Required hold?

[Nicholas Kliewer]

In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
am I required to hold at RAINEE? Does it
depend which IAF I use?

Thanks !

[Judah]

Yes, it depends on your IAF. If you start at RAINEE, the Procedure Turn is
required. If you start at OWANY or OWDIM no Procedure Turn is required (or
authorized) as indicated by the "NoPT" comment on the DME Arcs.



Nicholas Kliewer > wrote in news:41913C0A.93B1F12
@spothotmail.com:

> In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
> am I required to hold at RAINEE? Does it
> depend which IAF I use?
>
> Thanks !

[Ron Natalie]

Nicholas Kliewer wrote:
> In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
> am I required to hold at RAINEE? Does it
> depend which IAF I use?
>
It depends on which IAF you use. The NoPT designation
on the DME arcs (IAF's OWDIM and OWAMY) applies to the hold in
lieu of the procedure turn (5-4-8 of the AIM). If you start
the approach at RANEE, then you have to enter the hold.

Really, you're considered to have done the turn once you've
entered, and crossed thed fix heading on the inbound course.
In that case, even coming in from the two arc IAF's, you
would just flyover RANEE anyhow even if the arcs weren't marked
NoPT. You don't need to go around the racetrack.

[Dave Butler]

Nicholas Kliewer wrote:
> In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
> am I required to hold at RAINEE? Does it
> depend which IAF I use?

Perhaps the question you intended to ask is: "am I required to do a procedure
turn at RAINEE?" A hold is never required there unless so instructed by ATC.

If you arrive by one of the transtions marked NoPT, or if you are given vectors
to the final approach course, no procedure turn is required.

[Mitty]

On 11/9/04 3:52 PM, Nicholas Kliewer wrote the following:
> In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
> am I required to hold at RAINEE?

I'll stick my neck out in public.

If it is your IAF and you got there on your own/were not vectored there, then I
think you have to fly a lap in the hold because it is your PT.

Does it
> depend which IAF I use?

Yes; From the two DME arcs: "NoPT"

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Nicholas Kliewer > wrote:
>In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
>http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
>am I required to hold at RAINEE? Does it
>depend which IAF I use?

I see three IAF's (OWANY, OWDIM, and RANEE). The first two are the
start of DME arcs, both of which are marked NoPT, so you don't fly a
PT if you start from either of those.

If you start the approach from RANEE you have to fly the PT, and the
PT is constrained to be a 1-minute holding pattern.

What I find odd about the procedure is that there's no hold charted
for the missed. The obvious answer is that you hold northeast of CLL
on the 027 radial, right turns, 1 minute legs, but it's conventional
to chart the holding pattern.

[Stan Prevost]

If you arrive at RAINEE as the IAF, you must fly the hold-in-lieu course
reversal procedure. Only once around the hold is required. Additional
turns require ATC approval. If you fly either DME arc, you may not fly the
hold unless you obtain ATC clearance to do so. Each DME arc is marked NoPT.

"Nicholas Kliewer" > wrote in message
...
> In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
> am I required to hold at RAINEE? Does it
> depend which IAF I use?
>
> Thanks !

[zatatime]

On 9 Nov 2004 17:20:36 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote:

>What I find odd about the procedure is that there's no hold charted
>for the missed


I found that strange as well. Not sure why that is.

z

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:14:45 -0500, Dave Butler >
wrote:

>Perhaps the question you intended to ask is: "am I required to do a procedure
>turn at RAINEE?" A hold is never required there unless so instructed by ATC.

Not so. If you arrive via the transition from CLL, a procedure turn is
required.



--ron

[J Haggerty]

Although a missed approach holding pattern is normally charted, at the
time the procedure was built, the only requirement is that the missed
approach procedure allowed a pilot to continue in the enroute
environment. Using the VORTAC as the clearance limit accomplished this,
so a holding pattern was not required.
2000 would probably not provide the required 1000' obstacle clearance
for a holding pattern at CLL (based on the 1049' tower that appears to
be within any holding pattern that would be used there), the minimum
holding altitude is probably higher than 2000.

JPH

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Nicholas Kliewer > wrote:
>
>>In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
>>http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
>>am I required to hold at RAINEE? Does it
>>depend which IAF I use?
>
>
> I see three IAF's (OWANY, OWDIM, and RANEE). The first two are the
> start of DME arcs, both of which are marked NoPT, so you don't fly a
> PT if you start from either of those.
>
> If you start the approach from RANEE you have to fly the PT, and the
> PT is constrained to be a 1-minute holding pattern.
>
> What I find odd about the procedure is that there's no hold charted
> for the missed. The obvious answer is that you hold northeast of CLL
> on the 027 radial, right turns, 1 minute legs, but it's conventional
> to chart the holding pattern.

[Dave Butler]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:14:45 -0500, Dave Butler >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps the question you intended to ask is: "am I required to do a procedure
>>turn at RAINEE?" A hold is never required there unless so instructed by ATC.
>
>
> Not so. If you arrive via the transition from CLL, a procedure turn is
> required.

Hmmm. You said, "Not so", and then wrote something that agreed with what I said.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:12:13 -0500, Dave Butler >
wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:14:45 -0500, Dave Butler >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps the question you intended to ask is: "am I required to do a procedure
>>>turn at RAINEE?" A hold is never required there unless so instructed by ATC.
>>
>>
>> Not so. If you arrive via the transition from CLL, a procedure turn is
>> required.
>
>Hmmm. You said, "Not so", and then wrote something that agreed with what I said.

The joys of internet communication -- misunderstandings 'r us :-)


--ron

[Nicholas Kliewer]

Dave Butler wrote:
>
> Nicholas Kliewer wrote:
> > In the following approach (VOR/DME or GPS-A),
> > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0411/06276VDGA.PDF
> > am I required to hold at RAINEE? Does it
> > depend which IAF I use?
>
> Perhaps the question you intended to ask is: "am I required to do a procedure
> turn at RAINEE?" A hold is never required there unless so instructed by ATC.
>
> If you arrive by one of the transtions marked NoPT, or if you are given vectors
> to the final approach course, no procedure turn is required.

Yes, I meant to ask that. And actually, I didn't know that the racetrack was
anything but a hold. Thanks. You all are a great resource.

[Tyler]

Stan Prevost wrote:

> If you arrive at RAINEE as the IAF, you must fly the hold-in-lieu course
> reversal procedure. Only once around the hold is required. Additional
> turns require ATC approval.

To clarify, I need only cross RAINEE, do a standard entry (direct,
parallel, or teardrop), then cross RAINEE again inbound on the final
approach course, for a total of 2 crossings? Similar to a procedure turn?

[Stan Prevost]

"Tyler" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>> If you arrive at RAINEE as the IAF, you must fly the hold-in-lieu course
>> reversal procedure. Only once around the hold is required. Additional
>> turns require ATC approval.
>
> To clarify, I need only cross RAINEE, do a standard entry (direct,
> parallel, or teardrop), then cross RAINEE again inbound on the final
> approach course, for a total of 2 crossings? Similar to a procedure turn?
>

Yes, that's right. The purpose of the HIL is the same as the purpose of a
PT.

Stan

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Tyler > wrote:
>Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>> If you arrive at RAINEE as the IAF, you must fly the hold-in-lieu course
>> reversal procedure. Only once around the hold is required. Additional
>> turns require ATC approval.
>
>To clarify, I need only cross RAINEE, do a standard entry (direct,
>parallel, or teardrop), then cross RAINEE again inbound on the final
>approach course, for a total of 2 crossings?

Exactly.

> Similar to a procedure turn?

Not only is it similar to a procedure turn, it IS a procedure turn.

[J Haggerty]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Tyler > wrote:
>
>>Stan Prevost wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you arrive at RAINEE as the IAF, you must fly the hold-in-lieu course
>>>reversal procedure. Only once around the hold is required. Additional
>>>turns require ATC approval.
>>
>>To clarify, I need only cross RAINEE, do a standard entry (direct,
>>parallel, or teardrop), then cross RAINEE again inbound on the final
>>approach course, for a total of 2 crossings?
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>>Similar to a procedure turn?
>
>
> Not only is it similar to a procedure turn, it IS a procedure turn.
>

No, it's a hold in lieu of a procedure turn. You can do a PT type entry
and course reversal, as long as you remain within the confines of the
published holding pattern. The holding pattern in lieu of a procedure
turn does not protect quite as much airspace as a standard 10 mile PT.

JPH

[Stan Prevost]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tyler > wrote:
>
>> Similar to a procedure turn?
>
> Not only is it similar to a procedure turn, it IS a procedure turn.
>

This depends on how much you want to play with words. They are both course
reversal maneuvers, for sure. But if the FAA didn't want to distinguish a
racetrack-type course reversal from a "barbed" procedure turn, they wouldn't
call it a "hold in lieu of procedure turn". Nevertheless, it is surely true
that in most usage, the term "procedure turn" encompasses all the variations
on course reversals. Nobody I know has ever accused the FAA of being
consistent.

PROCEDURE TURN- The maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse
direction to establish an aircraft on the intermediate approach segment or
final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance
within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified
in the procedure. However, unless otherwise restricted, the point at which
the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn are left to the
discretion of the pilot.

(See ICAO term PROCEDURE TURN.)

PROCEDURE TURN [ICAO]- A maneuver in which a turn is made away from a
designated track followed by a turn in the opposite direction to permit the
aircraft to intercept and proceed along the reciprocal of the designated
track.

Note 1: Procedure turns are designated "left" or "right" according to the
direction of the initial turn.

Note 2: Procedure turns may be designated as being made either in level
flight or while descending, according to the circumstances of each
individual approach procedure.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Stan Prevost" > wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Tyler > wrote:
> >
> >> Similar to a procedure turn?
> >
> > Not only is it similar to a procedure turn, it IS a procedure turn.
> >
>
> This depends on how much you want to play with words.

My intent wasn't to play with words. In real life, I'm just a software
geek. I'm thinking that the "hold in lieu of procedure turn" is a
subclass of "procedure turn", therefore it IS a procedure turn (or
written more conventionally in computer-science-geeky terms, is-a PT).

But, this may be one of those cases where what's correct in techno-speak
is probably misleading in plain English. I certainly agree with you
that when most people say "procedure turn", they're probably thinking of
the 45-180 style most of us learned in instrument training.

[Stan Prevost]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote:
>
>> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Tyler > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Similar to a procedure turn?
>> >
>> > Not only is it similar to a procedure turn, it IS a procedure turn.
>> >
>>
>> This depends on how much you want to play with words.
>
> My intent wasn't to play with words.

Sorry, I didn't say that right, I was just trying to get a handle on how to
address the ambiguity and conflicts in the FAA's terminology.

>In real life, I'm just a software
> geek. I'm thinking that the "hold in lieu of procedure turn" is a
> subclass of "procedure turn", therefore it IS a procedure turn (or
> written more conventionally in computer-science-geeky terms, is-a PT).
>

In one sense, a HIL is certainly a subset of PT, and I think that is true
relative to the P/CG and ICAO definitions of PT. However, if A is "in lieu
of" B, then A and B are different things, and not hierarchically related,
IMO. Otherwise, the FAA could call it a "racetrack-type PT" or "hold-type
PT". These are the terms I try to use in my common usage.

This could be clearer, terminology wise. It is not worth the interminable
confusion it causes.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Stan Prevost" > wrote:

> This could be clearer, terminology wise. It is not worth the interminable
> confusion it causes.

But if everything the FAA did was clear terminology wise, we'd have
nothing left to talk about on the net. That wouldn't be much fun, would
it?

[John Clonts]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote:
>
> > "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > Tyler > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Similar to a procedure turn?
> > >
> > > Not only is it similar to a procedure turn, it IS a procedure turn.
> > >
> >
> > This depends on how much you want to play with words.
>
> My intent wasn't to play with words. In real life, I'm just a software
> geek. I'm thinking that the "hold in lieu of procedure turn" is a
> subclass of "procedure turn", therefore it IS a procedure turn (or
> written more conventionally in computer-science-geeky terms, is-a PT).
>

heh-heh, I think it would be:

CourseReversal
subclass ProcedureTurn
subclass HoldEntry

Or maybe, "ProcedureTurn and HoldEntry both implement the CourseReversal
interface"

:)

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[[email protected]]

Generally, a holding pattern is used when there is no requirement for
an extended distance or altitude change during course reversal.

If the IAF is an on-airport VOR, for instance, a hold wouyld not work
as a course reversal.

Likewise, if there is significant altitude to lose during the
procedure turn, a hold would not work either.






On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:34:57 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote:
>
>> This could be clearer, terminology wise. It is not worth the interminable
>> confusion it causes.
>
>But if everything the FAA did was clear terminology wise, we'd have
>nothing left to talk about on the net. That wouldn't be much fun, would
>it?