Canadian holding procedures

[Derrick Early]

What are the holding procedures in Canada? On the approach plates, they say
something like "Climb to 1900 on track of 297 deg. LEFT turn to 2T NDB."
However, they don't show any holding pattern. Do they expect you to enter a
hold at the beckon? What radial do you use?

[Defly]

>
>
>What are the holding procedures in Canada? On the approach plates, they say
>something like "Climb to 1900 on track of 297 deg. LEFT turn to 2T NDB."
>However, they don't show any holding pattern. Do they expect you to enter a
>hold at the beckon? What radial do you use?

I'm guessing here, but based on what you've written it sounds like a missed
approach procedure and that the intent is that you'll climb to the altitude on
that heading then once at the altitude fly direct to the fix. My assumption
would be you'd hold on the heading you arrived on, right turns, or you'd get
further instruction from the controller. Another thought is that if the fix is
on the final approach course you'd hold on the approach heading outside the fix
and make the turns on the same side as the procedure turn.

[gwengler]

> I'm guessing here, ...

Guessing is probably one of the most dangerous things when flying IFR.
What makes you assume that there is a holding pattern if there is
none mentioned in the missed approach instructions? We don't have
holdings at a missed approach in Canada. You just go to your missed
approach fix as described in the missed approach instructions or per
special missed approach clearance received from ATC. As soon as you
are on the missed you talk to ATC who will clear you for another
approach or any other request (for example to go to another airport
which may or may not be your alternate). If you are in uncontrolled
airspace and unable to communicate with ATC you follow IFR procedures
as outlined in the Canadian A.I.P. Under no circumstances would you
start an un-authorized holding pattern.

Gerd Wengler, ATP

[Defly]

>
>> I'm guessing here, ...
>
>Guessing is probably one of the most dangerous things when flying IFR.
> What makes you assume that there is a holding pattern if there is
>none mentioned in the missed approach instructions? We don't have
>holdings at a missed approach in Canada. You just go to your missed
>approach fix as described in the missed approach instructions or per
>special missed approach clearance received from ATC. As soon as you
>are on the missed you talk to ATC who will clear you for another
>approach or any other request (for example to go to another airport
>which may or may not be your alternate). If you are in uncontrolled
>airspace and unable to communicate with ATC you follow IFR procedures
>as outlined in the Canadian A.I.P. Under no circumstances would you
>start an un-authorized holding pattern.
>
>Gerd Wengler, ATP

Thanks for the explanation. You'll notice I wasn't flying IFR when I was
guessing. I never guess when I'm flying IFR - only when I'm muddling around on
the message boards, and I never do anything unauthorized when I'm flying

[Derrick Early]

Thank you for providing a copy of Mr. Wengler's message. His message didn't make it to the news group. Now I understand. They don't have a holding pattern at the missed approach fix.

"Defly" > wrote in message ...
>
>> I'm guessing here, ...
>
>Guessing is probably one of the most dangerous things when flying IFR.
> What makes you assume that there is a holding pattern if there is
>none mentioned in the missed approach instructions? We don't have
>holdings at a missed approach in Canada. You just go to your missed
>approach fix as described in the missed approach instructions or per
>special missed approach clearance received from ATC. As soon as you
>are on the missed you talk to ATC who will clear you for another
>approach or any other request (for example to go to another airport
>which may or may not be your alternate). If you are in uncontrolled
>airspace and unable to communicate with ATC you follow IFR procedures
>as outlined in the Canadian A.I.P. Under no circumstances would you
>start an un-authorized holding pattern.
>
>Gerd Wengler, ATP

Thanks for the explanation. You'll notice I wasn't flying IFR when I was
guessing. I never guess when I'm flying IFR - only when I'm muddling around on
the message boards, and I never do anything unauthorized when I'm flying

[Martin Kosina]

> What makes you assume that there is a holding pattern if there is
> none mentioned in the missed approach instructions? We don't have
> holdings at a missed approach in Canada. You just go to your missed
> approach fix as described in the missed approach instructions or per
> special missed approach clearance received from ATC. As soon as you
> are on the missed you talk to ATC who will clear you for another
> approach or any other request (for example to go to another airport
> which may or may not be your alternate). If you are in uncontrolled
> airspace and unable to communicate with ATC you follow IFR procedures
> as outlined in the Canadian A.I.P. Under no circumstances would you
> start an un-authorized holding pattern.


OK, so what *are* all those right-turn holding patterns depicted at
each MAP in the "CAP Instrument Procedures" ? (I am looking
specifically at CAP-2, for example NDB/DME 16 at Nanaimo, but almost
all have it).

Thx,

Martin

[gwengler]

> OK, so what *are* all those right-turn holding patterns depicted at
> each MAP in the "CAP Instrument Procedures" ? (I am looking
> specifically at CAP-2, for example NDB/DME 16 at Nanaimo, but almost
> all have it).

On this approach (NDB DME 16, Nanaimo, BC), there is no holding
pattern depicted at the MAP – look closely. I don't know what you are
looking at but these holding patterns are rare. They are only found
in mountainous areas and are for shuttling procedures. Some are to
shuttle down for the approach and some are to shuttle up for a safe
altitude.
In this specific case you fly to ARMAC which is the IF. If you're too
high for example coming from the west (minimum safe altitude 7000)
you shuttle down to 2400 as per the holding pattern (thin line). Once
you're there you proceed normally as you would far a procdedure turn
(i.e. race track pattern). Inbound you can then descend to 2000.

Gerd Wengler, ATP

[Martin Kosina]

> > OK, so what *are* all those right-turn holding patterns depicted at
> > each MAP in the "CAP Instrument Procedures" ? (I am looking
> > specifically at CAP-2, for example NDB/DME 16 at Nanaimo, but almost
> > all have it).
>
> On this approach (NDB DME 16, Nanaimo, BC), there is no holding
> pattern depicted at the MAP ? look closely.

Sorry, technically, "holding pattern" may be the wrong term. I meant
the racetrack course depicted NE of the NDB, 005 degrees outbound,
whatever that's called.

> I don't know what you are looking at but these holding patterns are rare.
> They are only found in mountainous areas and are for shuttling procedures.
> Some are to shuttle down for the approach and some are to shuttle up for a
> safe altitude.

There is one like it on almost every page of this book (CAP-2). Then
again, most of BC *is* mountainous, so maybe that's why...

> In this specific case you fly to ARMAC which is the IF. If you're too
> high for example coming from the west (minimum safe altitude 7000)
> you shuttle down to 2400 as per the holding pattern (thin line). Once
> you're there you proceed normally as you would far a procdedure turn
> (i.e. race track pattern). Inbound you can then descend to 2000.

I see, the "shuttle" is used to descend or climb from/to the enroute
structure. Makes sense. So an approach clearance automatically implies
authorization to commence the descend "shuttle", as depicted... right
? What about the case when the shuttle is not needed (i.e. you are
already close to the PT outbound segment altitude), are you free to
skip and just proceed outbound ?

Also, on a missed approach, what exactly is the clearance limit if one
does not land (you said there is no such thing as holding there,
unless specified) ? The descriptions always end on something like "...
climbing turn to XY NDB" but, with some exceptions, stop short of the
"...and hold" phraseology that we are so used to on U.S. IAPs. The
mantra here is that if you reach your clearance limit, you enter a
published hold, or a standard holding pattern.

I don't mean this as an argument, just surpised by the statement that
there is no such thing as default holding at the MAP in Canada, and
I'd like to understand this better. The concept of a clearance limit
is an important one in the US airspace system and we are taught to pay
close attention to it, that's why the curiosity :-)

Thanks !

Martin

[Icebound]

"Martin Kosina" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Also, on a missed approach, what exactly is the clearance limit if one
> does not land (you said there is no such thing as holding there,
> unless specified) ? The descriptions always end on something like "...
> climbing turn to XY NDB" but, with some exceptions, stop short of the
> "...and hold" phraseology that we are so used to on U.S. IAPs. The
> mantra here is that if you reach your clearance limit, you enter a
> published hold, or a standard holding pattern.


Leafing through a bunch of Canadian plates, I see that some DO specify
explicit holds (Terrace, Campbell River). These appear to be those where
the terrain prohibits a MAP that would put you into position for another
approach.

The MAPs that don't specify a hold... seem to (always?) put you in at
altitude and into a position suitable for a second approach.

Somebody needs to confirm whether that is on purpose so that you can begin
the second approach immediately??? (in the absence of instructions to the
contrary, of course)

[Robert M. Gary]

(gwengler) wrote in message >...
> > I'm guessing here, ...
>
> Guessing is probably one of the most dangerous things when flying IFR.

It doesn't appear he was flying IFR, my "guess" is he was in front of
his keyboard writing a post to this newsgroup. I suppose he could have
had MS Flight Sim running in the background.

-Robert, CFI

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Icebound" wrote:

> [...]
> The MAPs that don't specify a hold... seem to (always?) put you in at
> altitude and into a position suitable for a second approach.
>
> Somebody needs to confirm whether that is on purpose so that you can
> begin the second approach immediately??? (in the absence of
> instructions to the contrary, of course)

It may be just a coincidence. Recall that being cleared for the
approach does not authorize multiple tries (in case one doesn't break
out), just one. The default procedure, as exemplified in the
lost-comm (or too-low-for-radio) rules, is to head off to one's
alternate. The MAP has to be a point whence one can do that, so it
has en-route-level obstacle clearance just like an initial fix.

- FChE

[Icebound]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>... Recall that being cleared for the
> approach does not authorize multiple tries (in case one doesn't break
> out), just one. The default procedure, as exemplified in the
> lost-comm (or too-low-for-radio) rules, is to head off to one's
> alternate. The MAP has to be a point whence one can do that, so it
> has en-route-level obstacle clearance just like an initial fix.
>


Okay, so do I have this right:

In Canadian procedure, after a missed approach, I proceed as per the MAP on
the plate. If I reach the end of the procedure without hearing from the
controller (or being able to reach him), I do not hold (unless a hold is
explicitly indicated), but I just proceed to my alternate. Otherwise, I
WILL hear from the controller... for a new approach clearance, or other
instructions.

? ? ? ?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Icebound" > writes:

> [...]
> Okay, so do I have this right:
>
> In Canadian procedure, after a missed approach, I proceed as per the
> MAP on the plate. If I reach the end of the procedure without
> hearing from the controller (or being able to reach him), I do not
> hold (unless a hold is explicitly indicated), but I just proceed to
> my alternate. [...]

Different Canadian procedure manuals vary in their specificity
regarding this situation. Our AIP RAC 9.26 says that a hold is
implied at the end of the missed approach procedure, unless other
clearance is issued. I found no clear indication of this in our
Instrument Procedures Manual, nor the Air Regulations proper.

Anyway, in case one cannot get hold of a new clearance, the challenge
becomes picking a point at which one deems communication to have been
lost, to authorize exiting the hold and divert to an alternate. This
suggests that the US & Canadian systems are alike in these areas after
all.

- FChE

[Icebound]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Icebound" > writes:
>
> > [...]
> > Okay, so do I have this right:
> >
> > In Canadian procedure, after a missed approach, I proceed as per the
> > MAP on the plate. If I reach the end of the procedure without
> > hearing from the controller (or being able to reach him), I do not
> > hold (unless a hold is explicitly indicated), but I just proceed to
> > my alternate. [...]
>
> Different Canadian procedure manuals vary in their specificity
> regarding this situation. Our AIP RAC 9.26 says that a hold is
> implied at the end of the missed approach procedure, unless other
> clearance is issued.

That's interesting, because then why would some plates specify the hold
explicitly and others (most others) do not? And what track would you hold
on?

Or do they only specify the hold explicitly when it has to be on a specific
track, and otherwise it is safe to choose your own track?

>I found no clear indication of this in our
> Instrument Procedures Manual, nor the Air Regulations proper.
>
> Anyway, in case one cannot get hold of a new clearance, the challenge
> becomes picking a point at which one deems communication to have been
> lost, to authorize exiting the hold and divert to an alternate. This
> suggests that the US & Canadian systems are alike in these areas after
> all.
>
> - FChE

[Icebound]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Icebound" > writes:
>
> > [...]
> > Okay, so do I have this right:
> >
> > In Canadian procedure, after a missed approach, I proceed as per the
> > MAP on the plate. If I reach the end of the procedure without
> > hearing from the controller (or being able to reach him), I do not
> > hold (unless a hold is explicitly indicated), but I just proceed to
> > my alternate. [...]
>
> Different Canadian procedure manuals vary in their specificity
> regarding this situation. Our AIP RAC 9.26 says that a hold is
> implied at the end of the missed approach procedure, unless other
> clearance is issued.

That's interesting, because then why is the hold explicitly specified on
some plates but not onothers (not on *most* others)? And on what track
should the "implied" hold be executed?

Or is it that the "implied" hold will be safe on any track of your choosing,
and that the plates show an explicit hold only when there is a requirement
for execution on some *specific* track???



>I found no clear indication of this in our
> Instrument Procedures Manual, nor the Air Regulations proper.
>
> Anyway, in case one cannot get hold of a new clearance, the challenge
> becomes picking a point at which one deems communication to have been
> lost, to authorize exiting the hold and divert to an alternate. This
> suggests that the US & Canadian systems are alike in these areas after
> all.
>
> - FChE

[Martin Kosina]

> Our AIP RAC 9.26 says that a hold is
> implied at the end of the missed approach procedure, unless other
> clearance is issued. I found no clear indication of this in our
> Instrument Procedures Manual, nor the Air Regulations proper.

OK, that would make sense. There has to be a concept of a clearance
limit and some sort of a default action to take there. When commencing
an IAP, the limit is the MAP, *not* the alternate airport, I would
think.

Not all these situations are lost-comm, either, the controller could
just be busy for a while, giving someone a long clearance, missed the
call on a congested frequency, etc. It can take just a few minutes to
execute a simple missed in a faster airplane. An expectation to start
right back up into the enroute structure without the benefit of little
breathing room to sort things out would be highly inpractical, IMHO.

[gwengler]

I think there may be a general misunderstanding in this thread. You
have to distinguish between two different scenarios. 1) Approaches in
controlled or uncontrolled airspace WITH communication to ATC; and 2)
Approaches in uncontrolled airspace WITHOUT communication to ATC.
Both scenarios assume uncontrolled airports, i.e. no tower, radio or
RCO (remote controlled outlet) on the field (in those cases there's
always someone to talk to and get missed approach instructions or
instructions after the missed is commenced).

1) You are at one time on the way to the airport high enough to talk
to ATC. ATC clears you for *AN* approach (this is the correct
phraseology; which approach you do is up to you). YOU ensure terrain
and obstacle clearance from then on using the information on the
approach plate both for the actual approach and for the missed (e.g.
YOU decide if you need a shuttle hold etc.). The missed will get you
back in contact with ATC. Your clearance limit is the last fix in the
missed approach instruction. You WILL be able to talk to ATC by then;
otherwise follow lost comm. procedure. It's the same in the US: At
or before the missed hold you will talk to ATC or go lost comm., only
that there is very rarely a missed hold in Canada (and then only for
terrain in mountainous areas).

2) This may be a concept unknown in the US: In Canada, you can do a
complete IFR flight in IMC or VMC without ever talking to ATC or
without ever getting a clearance, including take off, cruise, approach
and missed. All that's required is that you are in uncontrolled
airspace, squawk 1000 in low airspace, ensure terrain and obstacle
clearance, talk to the required MFs (mandatory frequencies) and
broadcast all your intentions on 126.7. In this case, you do what you
have to do and on the missed, go wherever you can land. Should you
have to enter controlled airspace, contact ATC and get a clearance.
You can NOT enter controlled airspace without a clearance if you are
not VFR.
That's it - no more, no less. On the missed, you either talk to ATC
(or you follow lost comm. procedures) or you are uncontrolled and on
your own.

Gerd

[gwengler]

As another poster said correctly (that's what I kinda meant by lost
comm. procedures) refer to AIP RAC 9.26 where there is a whole list of
holding options if you don't get hold of ATC before reaching the
missed approach holding fix. But - as in the US - you cannot hold
forever and then it's off to the lost comm. procedures.

Gerd

[Martin Kosina]

....
> That's it - no more, no less. On the missed, you either talk to ATC
> (or you follow lost comm. procedures) or you are uncontrolled and on
> your own.

That is a good point (many people who learned to fly IFR in the lower
48 and southern Canada don't think of it that way, but the airspace
system is designed to allow instrument flight from takeoff to
touchdown without ever talking to anybody). But I think the
discussion was not largely misunderstood, the basic question was what
is the clearance limit at the end of an IAP in *controlled* airspace,
and besides Frank's reference to the AIP, this has gone unanswered.
Is it the MAP, at which point you enter either a published or standard
holding pattern, or the alternate airport ?

Sorry, not to nit-pick, but this is a real scenario - I just missed an
approach, got busy reconfiguring the airplane and I am reaching the
"climb-to" altitude 0.5nm from the MAP with its *depicted* racetrack
pattern at 120 knots. The frequency is congested and I can't get a
word in. What should I do in Canada ?

[Martin Kosina]

....
> That's it - no more, no less. On the missed, you either talk to ATC
> (or you follow lost comm. procedures) or you are uncontrolled and on
> your own.

That is a good point (many people who learned to fly IFR in the lower
48 and southern Canada don't think of it that way, but the airspace
system is designed to allow instrument flight from takeoff to
touchdown without ever talking to anybody). But I think the
discussion was not largely misunderstood, the basic question was what
is the clearance limit at the end of an IAP in *controlled* airspace,
and besides Frank's reference to the AIP, this has gone unanswered.
Is it the MAP, at which point you enter either a published or standard
holding pattern, or the alternate airport ?

Sorry, not to nit-pick, but this is a real scenario - I just missed an
approach, got busy reconfiguring the airplane and I am reaching the
"climb-to" altitude 0.5nm from the MAP with its *depicted* racetrack
pattern at 120 knots. The frequency is congested and I can't get a
word in. What should I do in Canada ?

[gwengler]

> the basic question was what is the clearance limit at the end of an IAP in
> *controlled* airspace

Martin,

good point. Here's my answer: The clearance limit is the Missed
Approach Holding Fix, i.e. the last point of the missed approach
procedure unless other instructions were received. AIP RAC 9.26
clearly regulates the scenario where you are not in contact with ATC
by then. Im writing from memory here, but you're supposed to hold
standard on the inbound track to the fix (whatever that may be) or in
any depicted holding patterns incl. shuttle holds or some other very
specific provisions. There you hold until you talk to someone or you
run out of options...

All the best,
Gerd

[Teacherjh]

>>
the [Canadian] airspace
system is designed to allow instrument flight from takeoff to
touchdown without ever talking to anybody
<<

What besides the big sky principle separates aluminum?

Jose

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

[gwengler]

(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...
> >>
> the [Canadian] airspace
> system is designed to allow instrument flight from takeoff to
> touchdown without ever talking to anybody
> <<
>
> What besides the big sky principle separates aluminum?
>
> Jose

Cruising altitudes (you know, the thing with the even and uneven
numbers and this east/west thing) and announcing every altitude change
on a common frequency (126.7 in Canada). Other than that, frequent
position reports sure help...

Gerd

[Icebound]

"gwengler" > wrote in message
om...
> (Teacherjh) wrote in message
>...
> > >>
> > the [Canadian] airspace
> > system is designed to allow instrument flight from takeoff to
> > touchdown without ever talking to anybody
> > <<
> >
> > What besides the big sky principle separates aluminum?
> >
> > Jose
>
>... and announcing every altitude change
> on a common frequency (126.7 in Canada). ...

.... or 5680 kHz domestically or other international HF frequencies for
long-distance communication in the more remote areas.

[David Megginson]

gwengler wrote:

>>the basic question was what is the clearance limit at the end of an IAP in
>>*controlled* airspace

> good point. Here's my answer: The clearance limit is the Missed
> Approach Holding Fix, i.e. the last point of the missed approach
> procedure unless other instructions were received. AIP RAC 9.26
> clearly regulates the scenario where you are not in contact with ATC
> by then.

Here's the actual text, since (sadly) the AIP is not available online. Note
that in practice, controllers nearly always give specific missed approach
instructions in advance when you're landing in low IMC.


RAC 9.26 Missed Approach Procedures

Whenever a pilot conducts a published missed approach from an instrument
approach procedure, the aircraft must continue along the published final
approach course to the published Missed Approach Point (MAP) and follow the
published missed approach instructions. The pilot may climb immediately to
the altitude specified in the missed approach procedure or assigned by ATC.
In the event of a missed approach when no missed approach clearance has
been received, the pilot will follow the published missed approach
instructions. Should the pilot arrive at the missed approach holding fix
prior to receiving further clearance, the pilot will:

(a) hold in a standard holding pattern on the inbound track used to arrive
at the fix;

(b) if there is a published missed approach track to the fix, hold in a
standard holding pattern inbound to the fix on this track;

(c) if there is a published shuttle or holding pattern at the fix, hold in
this pattern regardless of the missed approach track to the fix; or

(d) if there are published missed approach holding instructions, hold in
accordance with these.

If a clearance to another destination has been received, the pilot shall, in
the absence of other instructions, carry out the missed approach
instructions until at an altitude which will ensure adequate obstacle
clearance before proceeding on course.

If specific missed approach instructions have been received and
acknowledged, the pilot is required to comply with the new missed approach
instructions before proceeding on course, e.g., "on missed approach, climb
straight ahead to 3 000 feet; right turn, climb on course" or "on missed
approach, climb straight ahead to the BRAVO NDB before proceeding on course".

Civil and military air traffic control procedures do not require the air
traffic controller to provide terrain and obstacle clearance in their missed
approach instructions. Terms such as "on missed approach, right turn climb
on course" oir "on missed approach, left turn on course" are not to be
considered specific missed approach instructions. It remains the pilot's
responsibility to ensure terrain and obstacle avoidance and clearance.


All the best,


David