fry within the com unit....
>

....but wouldn't affect the other one.

[Jim Macklin]

A hold, by definition is a delay.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:%D0vf.40496$QW2.15228@dukeread08...
| >
| > But if no delay is expected and you have a radio failure
| > without an EFC, just how long are you expected to hold?
| >
|
| You're not expected to hold.
|
|
| >
| > If you are given a clearance to hold w/o an EFC there is
| > still some delay expected, otherwise ATC would not issue
a
| > hold.
| >
|
| If a delay was expected an EFC would have been issued.
|
|
| >
| > Make them say how much delay or give an EFC/EAC time
| > or you'll be holding until the fuel runs out. Maybe the
| > book does not require ATC to issue a time, but my sense
of
| > self-preservation wants to know.
| >
|
| How much delay? The answer is "None." The book says do
not specify an EFC
| if no delay is expected. If your sense of
self-preservation can't live with
| that don't fly IFR.
|
|

[Jim Carter]

Steve,
I'm not understanding your comment about "not expected to hold"
in the even of a radio failure without an EFC time. Are you implying
that as soon as I have radio failure I should begin to execute the
approach or to continue as flight planned or initially cleared? I'm real
concerned that assumption could lead to at best some heated phone calls
and at worst a leading story on the evening news.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:58 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Newbie holding questions
> Subject: Re: Newbie holding questions
>
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:%D0vf.40496$QW2.15228@dukeread08...
> >
> > But if no delay is expected and you have a radio failure
> > without an EFC, just how long are you expected to hold?
> >
>
> You're not expected to hold.
>
>
> >
> > If you are given a clearance to hold w/o an EFC there is
> > still some delay expected, otherwise ATC would not issue a
> > hold.
> >
>
> If a delay was expected an EFC would have been issued.
>
>
> >
> > Make them say how much delay or give an EFC/EAC time
> > or you'll be holding until the fuel runs out. Maybe the
> > book does not require ATC to issue a time, but my sense of
> > self-preservation wants to know.
> >
>
> How much delay? The answer is "None." The book says do not specify
an
> EFC
> if no delay is expected. If your sense of self-preservation can't
live
> with
> that don't fly IFR.

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:41:34 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I respectfully disagree as there is time frame in your book.taken from
>> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0404.html
>>
>> 5. When no delay is expected, the controller should issue a clearance
>> beyond the fix as soon as possible and, whenever possible, at least
>> 5 minutes before the aircraft reaches the clearance limit.
>>
>> So, if you don't give me a clearance beyond my fix, then the pilot should
>> expecting an EFC if he has to hold over a fix.
>>
>> In other words, as soon as I have to enter a hold, I should be expecting
>> an
>> EFC as now there is a delay. After all, you have me spinning in circles.
>>
>> My expected time enroute does not include time to hold over a fix.
>>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0406.html#4-6-1
>
> See subparagraph c.

Which your reference further supports my position. If you clear me to a
fix, then I will not hear an EFC UNLESS I have to hold at that fix.

CLEARED TO (fix), NO DELAY EXPECTED.

From B-1 of your reference.

1. Holding instructions may be eliminated when you inform the pilot that no
delay is expected.

from above indicates I will not be put in a hold as I am not being
instructed to hold

If I have to hold, then the phraseology in the very same subsection C-1
supports this.

Taken from C - 1

1. When additional holding is expected at any other fix in your facility's
area, state the fix and your best estimate of the additional delay. When
more than one fix is involved, state the total additional en route delay
(omit specific fixes).

After all, you have me going in circles. I have not been cleared out of
the hold or beyond my hold fix. That EFC will assure that if "by the book"
my radio's go belly up, then I can be assured seperation.

I realize this is the book world and the real world, ATC would just rather
have me clear the airspace as safely as I can, and the transponder 7600
sure would indicate to ATC I have a communication problem.

After all, if I have a transponder, there is a good chance I have
operational NAV equipment too.

Bottom line based on what you provided, is that if I put in a holding
pattern, I better hear EFC or anticipate additional time in the clearance.
Without an EFC, technically, I am not cleared past my holding fix.

Every hold I have been put in (practice and the two times "real deal", I
have been given an EFC.

Allen

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:49:24 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> A stuck mic is not a situation where the radios have gone belly up, it's a
> situation that illuminates a light on the panel and is soon rectified.

What light? You have not seen my radios? There are no lights anywhere.

>> Squelch set too high would be second in mind.
>>
>
> I don't set the squelch too high.

You don't yourself, but that's not to say it doesn't happen especially over
areas where you may be far from a transmitter.

>> Something could fry within the com unit....
>>
>
> ...but wouldn't affect the other one.

a very real possibility. Otherwise, why would 7600 be an option on the
transponder? I have had to use the IDENT feature once when I had radio
problems. I could hear, but not transmit, so it does happen. I didn't
have to go 7600, since I was able to communicate via the IDENT button.

[Jim Macklin]

That is a controller manual, not for pilot's actions. As
PIC I will ask, nay demand the info I want and need.
91.185
(3) Leave clearance limit. (i) When the clearance limit is a
fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or
descent and approach as close as possible to the
expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or
if one has not been received, as close as possible to the
estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or
amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an
approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the
expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or
if none has been received, 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 as calculated from
the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

If you are IN the hold and have had a two-way communications
failure, your ETA has past, without a EFC/EAC time you are
stuck for a while. Certainly, if your transponder still
works, squawk. If you've had a total failure your
transponder will quit and that should get ATC attention.
You've got an emergency. But 2-way radio failure is not
supposed to be an emergency, there is a procedure. Part of
that procedure is the EFC, ask for it, it is your right as
PIC.




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > I respectfully disagree as there is time frame in your
book.taken from
| > http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0404.html
| >
| > 5. When no delay is expected, the controller should
issue a clearance
| > beyond the fix as soon as possible and, whenever
possible, at least
| > 5 minutes before the aircraft reaches the clearance
limit.
| >
| > So, if you don't give me a clearance beyond my fix, then
the pilot should
| > expecting an EFC if he has to hold over a fix.
| >
| > In other words, as soon as I have to enter a hold, I
should be expecting
| > an
| > EFC as now there is a delay. After all, you have me
spinning in circles.
| >
| > My expected time enroute does not include time to hold
over a fix.
| >
|
| http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0406.html#4-6-1
|
| See subparagraph c.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Speed reduction is a better fix for that, a hold takes at
least 4 minutes, reducing speed is better.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > If no delay is expected, then why be put in the hold in
the first place?
| >
|
| It's a tool of nonradar separation, it's called a "paper
stop". Let's say
| two aircraft are estimated to cross at a fix eight minutes
apart. Minimum
| separation is ten minutes, so some action must be taken.
The later aircraft
| is issued a hold prior to the common fix. Since the first
aircraft is
| expected to pass the common fix before the second aircraft
reaches the
| holding fix no delay is expected and no EFC is issued.
|
|
| >
| > If no EFC and radios go belly up while in IMC, when
would you know to
| > leave
| > the hold?
| >
|
| Without an EFC I wouldn't enter the hold. It's a moot
point anyway,
| whatever caused my comm radios to go belly up will affect
my nav radios the
| same way and I won't be able to identify the holding fix.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Not all airplanes, particularly trainers have a transmit
light.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
| .. .
| >
| > Not true. Stuck mic comes to mind quickly.
| >
|
| A stuck mic is not a situation where the radios have gone
belly up, it's a
| situation that illuminates a light on the panel and is
soon rectified.
|
|
| >
| > Squelch set too high would be second in mind.
| >
|
| I don't set the squelch too high.
|
|
| >
| > Something could fry within the com unit....
| >
|
| ...but wouldn't affect the other one.
|
|

[bsalai]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If no delay is expected, then why be put in the hold in the first place?
>>
>
>
> It's a tool of nonradar separation, it's called a "paper stop". Let's say
> two aircraft are estimated to cross at a fix eight minutes apart. Minimum
> separation is ten minutes, so some action must be taken. The later aircraft
> is issued a hold prior to the common fix. Since the first aircraft is
> expected to pass the common fix before the second aircraft reaches the
> holding fix no delay is expected and no EFC is issued.
>
>
>
>>If no EFC and radios go belly up while in IMC, when would you know to
>>leave
>>the hold?
>>
>
>
> Without an EFC I wouldn't enter the hold. It's a moot point anyway,
> whatever caused my comm radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the
> same way and I won't be able to identify the holding fix.
>
>
This happened to me very early in my IFR experience (it's still early,
but this was very early. I got cleared to an intermediate fix, "expect
no delay." They did not assign a hold. I had never gotten anything like
this before (I had hardly gotten anything at all before) and I asked for
an expect further clearance time, and they didn't have one. Since I
hadn't run into this, I made them give me an EFC time, they finally did,
but it took a lot of work (apparently) and they were clearly not happy.

Seems like I was wrong. Should I simply have proceeded to the fix, and
if I lost radio contact prior to getting there, proceeded as filed
immediately?

Brad

[Jose]

> It's a moot point anyway,
> whatever caused my comm radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the
> same way and I won't be able to identify the holding fix.


How does a blown speaker affect my ability to identify the holding fix?
I may not be able to ID the station, but I can check the frequency and
see the needles move. If this agrees with my time estimate, and I can
ID the problem as a blown speaker, under the circumstances I'd be
confident in identifying the fix.

Steve, you have a lot of knowledge of controller issues, which I
respect. However, you do not know why a hypothetical aircraft goes
NORDO unless it's your hypothetical.

Back to the paper stop - the following aircraft gets a hold, and goes
NORDO, reaching the fix eight minutes after the first aircraft has gone
past the fix. You elect not to hold, which puts you eight minutes in
trail where the minimum separation is ten minutes.

This is acceptable and expected under the circumstances? (neutral question)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I got cleared to an intermediate fix, "expect no delay."

To me this means your EFC time =is= the time you reach the intermediate fix.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:022vf.40587$QW2.6269@dukeread08...
>
> A hold, by definition is a delay.
>

But if you don't enter the hold you are not delayed.

[Roy Smith]

A Lieberman > wrote:
> What light? You have not seen my radios? There are no lights anywhere.

Are you serious? I don't think I've ever seen a tranceiver of any kind
(not just limited to aviation) which didn't have some sort of visual "Tx"
indication.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> Without an EFC I wouldn't enter the hold. It's a moot point anyway,
> whatever caused my comm radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the
> same way and I won't be able to identify the holding fix.
>
>
Although that is certainly a likely result in a light aircraft, it may
not be in an aircraft with more sophisticated avionics busses.

91.185 is written with the premise that comm capability fails but nav
capability continues to exist.

Your scenerio is not a 91.185 situation; it's a major emergency if in IMC.

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, but I said if you are holding and don't have the EFC
time and your comm fails, when do you leave the fix. ATC
issues a clearance to a fix as a limit, expecting to have
their problem resolved before you get there and to issue a
further clearance. The pilot may lose 2way comm before he
enters the hold and not know it, since a radio report is not
required when in radar contact, in any case, he might not
know he has lost comm until he is in the hold.

The issue is those 2way comm failures in conditions not
covered by 91.185.

The PIC is always told to clarify any clearance that is not
clear or fully understood... asking for an EFC time is just
that.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:022vf.40587$QW2.6269@dukeread08...
| >
| > A hold, by definition is a delay.
| >
|
| But if you don't enter the hold you are not delayed.
|
|

[Roy Smith]

In article <bravf.7872$V.454@fed1read04>, wrote:

> Although that is certainly a likely result in a light aircraft, it may
> not be in an aircraft with more sophisticated avionics busses.

Well, there is always the human factor.

I remember one night I was up shooting practice approaches, when NY
Approach was calling out 757 traffic to everybody, along with the warning,
"he's not talking to anybody". I can only assume somebody in the cockpit
fat-fingered a frequency change. Being on the wrong freq is effectively
lost comm. It's probably something which you'll be able to resolve
eventually, but when you get to the fix and you're not talking to the guy
who gave you the paper stop, you've got to figure something out.

[Dave Butler]

Roy Smith wrote:
> A Lieberman > wrote:
>
>>What light? You have not seen my radios? There are no lights anywhere.
>
>
> Are you serious? I don't think I've ever seen a tranceiver of any kind
> (not just limited to aviation) which didn't have some sort of visual "Tx"
> indication.

KX-170? ...for one example.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <bravf.7872$V.454@fed1read04>, wrote:
>
>
>>Although that is certainly a likely result in a light aircraft, it may
>>not be in an aircraft with more sophisticated avionics busses.
>
>
> Well, there is always the human factor.
>
> I remember one night I was up shooting practice approaches, when NY
> Approach was calling out 757 traffic to everybody, along with the warning,
> "he's not talking to anybody". I can only assume somebody in the cockpit
> fat-fingered a frequency change. Being on the wrong freq is effectively
> lost comm. It's probably something which you'll be able to resolve
> eventually, but when you get to the fix and you're not talking to the guy
> who gave you the paper stop, you've got to figure something out.

Human factors, or not, that makes my case: i.e., a sophisticated
aircraft can easily loose comm yet still have full nav capability.

Airliners often lose comm in the manner you mention, albeit a transient
loss of comm (until the company SELCALs them ;-)

[[email protected]]

Peter R. wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>
>>At some locations timed approaches permit more than one approach at a
>>time, provided the holding pattern meets criteria and the missed
>>approach does not conflict with the inbound tracks.
>>
>>Timed approaches were once used a lot, then over time diminished in
>>their use, and now they are on the increase again.
>
>
> Thanks, Tim.
>
> What are some example of airports where timed approaches are in use?
>
Cheyenne (Sp?) WY (non-radar approach control)

Eagle, CO

San Luis Obispo, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> I'm not understanding your comment about "not expected to hold"
> in the even of a radio failure without an EFC time. Are you implying
> that as soon as I have radio failure I should begin to execute the
> approach or to continue as flight planned or initially cleared? I'm real
> concerned that assumption could lead to at best some heated phone calls
> and at worst a leading story on the evening news.
>

An EFC was not issued because ATC did not expect any delay, that is, they
did not expect that an actual hold would be needed or entered. As you
approach the holding fix you're a bit concerned because you have not been
cleared beyond that fix. So you query ATC and receive no response. You've
experienced a two-way radio communications failure. Since no EFC was
received you are to leave the clearance limit upon arrival over it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which your reference further supports my position.
>

How so? It clearly tells controllers not to issue an EFC when no delay is
expected.


>
> If you clear me to a
> fix, then I will not hear an EFC UNLESS I have to hold at that fix.
>

Right. If you do not have to actually hold at that fix, which is the
situation we're discussing, you won't hear an EFC.


>
> CLEARED TO (fix), NO DELAY EXPECTED.
>
> From B-1 of your reference.
>
> 1. Holding instructions may be eliminated when you inform the pilot that
> no delay is expected.
>
> from above indicates I will not be put in a hold as I am not being
> instructed to hold
>
> If I have to hold, then the phraseology in the very same subsection C-1
> supports this.
>
> Taken from C - 1
>
> 1. When additional holding is expected at any other fix in your facility's
> area, state the fix and your best estimate of the additional delay. When
> more than one fix is involved, state the total additional en route delay
> (omit specific fixes).
>
> After all, you have me going in circles. I have not been cleared out of
> the hold or beyond my hold fix. That EFC will assure that if "by the
> book" my radio's go belly up, then I can be assured seperation.
>

Why would you be going in circles? You would have been cleared beyond the
holding fix prior to reaching it, unless, as you point out, your radios
failed. But in the event of radio failure FAR 91.185 tells you to leave the
clearance limit upon arrival over it when no expect-further-clearance time
has been received.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> What light? You have not seen my radios? There are no lights anywhere.
>

We're not talking about your panel, we're talking about mine. We got to
this point via your question to me; " If no EFC and radios go belly up while
in IMC, when would you know to leave the hold?"


>
> a very real possibility. Otherwise, why would 7600 be an option on the
> transponder? I have had to use the IDENT feature once when I had radio
> problems. I could hear, but not transmit, so it does happen. I didn't
> have to go 7600, since I was able to communicate via the IDENT button.
>

So how does something frying in one com take out the other com but not the
navs or the transponder?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:122vf.40588$QW2.11881@dukeread08...
>
> That is a controller manual, not for pilot's actions.
>

Pilots don't issue EFCs, controllers do.


>
> As PIC I will ask, nay demand the info I want and need.
>

Why do you think you need an EFC?


>
> 91.185
> (3) Leave clearance limit. (i) When the clearance limit is a
> fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or
> descent and approach as close as possible to the
> expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or
> if one has not been received, as close as possible to the
> estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or
> amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
>
> (ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an
> approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the
> expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or
> if none has been received, 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 as calculated from
> the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
>
> If you are IN the hold and have had a two-way communications
> failure, your ETA has past, without a EFC/EAC time you are
> stuck for a while.
>

Nope. Remember, no delay was expected, that's why an EFC was not issued.
You'll be cleared past the holding fix before you reach it.


>
> Certainly, if your transponder still
> works, squawk. If you've had a total failure your
> transponder will quit and that should get ATC attention.
> You've got an emergency. But 2-way radio failure is not
> supposed to be an emergency, there is a procedure. Part of
> that procedure is the EFC, ask for it, it is your right as
> PIC.
>

Nonsense. What's the point of having an EFC when you won't be entering a
hold? What's the point of demanding an EFC where an EFC can't be issued?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:222vf.40589$QW2.14067@dukeread08...
>
> Speed reduction is a better fix for that, a hold takes at
> least 4 minutes, reducing speed is better.
>

You still don't get it. The hold is never entered. The aircraft is cleared
past the holding fix before reaching it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:S32vf.40590$QW2.33132@dukeread08...
>
> Not all airplanes, particularly trainers have a transmit
> light.
>

We're not talking about all airplanes, we're talking about mine.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"bsalai" > wrote in message
...
>
> This happened to me very early in my IFR experience (it's still early, but
> this was very early. I got cleared to an intermediate fix, "expect no
> delay." They did not assign a hold. I had never gotten anything like this
> before (I had hardly gotten anything at all before) and I asked for an
> expect further clearance time, and they didn't have one. Since I hadn't
> run into this, I made them give me an EFC time, they finally did, but it
> took a lot of work (apparently) and they were clearly not happy.
>
> Seems like I was wrong. Should I simply have proceeded to the fix, and if
> I lost radio contact prior to getting there, proceeded as filed
> immediately?
>

Yes. This is straight out of FAR 91.185:


§ 91.185 IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way
radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the
rules of this section.

(b) [snip]

(c) IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if paragraph
(b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall continue the
flight according to the following:

(1) Route. (i) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received;

(ii) [snip]

(iii) [snip]

(iv) [snip]

(2) [snip]

(3) Leave clearance limit. (i) [snip]

(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins,
leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has
been received, or if none has been received, 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 as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time
en route.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> How does a blown speaker affect my ability to identify the holding fix?
>

It shouldn't affect it at all.


>
> I may not be able to ID the station, but I can check the frequency and see
> the needles move. If this agrees with my time estimate, and I can ID the
> problem as a blown speaker, under the circumstances I'd be confident in
> identifying the fix.
>
> Steve, you have a lot of knowledge of controller issues, which I respect.
> However, you do not know why a hypothetical aircraft goes NORDO unless
> it's your hypothetical.
>

I thought it was my hypothetical.


>
> Back to the paper stop - the following aircraft gets a hold, and goes
> NORDO, reaching the fix eight minutes after the first aircraft has gone
> past the fix. You elect not to hold, which puts you eight minutes in
> trail where the minimum separation is ten minutes.
>
> This is acceptable and expected under the circumstances? (neutral
> question)
>

The aircraft were not in trail, they were crossing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:TFavf.40610$QW2.15302@dukeread08...
>
> Yes, but I said if you are holding and don't have the EFC
> time and your comm fails, when do you leave the fix.
>

In situations where you actually hold you will have an EFC.


>
> ATC
> issues a clearance to a fix as a limit, expecting to have
> their problem resolved before you get there and to issue a
> further clearance. The pilot may lose 2way comm before he
> enters the hold and not know it, since a radio report is not
> required when in radar contact, in any case, he might not
> know he has lost comm until he is in the hold.
>

Why is it he didn't know he was NORDO until he entered the hold? Why didn't
he learn he was NORDO when he attempted to query ATC about approaching the
clearance limit without clearance beyond it or an EFC?


>
> The issue is those 2way comm failures in conditions not
> covered by 91.185.
>

The one we're talking about is covered by FAR 91.185.


>
> The PIC is always told to clarify any clearance that is not
> clear or fully understood... asking for an EFC time is just
> that.
>

And the response that clarifies that is "No delay expected."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, there is always the human factor.
>
> I remember one night I was up shooting practice approaches, when NY
> Approach was calling out 757 traffic to everybody, along with the warning,
> "he's not talking to anybody". I can only assume somebody in the cockpit
> fat-fingered a frequency change. Being on the wrong freq is effectively
> lost comm. It's probably something which you'll be able to resolve
> eventually, but when you get to the fix and you're not talking to the guy
> who gave you the paper stop, you've got to figure something out.
>

Well, if you're familiar with FAR 91.185, you'll leave the clearance limit
upon reaching it. So what's to figure out?

[Jim Carter]

Okay Steve, I didn't realize until just now that you are only talking
about enroute holds. I was applying your comments to all types of holds.
Will you agree that a hold at an initial approach fix will always
include and EFC time?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Thursday, January 05, 2006 11:49 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Newbie holding questions
> Subject: Re: Newbie holding questions
>
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > I'm not understanding your comment about "not expected to hold"
> > in the even of a radio failure without an EFC time. Are you implying
> > that as soon as I have radio failure I should begin to execute the
> > approach or to continue as flight planned or initially cleared? I'm
real
> > concerned that assumption could lead to at best some heated phone
calls
> > and at worst a leading story on the evening news.
> >
>
> An EFC was not issued because ATC did not expect any delay, that is,
they
> did not expect that an actual hold would be needed or entered. As you
> approach the holding fix you're a bit concerned because you have not
been
> cleared beyond that fix. So you query ATC and receive no response.
> You've
> experienced a two-way radio communications failure. Since no EFC was
> received you are to leave the clearance limit upon arrival over it.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
>
>>Make them say how much delay or give an EFC/EAC time
>>or you'll be holding until the fuel runs out. Maybe the
>>book does not require ATC to issue a time, but my sense of
>>self-preservation wants to know.
>>
>
>
> How much delay? The answer is "None." The book says do not specify an EFC
> if no delay is expected. If your sense of self-preservation can't live with
> that don't fly IFR.
>
>
Why don't you recommend that for inclusion in the AIM under "cooperation
and communications between pilots and ATC."

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
>
> Nonsense. What's the point of having an EFC when you won't be entering a
> hold? What's the point of demanding an EFC where an EFC can't be issued?
>
>
Under those circumstances some helpful controllers have been known to
state after the hold is issued, "except no delay at ACMEE."

[A Lieberman]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:45:01 GMT, Jim Carter wrote:

> Okay Steve, I didn't realize until just now that you are only talking
> about enroute holds. I was applying your comments to all types of holds.
> Will you agree that a hold at an initial approach fix will always
> include and EFC time?

I am like you Jim, seems that Steve is not very clear in what he says.

Though to be honest, I always thought a hold, is a hold is a hold, if I am
told to hold at ABC VOR enroute, I will be expecting an EFC to leave ABC
VOR to proceed on to to my destination, paper stop or not as he describes.

Are there special procedures for an enroute holds? Am I not expected to
fly a racetrack pattern around the fix I am instructed to hold at?

Like others said, it would be more appropriate to put a speed restriction
rather then hold, but Steve insists that I won't be flying in circles when
I am asked to hold.

When I got my one and only reroute, I was routed to a VOR, and I didn't
even think of asking for a EFC since I figured there was no delay as I was
being re-routed around a MOA.

With the vague way Steve writes in this newsgroup, kinda makes me nervous
if I had to ever fly through his sector if he is an ATC controller.

Allen

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Without an EFC I wouldn't enter the hold. It's a moot point anyway,
> whatever caused my comm radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the
> same way and I won't be able to identify the holding fix.

Why would a transistor failure or other comm circuit failure affect your
nav?


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why would a transistor failure or other comm circuit failure affect your
> nav?
>

It wouldn't. Nor would it affect my other comm.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Why would a transistor failure or other comm circuit failure affect your
>>nav?
>>
>
>
> It wouldn't. Nor would it affect my other comm.
>
>

Then why did you write: "It's a moot point anyway, whatever caused my
comm radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the same way and I
won't be able to identify the holding fix."

Matt

[Jim Carter]

Steve's a big boy and doesn't need me or anyone else defending him. I
find that when I finally read what he meant it is very plain. I think my
problem is that I don't understand his original premise as precisely as
does he. I'm sure he is very precise and accurate in-the-moment, which
is really the only time he'd be giving direction anyway. So all is well
in the great wild blue yonder...

Regarding the enroute hold, I've only had to do them during training or
check rides, or at Portland, Or in the '70s while they were down to only
one runway. They were the GA and AC airport so you either flew your
approaches at the 727 speeds or you got to hold enroute until you agreed
to fly your approaches at 727 speeds. It was a wonderful environment in
which to train students right at the end of their study for their
instrument or II ticket. Ah, the good ol' days...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: A Lieberman ]
> Posted At: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:33 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Newbie holding questions
> Subject: Re: Newbie holding questions
>
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:45:01 GMT, Jim Carter wrote:
>
> > Okay Steve, I didn't realize until just now that you are only
talking
> > about enroute holds. I was applying your comments to all types of
holds.
> > Will you agree that a hold at an initial approach fix will always
> > include and EFC time?
>
> I am like you Jim, seems that Steve is not very clear in what he says.
>
> Though to be honest, I always thought a hold, is a hold is a hold, if
I am
> told to hold at ABC VOR enroute, I will be expecting an EFC to leave
ABC
> VOR to proceed on to to my destination, paper stop or not as he
describes.
>
> Are there special procedures for an enroute holds? Am I not expected
to
> fly a racetrack pattern around the fix I am instructed to hold at?
>
> Like others said, it would be more appropriate to put a speed
restriction
> rather then hold, but Steve insists that I won't be flying in circles
when
> I am asked to hold.
>
> When I got my one and only reroute, I was routed to a VOR, and I
didn't
> even think of asking for a EFC since I figured there was no delay as I
was
> being re-routed around a MOA.
>
> With the vague way Steve writes in this newsgroup, kinda makes me
nervous
> if I had to ever fly through his sector if he is an ATC controller.
>
> Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then why did you write: "It's a moot point anyway, whatever caused my comm
> radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the same way and I won't
> be able to identify the holding fix."
>

I have two comm radios, they share no components, have separate antennas. I
use a headset but also have a hand microphone and cabin speaker. I have
auxiliary headset jacks that allow me to bypass the audio panel. What
single point of failure would disable both of my comm radios but not affect
my nav radios?

[Jose]

> What
> single point of failure would disable both of my comm radios but not affect
> my nav radios?

I don't know. But unless you are the only person in the air, procedures
must be designed to take into account the failure modes of other
aircraft, which could easily include loss of com without loss of nav.
And if you =are= the only person in the air, ATC is not necessary.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I don't know. But unless you are the only person in the air, procedures
> must be designed to take into account the failure modes of other aircraft,
> which could easily include loss of com without loss of nav.

Such as?

[Jon Woellhaf]

Steven P. McNicoll asked,

> What single point of failure would disable both of my comm radios but not
> affect my nav radios?

Laryngitis.

[Jose]

> Such as?

Such as go back in the thread and re-read the posts you dismissed as not
pertaining to your aircraft.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Then why did you write: "It's a moot point anyway, whatever caused my comm
>>radios to go belly up will affect my nav radios the same way and I won't
>>be able to identify the holding fix."
>>
>
>
> I have two comm radios, they share no components, have separate antennas. I
> use a headset but also have a hand microphone and cabin speaker. I have
> auxiliary headset jacks that allow me to bypass the audio panel. What
> single point of failure would disable both of my comm radios but not affect
> my nav radios?

I don't know I was simply responding to what you wrote. At least my
newsreader showed you as the author of the post that made the above
statement.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Such as go back in the thread and re-read the posts you dismissed as not
> pertaining to your aircraft.
>

Which posts are they?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know I was simply responding to what you wrote. At least my
> newsreader showed you as the author of the post that made the above
> statement.
>

I did write it. Do you now understand why it's a moot point?

[Jim Carter]

Steve,
This may seem somewhat pedantic, but Narco built separate comm
and nav units for years. They were great for panel space issues. Collins
also built separate units and actually hyped their independence as a
reliability feature. You are a smart enough person to understand the
redundancy and reliability issues, so I wonder if some of your questions
are just you playing the devil's advocate?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:22 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Newbie holding questions
> Subject: Re: Newbie holding questions
>
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Such as go back in the thread and re-read the posts you dismissed as
not
> > pertaining to your aircraft.
> >
>
> Which posts are they?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Okay Steve, I didn't realize until just now that you are only talking
> about enroute holds. I was applying your comments to all types of holds.
> Will you agree that a hold at an initial approach fix will always
> include and EFC time?
>

I'm talking about all holds in which no delay is expected. The example I
provided was an enroute hold but FAAO 7110.65 does not differentiate between
enroute holds where no delay is expected and holds at an IAF where no delay
is expected.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I am like you Jim, seems that Steve is not very clear in what he says.
>

What did I say that was not very clear?


>
> Though to be honest, I always thought a hold, is a hold is a hold, if I am
> told to hold at ABC VOR enroute, I will be expecting an EFC to leave ABC
> VOR to proceed on to to my destination, paper stop or not as he describes.
>
> Are there special procedures for an enroute holds? Am I not expected to
> fly a racetrack pattern around the fix I am instructed to hold at?
>
> Like others said, it would be more appropriate to put a speed restriction
> rather then hold, but Steve insists that I won't be flying in circles when
> I am asked to hold.
>
> When I got my one and only reroute, I was routed to a VOR, and I didn't
> even think of asking for a EFC since I figured there was no delay as I was
> being re-routed around a MOA.
>
> With the vague way Steve writes in this newsgroup, kinda makes me nervous
> if I had to ever fly through his sector if he is an ATC controller.
>

FAAO 7110.65 and FAR 91.185 specifically refer to holding instructions
without an EFC and the AIM does so implicitly. Why then do some insist that
holding instructions must always include an EFC?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Steve,
> This may seem somewhat pedantic, but Narco built separate comm
> and nav units for years. They were great for panel space issues. Collins
> also built separate units and actually hyped their independence as a
> reliability feature. You are a smart enough person to understand the
> redundancy and reliability issues, so I wonder if some of your questions
> are just you playing the devil's advocate?
>

The question in my previous message was asked to ascertain which posts Jose
believes I dismissed as not pertaining to my aircraft.

[Jim Carter]

Steve, help me understand the following scenario:

I'm filed and cleared from KROG to KTUL with a filed ETA of 13:40. If I
lose voice communications prior to arrival am I to understand that I'm
technically cleared to execute the approach immediately upon arrival
regardless of my time over the FAF?

I think I was taught to proceed to the FAF and then hold at the last
assigned altitude until my filed arrival time, at which point I can
execute the approach. Now I'm sure I'd rather shoot the approach as soon
as I get there, but is that the correct thing to do?

Based on your comments about EFCs not being required if no delay is
anticipated regardless of enroute or terminal, what should I expect in
the above scenario?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Monday, January 09, 2006 1:59 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Newbie holding questions
> Subject: Re: Newbie holding questions
>
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> > Okay Steve, I didn't realize until just now that you are only
talking
> > about enroute holds. I was applying your comments to all types of
holds.
> > Will you agree that a hold at an initial approach fix will always
> > include and EFC time?
> >
>
> I'm talking about all holds in which no delay is expected. The
example I
> provided was an enroute hold but FAAO 7110.65 does not differentiate
> between
> enroute holds where no delay is expected and holds at an IAF where no
> delay
> is expected.

[TNap]

I obtained my cfii about a year ago last September. It seems that during
every every flight I find something new and different from my past
training and experience. My tale today concerns practing holds in
controlled airspace.

We filed for local hold/approach practice in the CAK area (class c). We
had just completed intercept and hold over the vor and were cleared direct
to the ndb. Our clearance was delayed due to traffic increases and we did
not hear back from atc until we were about two miles from the fix
(constant atc chatter). The clearance stated "I have continuous traffic
west of the ndb, hold east".

Our intercept was approximately 270 degrees so I sketched out hold east of
the ndb on the 090 bearing, right turns, one minute legs, altitude from
out previous clearance. Called atc with this clearance and entered the
hold. During the second circuit the controller called back to find out
what we would like to do next. On to the gps full approach.....

After landing I pulled out the "Instrument Proedures Handbook"
(FAA-H-8261-1) and found "... ATC may request that you hold at any
designated reporting point in a standard holding pattern at the MEA or the
MRA....". Also found "Unplanned holding at en enroute fixes may be
expected on airway or route radials, bearings, or courses". "If holding
pattern is not charted at the fix, hold on the inbound course using right
turns".

This is an excellent reference to use in addition to the FAR/AIM that is
often quoted. I hope that this is helpful to the original poster, the
thread seems to have wandered a bit.
Tom

[Dave Butler]

Jim Carter wrote:
> Steve, help me understand the following scenario:
>
> I'm filed and cleared from KROG to KTUL with a filed ETA of 13:40. If I
> lose voice communications prior to arrival am I to understand that I'm
> technically cleared to execute the approach immediately upon arrival
> regardless of my time over the FAF?
>
> I think I was taught to proceed to the FAF and then hold at the last
> assigned altitude until my filed arrival time, at which point I can
> execute the approach. Now I'm sure I'd rather shoot the approach as soon
> as I get there, but is that the correct thing to do?
>
> Based on your comments about EFCs not being required if no delay is
> anticipated regardless of enroute or terminal, what should I expect in
> the above scenario?

I'm not Steve.

I don't think the answer to this question has anything to do with Steve's
distinction relating to holds where a delay is or is not expected.

In the case you postulate, where voice communication is lost and you have a
flight plan that includes an initial approach fix, the regulations require you
to do exactly as you say you were taught: hold at the last assigned altitude
until your filed arrival time.

Regulations notwithstanding, there is a consensus among pilots and controllers
that a better idea is to just get out of the system as soon as you can. If VMC,
land as soon as practical (which is what the regulations require anyway) and if
IMC, just go ahead and execute the approach or do whatever it takes to get out
of the IFR system. ATC has been tracking your NORDO target and is reserving a
big patch of airspace for you. The sooner you get on the ground and they can
release that airspace, the happier everyone will be. Google for numerous
previous threads in this newsgroup on this subject.

All of the above has nothing to do with paper stops or assigned holds with and
without an expected delay. I'm not going to to get in the middle of that one.
I'll let Steve or someone else speak to that question.

Dave

[A Lieberman]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:17:02 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> I am like you Jim, seems that Steve is not very clear in what he says.
>>
>
> What did I say that was not very clear?

Answer this question. Why would I hold if there is no delay? A paper stop
is a delay. I am no longer direct.

Define hold.

Hold is doing a racetrack pattern around a fix is what I was taught. If
you tell me to hold, then I am no longer cleared beyond a fix. I am now
doing circles and expect an EFC to stop spinning in circles. Are their
other holding patterns I need to know about?

> FAAO 7110.65

Subsection please. I googled the above and it gave me visual flight rule
references

>>and FAR 91.185 specifically refer to holding instructions
> without an EFC and the AIM does so implicitly. Why then do some insist that
> holding instructions must always include an EFC?

Because when there is a no delay, I expect to be flying a straight line.
You tell me to hold, I better start holding per published hold instructions
and flying circles.

Go to http://www.vateud-td.org/references/Holding.asp

TAKEN from the above website
When no delay is expected, the controller should issue a clearance beyond
the fix as soon as possible and, whenever possible, at least 5 minutes
before the aircraft reaches the clearance limit.

I don't see me flying in circles Steve with the above instructions. I am
flying to a fix, you give me a new clearance limit. No teardrop, parallel
or direct entry. I fly a straight line.

You keep saying that I would be holding with no delay which is absolutely
wrong. My IFR filing does not include MBO to JAN, to MCB hold at MCB
direct to L31 does it? Not at all. I file to the fixes as appropriate.
You put me in a hold, and guess what, the clearance has changed and I need
an EFC.

How many ways can I say, if ATC puts me in a hold, then I expect an EFC.

The above seems to be a real good reference on on holding. Read toward the
bottom of the page for ATC actions. Read 4F and tell me that is incorrect.
And if it's incorrect, please provide a reference.

Allen

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/10/06 16:04, A Lieberman wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:17:02 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> I am like you Jim, seems that Steve is not very clear in what he says.
>>>
>>
>> What did I say that was not very clear?
>
> Answer this question. Why would I hold if there is no delay? A paper stop
> is a delay. I am no longer direct.
>
> Define hold.
>
> Hold is doing a racetrack pattern around a fix is what I was taught. If
> you tell me to hold, then I am no longer cleared beyond a fix. I am now
> doing circles and expect an EFC to stop spinning in circles. Are their
> other holding patterns I need to know about?
>
>> FAAO 7110.65
>
> Subsection please. I googled the above and it gave me visual flight rule
> references
>
>>>and FAR 91.185 specifically refer to holding instructions
>> without an EFC and the AIM does so implicitly. Why then do some insist that
>> holding instructions must always include an EFC?
>
> Because when there is a no delay, I expect to be flying a straight line.
> You tell me to hold, I better start holding per published hold instructions
> and flying circles.
>
> Go to http://www.vateud-td.org/references/Holding.asp
>
> TAKEN from the above website
> When no delay is expected, the controller should issue a clearance beyond
> the fix as soon as possible and, whenever possible, at least 5 minutes
> before the aircraft reaches the clearance limit.

I'm not Steve, but ... what if the controller does not issue the clearance
beyond the current limit? If your radios are still working, you should hold, right?
If your radios have failed, that's a different story.

>
> I don't see me flying in circles Steve with the above instructions. I am
> flying to a fix, you give me a new clearance limit. No teardrop, parallel
> or direct entry. I fly a straight line.
>
> You keep saying that I would be holding with no delay which is absolutely
> wrong. My IFR filing does not include MBO to JAN, to MCB hold at MCB
> direct to L31 does it? Not at all. I file to the fixes as appropriate.
> You put me in a hold, and guess what, the clearance has changed and I need
> an EFC.
>
> How many ways can I say, if ATC puts me in a hold, then I expect an EFC.
>
> The above seems to be a real good reference on on holding. Read toward the
> bottom of the page for ATC actions. Read 4F and tell me that is incorrect.
> And if it's incorrect, please provide a reference.
>
> Allen


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[[email protected]]

Mark Hansen wrote:

>>
>>
>> Subsection please. I googled the above and it gave me visual flight rule
>> references


7110.65P, Paragraph 4-6-1 c

[A Lieberman]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:36:01 -0800, wrote:

> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subsection please. I googled the above and it gave me visual flight rule
>>> references
>
>
> 7110.65P, Paragraph 4-6-1 c

Thank you Tim,

So, from what I read, if I get from ATC, no delay, then I won't be holding
and simply proceeding on to the next fix in my route that I have been
cleared to. I won't be required to enter a holding pattern as there is no
delay.

I will keep sticking to my statement, as I have come across nothing to
contradict the fact, if I am put in a hold where I am required to fly in a
circle, enter a hold via tear drop, parallel or direct entry, there should
be an EFC issued by the air traffic controller.

Allen

[[email protected]]

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:36:01 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Subsection please. I googled the above and it gave me visual flight rule
>>>>references
>>
>>
>>7110.65P, Paragraph 4-6-1 c
>
>
> Thank you Tim,
>
> So, from what I read, if I get from ATC, no delay, then I won't be holding
> and simply proceeding on to the next fix in my route that I have been
> cleared to. I won't be required to enter a holding pattern as there is no
> delay.
>
> I will keep sticking to my statement, as I have come across nothing to
> contradict the fact, if I am put in a hold where I am required to fly in a
> circle, enter a hold via tear drop, parallel or direct entry, there should
> be an EFC issued by the air traffic controller.
>
> Allen

I can think of an example in my area where LA Center uses "paper stop"
holds for handoffs to Palm Springs Approach Control because Palm Springs
can't see the arrivals on radar due to terrain until they are almost on
top of the holding fix. 90% of the time approach control pick up voice
and radar in time to cancel the hold. On occasion, things are in the
way, and the hold will then be required. Approach control at that time
will issue a formal or ad hoc EFC, such as "plan one turn in the hold."

And, so it goes. The center can't issue an EFC when it appears there
will be no delay. Yet, the paper stop is like a yellow light for a
train engineer that was red, so the engineer proceeds slowly but expects
it to turn green. Oops, it turns red and he has to start slowing down.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Steve, help me understand the following scenario:
>
> I'm filed and cleared from KROG to KTUL with a filed ETA of 13:40. If I
> lose voice communications prior to arrival am I to understand that I'm
> technically cleared to execute the approach immediately upon arrival
> regardless of my time over the FAF?
>
> I think I was taught to proceed to the FAF and then hold at the last
> assigned altitude until my filed arrival time, at which point I can
> execute the approach. Now I'm sure I'd rather shoot the approach as soon
> as I get there, but is that the correct thing to do?
>
> Based on your comments about EFCs not being required if no delay is
> anticipated regardless of enroute or terminal, what should I expect in
> the above scenario?
>

That's is an entirely different situation.

The OP's questions were about assigned holds. Jim Macklin stated that an
EFC should always be part of a hold clearance. I pointed out that an EFC is
not issued when no delay is expected. In your scenario above you're never
instructed to hold, your clearance limit remains KTUL throughout your
flight.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Answer this question. Why would I hold if there is no delay?
>

You wouldn't. You'd receive clearance beyond the previously issued holding
fix before you reached it.


>
> A paper stop is a delay. I am no longer direct.
>

A paper stop is a delay only on paper, there's no actual delay because
there's no actual hold. That's why it's called a "paper stop".


>
> Define hold.
>

The Pilot/Controller Glossary defines "hold procedure" as "a predetermined
maneuver which keeps aircraft within a specified airspace while awaiting
further clearance from air traffic control." I'll go with that.


>
> Hold is doing a racetrack pattern around a fix is what I was taught. If
> you tell me to hold, then I am no longer cleared beyond a fix. I am now
> doing circles and expect an EFC to stop spinning in circles. Are their
> other holding patterns I need to know about?
>

But you don't do any circles if you receive clearance beyond the holding fix
before reaching it. That's what the controller is anticipating, that's why
he told you no delay was expected and didn't issue an EFC.


>>
>> FAAO 7110.65
>>
>
> Subsection please. I googled the above and it gave me visual flight rule
> references
>

Paragraph 4-6-1.c. I gave you that reference a week ago.


>
> Because when there is a no delay, I expect to be flying a straight line.
> You tell me to hold, I better start holding per published hold
> instructions and flying circles.
>

Let's say you're cleared to a fix on your route some thirty miles or so
ahead. Would you start holding immediately, at your present position, or
would you enter a hold at that fix ahead of you?


>
> Go to http://www.vateud-td.org/references/Holding.asp
>
> TAKEN from the above website
> When no delay is expected, the controller should issue a clearance beyond
> the fix as soon as possible and, whenever possible, at least 5 minutes
> before the aircraft reaches the clearance limit.
>
> I don't see me flying in circles Steve with the above instructions. I am
> flying to a fix, you give me a new clearance limit. No teardrop, parallel
> or direct entry. I fly a straight line.
>

Correct. That's a paper stop. That's the situation I've been trying to
explain to you.


>
> You keep saying that I would be holding with no delay which is absolutely
> wrong. My IFR filing does not include MBO to JAN, to MCB hold at MCB
> direct to L31 does it? Not at all. I file to the fixes as appropriate.
> You put me in a hold, and guess what, the clearance has changed and I need
> an EFC.
>

I never said anything at all like that. What are these references to MBO,
JAN, and MCB? I haven't seen them previously mentioned in this thread.


>
> How many ways can I say, if ATC puts me in a hold, then I expect an EFC.
>

I don't know. How many ways can I say if ATC issues holding instructions
without an EFC because no delay is expected and clears you beyond the
holding fix before you reach it you haven't been delayed because you never
entered the hold?


>
> The above seems to be a real good reference on on holding. Read toward
> the bottom of the page for ATC actions. Read 4F and tell me that is
> incorrect.
>

It's not incorrect, but it's not the situation we're discussing. Read
number 3, that's what we're discussing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not Steve, but ... what if the controller does not issue the clearance
> beyond the current limit? If your radios are still working, you should
> hold, right?
>

If your radios are still working you should query the controller as you near
the clearance limit.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 7110.65P, Paragraph 4-6-1 c
>>
>
> Thank you Tim,
>
> So, from what I read, if I get from ATC, no delay, then I won't be holding
> and simply proceeding on to the next fix in my route that I have been
> cleared to. I won't be required to enter a holding pattern as there is no
> delay.
>

Right. Apparently you didn't bother to read that subparagraph when I
provided the reference a week ago.


>
> I will keep sticking to my statement, as I have come across nothing to
> contradict the fact, if I am put in a hold where I am required to fly in a
> circle, enter a hold via tear drop, parallel or direct entry, there should
> be an EFC issued by the air traffic controller.
>

Correct, and to my knowledge nobody has said anything contrary to that in
this thread.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/11/06 09:16, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'm not Steve, but ... what if the controller does not issue the clearance
>> beyond the current limit? If your radios are still working, you should
>> hold, right?
>>
>
> If your radios are still working you should query the controller as you near
> the clearance limit.
>
>

Obviously. I thought the issue was what if no update is forthcoming from ATC.
For example, if the frequency is too busy.

If you have a clearance limit (which is not your destination airport) and
your radios are working, and you've reached the clearance limit fix, and
you've been unable to get a new clearance limit from ATC, then you'd better
hold.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Obviously. I thought the issue was what if no update is forthcoming from
> ATC. For example, if the frequency is too busy.
>

That implies a high traffic area. You don't tend to find nonradar methods
used in high traffic areas, you tend to find radar in those areas.


>
> If you have a clearance limit (which is not your destination airport) and
> your radios are working, and you've reached the clearance limit fix, and
> you've been unable to get a new clearance limit from ATC, then you'd
> better hold.
>

Why? The controller said no delay was expected, he analyzed the traffic
situation and resolved a problem with a paper stop. He anticipated clearing
me beyond that point before I reached it. There could be traffic following
me at the same altitude. If I enter a hold where none was anticipated I
could be creating a problem where none exists.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/11/06 10:22, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Obviously. I thought the issue was what if no update is forthcoming from
>> ATC. For example, if the frequency is too busy.
>>
>
> That implies a high traffic area. You don't tend to find nonradar methods
> used in high traffic areas, you tend to find radar in those areas.
>
>
>>
>> If you have a clearance limit (which is not your destination airport) and
>> your radios are working, and you've reached the clearance limit fix, and
>> you've been unable to get a new clearance limit from ATC, then you'd
>> better hold.
>>
>
> Why? The controller said no delay was expected, he analyzed the traffic
> situation and resolved a problem with a paper stop. He anticipated clearing
> me beyond that point before I reached it. There could be traffic following
> me at the same altitude. If I enter a hold where none was anticipated I
> could be creating a problem where none exists.
>
>

But unless the controller clears you beyond that fix (which in this case,
he did not) and you're not following the Radio Failure procedures (which
in this case you are not) then you must hold.

Are you suggesting that when cleared to a fix that is not the destination
airport, that you never need to hold at that fix unless ATC comes back and
specifically tells you to?



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> But unless the controller clears you beyond that fix (which in this case,
> he did not) and you're not following the Radio Failure procedures (which
> in this case you are not) then you must hold.
>

If the controller hasn't cleared me beyond the fix before I reach it I will
query him. When I do so he will either clear me beyond it or issue an EFC.
If he doesn't respond it means I've had a radio failure and I will comply
with FAR 91.185 which tells me not to hold.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/11/06 10:48, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But unless the controller clears you beyond that fix (which in this case,
>> he did not) and you're not following the Radio Failure procedures (which
>> in this case you are not) then you must hold.
>>
>
> If the controller hasn't cleared me beyond the fix before I reach it I will
> query him. When I do so he will either clear me beyond it or issue an EFC.
> If he doesn't respond it means I've had a radio failure and I will comply
> with FAR 91.185 which tells me not to hold.

So it's impossible that the controller could be too busy to answer you, or
that he got up to get some coffee?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Jose]

> But unless the controller clears you beyond that fix (which in this case,
> he did not) and you're not following the Radio Failure procedures (which
> in this case you are not) then you must hold.

If you are cleared to a fix and "expect no delay", how does that differ
from having an EFC time that exactly matches your arrival at the fix?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> So it's impossible that the controller could be too busy to answer you, or
> that he got up to get some coffee?
>

Pretty much. How busy he's gonna be in the near future can be predicted by
the number of active and proposed strips sitting in front of him. He ain't
gonna take a coffee break without being relieved by another controller.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/11/06 11:03, Jose wrote:
>> But unless the controller clears you beyond that fix (which in this case,
>> he did not) and you're not following the Radio Failure procedures (which
>> in this case you are not) then you must hold.
>
> If you are cleared to a fix and "expect no delay", how does that differ
> from having an EFC time that exactly matches your arrival at the fix?
>
> Jose

It is my understanding that these apply only when there is a two-way radio
failure. If the radio is still working, these are meaningless (other than,
perhaps, as an aid to planning).

I think a lot of the confusion in this thread may have to do with the difference
between what the FARs tell you to do, and what can be expected in the real world.

My interest has been in the rules, but that may not be what the OP was looking
for.

In the real world, you'll probably never get to that fix without getting another
clearance limit unless there is a radio failure (as Steven says, if I can be
allowed to paraphrase just a bit). However, I think the rules are there to help
us understand what to do when that doesn't work out (and to pass FAA knowledge
tests and oral exams ;-) )


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Jose]

> In the real world, you'll probably never get to that fix without getting another
> clearance limit unless

I suspect that we're tripping over "clearance limit". IF you got a
clearance that said hold at xxx VOR, expect flight planned route at
12:30 Zulu, you'd know what to do. If you arrived at xxx VOR after
12:30 Zulu, you'd never enter the hold. No delay.

If you got a clearance that said "cleared to xxx VOR, expect flight
planned route as soon as you arrive at xxx VOR", then you also know what
to do. Upon reaching xxx VOR NORDO, you'd never enter the hold. No delay.

But "expect flight planned route as soon as you arrive at xxx VOR" is
nonstandard phraseology. The proper way to say this is "expect no delay".

And there we are.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/11/06 11:44, Jose wrote:
>> In the real world, you'll probably never get to that fix without getting another
>> clearance limit unless
>
> I suspect that we're tripping over "clearance limit". IF you got a
> clearance that said hold at xxx VOR, expect flight planned route at
> 12:30 Zulu, you'd know what to do. If you arrived at xxx VOR after
> 12:30 Zulu, you'd never enter the hold. No delay.

Even if your radio is still working? I was taught to do what you say
*only* when the radio is not working.

>
> If you got a clearance that said "cleared to xxx VOR, expect flight
> planned route as soon as you arrive at xxx VOR", then you also know what
> to do. Upon reaching xxx VOR NORDO, you'd never enter the hold. No delay.
>
> But "expect flight planned route as soon as you arrive at xxx VOR" is
> nonstandard phraseology. The proper way to say this is "expect no delay".

Okay. And if you arrive over the VOR (and are not NORDO and haven't received
any further clearance) you would need to hold - because this is your clearance
limit.

>
> And there we are.
>
> Jose


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I suspect that we're tripping over "clearance limit". IF you got a
>> clearance that said hold at xxx VOR, expect flight planned route at 12:30
>> Zulu, you'd know what to do. If you arrived at xxx VOR after 12:30 Zulu,
>> you'd never enter the hold. No delay.
>>
>
> Even if your radio is still working? I was taught to do what you say
> *only* when the radio is not working.
>

Were you ever specifically told what to do in that situation when the radio
is working?

[Jose]

> Even if your radio is still working? I was taught to do what you say
> *only* when the radio is not working.

The scenario was NORDO. If you have communication, you just ask.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/11/06 12:13, Jose wrote:
>> Even if your radio is still working? I was taught to do what you say
>> *only* when the radio is not working.
>
> The scenario was NORDO. If you have communication, you just ask.
>
> Jose

Okay, now we're going in circles ;-) I'll give up.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

[Jose]

> Okay, now we're going in circles ;-)

No.. it should be an oval. One minute legs... :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ted]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So it's impossible that the controller could be too busy to answer you,
>> or
>> that he got up to get some coffee?
>>
>
> Pretty much. How busy he's gonna be in the near future can be predicted
> by the number of active and proposed strips sitting in front of him. He
> ain't gonna take a coffee break without being relieved by another
> controller.

This brings up an interesting trivia question. Do you controllers drink
coffee while working at the console and if so does someone bring it to you
during times when you can't take a break and get it for yourself? What's
the food and drink rule while working at the console?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ted" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> This brings up an interesting trivia question. Do you controllers drink
> coffee while working at the console and if so does someone bring it to you
> during times when you can't take a break and get it for yourself? What's
> the food and drink rule while working at the console?
>

I don't drink coffee at work. It keeps me awake.

Rules like this come under facility policy. At Chicago Center beverages on
consoles were prohibited and small carts with cupholders were provided.
Coffee and soft drinks were available in the cafeteria there, I've been in
towers and TRACONs that had coffeemakers in the work areas.

[Newps]

Ted wrote:

>
>
> This brings up an interesting trivia question. Do you controllers drink
> coffee while working at the console and if so does someone bring it to you
> during times when you can't take a break and get it for yourself? What's
> the food and drink rule while working at the console?

Here we eat and drink on position at will. I don't drink coffee but I'm
never very far from a Mountain Dew. We have a refridgerator, microwave,
sink and a drawar full of plates and silverware in the tower cab as well
as the breakroom. If somebody's coming up you can have them bring you
something but you usually aren't on position long enough to have to
worry about that. During the midshift when you're alone I will just go
downstairs when there's no traffic to get something I need.

[Rob]

Newps wrote:
> During the midshift when you're alone I will just go
> downstairs when there's no traffic to get something I need.

Otherwise known as "on the landline"? :)

-R

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

>
> Here we eat and drink on position at will. I don't drink coffee but I'm
> never very far from a Mountain Dew. We have a refridgerator, microwave,
> sink and a drawar full of plates and silverware in the tower cab as well
> as the breakroom. If somebody's coming up you can have them bring you
> something but you usually aren't on position long enough to have to
> worry about that. During the midshift when you're alone I will just go
> downstairs when there's no traffic to get something I need.

If I recall correctly, you're at KBIL(?) If so, I hate to think what's
in that refrig. ;-) Moose Brisket? Elk Jerky?

[Newps]

Yes, we will have lots of elk, deer and buffalo at various times of the
year.

wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> Here we eat and drink on position at will. I don't drink coffee but
>> I'm never very far from a Mountain Dew. We have a refridgerator,
>> microwave, sink and a drawar full of plates and silverware in the
>> tower cab as well as the breakroom. If somebody's coming up you can
>> have them bring you something but you usually aren't on position long
>> enough to have to worry about that. During the midshift when you're
>> alone I will just go downstairs when there's no traffic to get
>> something I need.
>
>
> If I recall correctly, you're at KBIL(?) If so, I hate to think what's
> in that refrig. ;-) Moose Brisket? Elk Jerky?

[JPH]

wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> Here we eat and drink on position at will. I don't drink coffee but
>> I'm never very far from a Mountain Dew. We have a refridgerator,
>> microwave, sink and a drawar full of plates and silverware in the
>> tower cab as well as the breakroom. If somebody's coming up you can
>> have them bring you something but you usually aren't on position long
>> enough to have to worry about that. During the midshift when you're
>> alone I will just go downstairs when there's no traffic to get
>> something I need.
>
>
> If I recall correctly, you're at KBIL(?) If so, I hate to think what's
> in that refrig. ;-) Moose Brisket? Elk Jerky?

And what's wrong with that?
I visited a controller in Maine once and he provided bear ribs. While a
controller in AK I had fresh moose and Salmon at the same meal. Wild
food is a lot more memorable than civilized food!
Now you make me want to put my smoker on, but we have a burn ban in OK
so I just have to wait.

[John R. Copeland]

"JPH" > wrote in message news:VxWxf.137752$WH.16908@dukeread01...
> wrote:
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here we eat and drink on position at will. I don't drink coffee but
>>> I'm never very far from a Mountain Dew. We have a refridgerator,
>>> microwave, sink and a drawar full of plates and silverware in the
>>> tower cab as well as the breakroom. If somebody's coming up you can
>>> have them bring you something but you usually aren't on position long
>>> enough to have to worry about that. During the midshift when you're
>>> alone I will just go downstairs when there's no traffic to get
>>> something I need.
>>
>>
>> If I recall correctly, you're at KBIL(?) If so, I hate to think what's
>> in that refrig. ;-) Moose Brisket? Elk Jerky?
>
> And what's wrong with that?
> I visited a controller in Maine once and he provided bear ribs. While a
> controller in AK I had fresh moose and Salmon at the same meal. Wild
> food is a lot more memorable than civilized food!
> Now you make me want to put my smoker on, but we have a burn ban in OK
> so I just have to wait.

I didn't assume Tim meant anything was wrong with that.
I figured Tim was just jealous. Yum!

[Roy Smith]

> > If I recall correctly, you're at KBIL(?) If so, I hate to think what's
> > in that refrig. ;-) Moose Brisket? Elk Jerky?

Probably smoked filet of pilot. What do you think they do with all those
pilots they ask to call the tower?

[[email protected]]

JPH wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here we eat and drink on position at will. I don't drink coffee but
>>> I'm never very far from a Mountain Dew. We have a refridgerator,
>>> microwave, sink and a drawar full of plates and silverware in the
>>> tower cab as well as the breakroom. If somebody's coming up you can
>>> have them bring you something but you usually aren't on position long
>>> enough to have to worry about that. During the midshift when you're
>>> alone I will just go downstairs when there's no traffic to get
>>> something I need.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I recall correctly, you're at KBIL(?) If so, I hate to think what's
>> in that refrig. ;-) Moose Brisket? Elk Jerky?
>
>
> And what's wrong with that?
> I visited a controller in Maine once and he provided bear ribs. While a
> controller in AK I had fresh moose and Salmon at the same meal. Wild
> food is a lot more memorable than civilized food!
> Now you make me want to put my smoker on, but we have a burn ban in OK
> so I just have to wait.

Nothing wrong with it. I was just making a lousy attempt at humor.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

>>>If I recall correctly, you're at KBIL(?) If so, I hate to think what's
>>>in that refrig. ;-) Moose Brisket? Elk Jerky?
>
>
> Probably smoked filet of pilot. What do you think they do with all those
> pilots they ask to call the tower?

Not at Billings. They do that at Green Bay. ;-)