Hold at VOR for 2v2

[Doug]

So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF

At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?

At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?

Thx

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Doug) said:
>So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
>
>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
>
>At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
>
>At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?

Note that the depicted hold is a missed approach hold, not a hold in lieu
of a procedure turn. If you were in the missed approach hold and you
decided to do the approach again, I think you'd have to go to the VOR,
since it's the IAF. I'm not sure how you're supposed to get back on
course since it says "Procedure Turn NA" in the profile view. Without
that notation, I'd think the prudent thing would be a left turn to 165 and
then a procedure turn to the left. Turning right to intercept the 345
radial from there seems dangerous since it's leading to the high terrain.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
There is alleged to be an airport whose designator is ARP but I've
never got any response to my attempts to locate it.
-- Tanuki

[Iain Wilson]

Good one.
I'd go to the VOR then track outbound. From the outbound leg to the radial
you'd be on the non-holding side for sure or perhaps more to the point, that
piece of airspace isn't part of the approach.
Having said that, the turn at the VOR is going to have you 'far' from the
inbound course...

Iain


"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
>
> At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
>
> At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?
>
> Thx

[Mark Kolber]

On 20 May 2004 23:13:28 -0700, (Doug)
wrote:

>o I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
>
>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
>
>At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
>
>At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?

At first I was going to makes some smart-alecky remark like "when you
are cleared for the approach" but then I remembered that the direction
of turns in the hold doesn't make it obvious.

I would leave the hold at the VOR rather than at some unknown point in
space at the end of an outbound leg. Follow the usual procedure of
entering and exiting a holding pattern at the holding fix.

The real question is which way to turn one arriving at the VOR. A
right turn to intercept is shorter, but I would make a left turn.

The location of the holding pattern is a function of airspace and
terrain clearance issues, A right turn could very well put me into
unprotected airspace. Besides, since I've already been making a bunch
of left turns in the hold, it would be easier.

So, I'd begin the intercept upon reaching the VOR by turning in the
direction of the hold, but continuing the turn to 300° -315° to
intercept the R-345

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

[Andrew Sarangan]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, (Doug) said:
>>So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
>>
>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
>>
>>At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
>>
>>At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?
>
> Note that the depicted hold is a missed approach hold, not a hold in
> lieu of a procedure turn. If you were in the missed approach hold and
> you decided to do the approach again, I think you'd have to go to the
> VOR, since it's the IAF. I'm not sure how you're supposed to get back
> on course since it says "Procedure Turn NA" in the profile view.
> Without that notation, I'd think the prudent thing would be a left
> turn to 165 and then a procedure turn to the left. Turning right to
> intercept the 345 radial from there seems dangerous since it's leading
> to the high terrain.
>
>

The authorized altitude to start the approach is 9200' which is above the
terrain close to the VOR. A right turn to intercept R-345 is not
particularly dangerous at 9200' unless you have a huge wind out fo the
east. Presumably 8000' will be authorized if radar monitoring is
available.

[[email protected]]

Doug wrote:

> So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
>
> At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
>
> At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?
>
> Thx

First, the alignment of the holding pattern is poor procedure design.
The maximum angle should be 120 degrees; it's 143. Having said that
since you're required to have DME to fly this approach you should treat
the VOR as a fly-by "waypoint," which you can do quite accruately with
DME. The lead distance depends upon your speed. With that angle 1.5 to
2.0 miles should roll you pretty well out on course. At the VOR there
is lots of protected airspace at 8,000; 4 miles each side of the 345
radial with an additional 2 mile secondary area on each of those sides.
Those widths ramp down to primaries of 1.5 miles each side of course at
the FAF, with .33 mile secondaries on each side.

If you have previously missed the approach and are holding at 8,000,
then ATC clears you for another approach at that altitude, they have
approved beginning the approach at 8,000. Contrary to what someone else
says, ATC radar is not required for that approval.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 20 May 2004 23:13:28 -0700, (Doug) wrote:

>So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
>
>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
>
>At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
>
>At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?
>
>Thx

If I were in that hold and cleared for the approach, after passing the VOR
(which is the IAF) I would then turn left (staying the same side of the VOR
as the hold) to intercept the 345 radial.


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

[Richard Hertz]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, (Doug) said:
> >So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
> >
> >http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
> >
> >At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
> >
> >At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?
>
> Note that the depicted hold is a missed approach hold, not a hold in lieu
> of a procedure turn. If you were in the missed approach hold and you
> decided to do the approach again, I think you'd have to go to the VOR,
> since it's the IAF. I'm not sure how you're supposed to get back on
> course since it says "Procedure Turn NA" in the profile view. Without
> that notation, I'd think the prudent thing would be a left turn to 165 and
> then a procedure turn to the left. Turning right to intercept the 345
> radial from there seems dangerous since it's leading to the high terrain.
>

Huh? Making up your own procedures and vectors is probably not a good idea.
The chart clearly shows 8000' for the missed appch altitude (seems to be
quite safe to me) and VOR crossing altitude is 9200', then down to other
altitudes.

So why is the hold for missed so special. Proc turn is NA in any case and
the first time to the VOR/approach what are you going to do? Make up
another of your turns?

Follow the chart and don't guess - at the VOR turn inbound, intercept the
radial as depicted and you will be fine.


>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> There is alleged to be an airport whose designator is ARP but I've
> never got any response to my attempts to locate it.
> -- Tanuki

[[email protected]]

Richard Hertz wrote:

>
>
> Follow the chart and don't guess - at the VOR turn inbound, intercept the
> radial as depicted and you will be fine.

Your view of "following the chart" is different than mine. With DME it makes
much more sense to lead the turn so you ideally roll out on the 345 radial.
Your way would result in a lot of overshoot.

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>
> course since it says "Procedure Turn NA" in the profile view. Without
> that notation, I'd think the prudent thing would be a left turn to 165 and
> then a procedure turn to the left. Turning right to intercept the 345
> radial from there seems dangerous since it's leading to the high terrain.

ATC would expect you to go straight-in. If the holding pattern had been
designed properly, it would be within 120 degrees of the inbound course, which
would have made it okay for "NoPT." With a DME lead you can still do a nice
job of "fly-by, thus not getting over on the high terrain side at all.

Rolling your own course reversals is certainly not the way to go.

[Bill Hale]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in message >...
> On 20 May 2004 23:13:28 -0700, (Doug) wrote:
>
> >So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
> >
> >http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
> >
> >At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
> >

I think the reason that there all these answers is that it does
not matter.

The commentator who said make all turns on the holding pattern side
gave accurate guidance. Look at the terrain and guess why they put the hold
on the east side.

There are a lot of miles between the holding fix and the faf. And
all of it is clear for you.

So getting established can't be much of a factor. I'd turn most directly
to intercept 345 inbound from wherever in the hold I got the approach
clearance.

Maneuvering south of Jeffco seems to be specifically prohibited by
the remark.

Since you don't get to review every decision on the internet while
flying the approach, wisest is to confer with ATC over what you are
going to do when in doubt.

Regards, Bill Hale -- who used to be based at 2v2 when you shot the
ils into FNL then scud ran over KLMO broadcast station and let down into
2v2. -- not a charted procedure...

[[email protected]]

Bill Hale wrote:

> Since you don't get to review every decision on the internet while
> flying the approach, wisest is to confer with ATC over what you are
> going to do when in doubt.

ATC separates aircraft; they don't interpret instrument procedures.

Something is lacking in some pilots training to not understand the ideal is to treat major course changes as
flyby waypoints, not flyover waypoints. The only flyover waypoint is a charted flyover waypoint; and there
aren't any of those on VOR approaches.

[Bill Hale]

wrote in message >...
> Bill Hale wrote:
>
> > Since you don't get to review every decision on the internet while
> > flying the approach, wisest is to confer with ATC over what you are
> > going to do when in doubt.
>
> ATC separates aircraft; they don't interpret instrument procedures.

So in clearing what you are going to do, you ensure that you do not
create a separation problem. That would be about all the controller
would care about. Going south of JEFFCO might create such a problem.
>
> Something is lacking in some pilots training to not understand the ideal is to treat major course changes as
> flyby waypoints, not flyover waypoints. The only flyover waypoint is a charted flyover waypoint; and there
> aren't any of those on VOR approaches.

You are definitely right on this. I have no idea what you are talking
about.

Bill Hale

[Greg Esres]

<<Something is lacking in some pilots training to not understand the
ideal is to treat major course changes as flyby waypoints, not flyover
waypoints.>>

This goes back to a question I had a while back about "Complete
Reversal."

To me the question is how to give a student a criteria for leading
turns on an instrument approach. I can't tell from TERPS whether this
was ever intended; it does suggest that the framers assumed that
navaids would be flown over, rather than by.

The AIM says to lead turns on airways, but I have found no FAA
justification to lead turns on instrument approaches.

So the questions arise:
1) is it *always* safe to lead turns?,
2) is it *legal*?, and
3) will it pass checkrides?

[Roy Smith]

Greg Esres > wrote:
> To me the question is how to give a student a criteria for leading
> turns on an instrument approach. I can't tell from TERPS whether this
> was ever intended; it does suggest that the framers assumed that
> navaids would be flown over, rather than by.

I think that assumption was based on how most navaids work. You don't
really know you're over a VOR until you get a full TO/FROM flip. Even
with DME, slant range makes it pretty difficult to calculate leads for
turns. You're at 9000 MSL, the elevation of the VORTAC isn't even
published, but you can guess it's about 1000 MSL, your true airspeed is
170 kts, you've got a 30 kt left-quartering tailwind, and you need to
make a 70 degree turn to the right; quick, at what DME readout should
you start your turn?

The GPS I fly with works all those numbers (OK, it doesn't know the
wind, but it does know my groundspeed, and uses horizontal distance
instead of slant), gives me an audible "boing" and a 10-second countdown
to "turn now", and if I zoom the map in far enough, even draws me a nice
magenta curved line on the screen to follow.

[Ron Natalie]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...

> You're at 9000 MSL, the elevation of the VORTAC isn't even
> published, but you can guess it's about 1000 MSL,

Lousy guess, field elevation at BJC is 6012 or thereabouts.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

(Doug) wrote in message >...
>
> So I am in the hold at the BJC VOR for the VOR DME approach to 2v2.
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09041VDA.PDF
>
> At what point do I leave the hold and intercept the 345 radial?
>
> At the VOR? Or at the end of the outbound leg?
>


The hold at the BJC VOR/DME is the missed approach holding point. If
you're in the hold there you've already flown the approach and missed.
How did you get on the BJC R-345 the first time?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're at 9000 MSL, the elevation of the VORTAC isn't even
> published, but you can guess it's about 1000 MSL, your true airspeed is
> 170 kts, you've got a 30 kt left-quartering tailwind, and you need to
> make a 70 degree turn to the right; quick, at what DME readout should
> you start your turn?
>

VOR site elevations are published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Elevation at BJC VOR/DME is 5734 MSL.

[Teacherjh]

>>
1) is it *always* safe to lead turns?,
2) is it *legal*?, and
3) will it pass checkrides?
<<

Nothing is "always" safe. However, if when you lead the turn you are within
the positional tolerance of both the initial and final courses, yes, I think
it's safe (and preferred).

I know of no rule that makes it illegal to do so

Whether it passes checkrides depends on whether the check pilot has the same
take on it.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Greg Esres]

<<I think that assumption was based on how most navaids work. >>

Oh, no doubt. One might be led to think that there is more protected
area on the other side (where you overshoot the navaid) than on the
side from which you're approaching. I vaguely recall seeing that was
true in the enoute segment in certain circumstances (don't hold me to
this), but was NOT true in the approach segment.

<<at what DME readout should you start your turn?>>

Exactly. And even if *I* could do it, can I expect a student to be as
proficient at it or understand the nuances as to when it should be
applied? An instrument pilot shouldn't have to be a TERPS expert to
fly safely.

I think it more prudent to hand a student a set of simple rules that
will always work, which is why I'm uncomfortable recommending leading
turns on non-GPS approaches. I think it's OK, but I can't *prove* it.

<<The GPS I fly with works all those numbers (OK, it doesn't know
the>>

With GPS, different story. I presume that following any lead provided
is both safe and legal.

[Greg Esres]

<<However, if when you lead the turn you are within the positional
tolerance of both the initial and final courses, yes>>

That begs the question. Like saying you're in the protected area if
you stay in the protected area. ;-)

<<I know of no rule that makes it illegal to do so>>

Fixes are defined on charts with certain DME or cross radials. By
definition, you're not there until you have those distances or
centered cross radials.

That could easily be interpreted as a regulation forbidding leading
turns.

<<Whether it passes checkrides depends on whether the check pilot has
the same take on it.>>

Documentation makes this more likely.

[Teacherjh]

>>
<<However, if when you lead the turn you are within the positional
tolerance of both the initial and final courses, yes>>

That begs the question. Like saying you're in the protected area if
you stay in the protected area. ;-)
<<

Well, your instruments aren't a "yes/no" "you're at the fix" thing. They are a
"close, closer, past but still close, past and further away" thing. So you do
know whether or not you are within both airways. Once there, I'd say you're
good to go.

For example, you're following CMK 243, and it intersects SBC 11 at your
intersection. As you watch SBC 11's needle come in, you'll know you're ten
degrees from center, five degrees from center, etc. Once you are within the
airway, you can turn.

At least that's my story and I"m sticking to it. :)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)