Holds when PT NA

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

--
David Rind

The NoPT is for that transition only (I assume you knew that). The GS
intercept altitude is not a huge descent from 4000 in my opinion. The
distance from CAHOW to SWANZ is just over 5 miles with 1400 ft to lose - my
math shows that is 280 ft per mile. Even at 120kts that is less than 500 ft
per minute...

NoPT means NoPT; you certainly can ask to go around - but you'd better talk
to someone if you intend to do so. (on a transition that is labeled NoPT)

"David Rind" wrote in message
...
If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

--
David Rind

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:58:36 -0400, David Rind
wrote:

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

If you are on a segment that is marked NoPT, the hold can only be executed
with permission from ATC.

It's pretty clear in AIM 5-4-8 b.3.

======================
When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must
be followed, *except* when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT is
shown on the approach course.
====================
(emphasis mine).


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

Oops - that should be just over 500 ft per minute.

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...
The NoPT is for that transition only (I assume you knew that). The GS
intercept altitude is not a huge descent from 4000 in my opinion. The
distance from CAHOW to SWANZ is just over 5 miles with 1400 ft to lose -
my
math shows that is 280 ft per mile. Even at 120kts that is less than 500
ft
per minute...

NoPT means NoPT; you certainly can ask to go around - but you'd better
talk
to someone if you intend to do so. (on a transition that is labeled NoPT)

"David Rind" wrote in message
...
If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.

--
David Rind

David Rind wrote in news:c52bkn$hld$1
@reader1.panix.com:

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).
If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT? I can't
tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.


The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
non radar environment.

On 08 Apr 2004 12:44:43 GMT, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition (from EEN)
you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case). This all assumes a
non radar environment.

Would it not be more accurate to say "this all assumes" you are not in a
"radar vectors to final" situation?


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

"David Rind" wrote in message
...

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?


ATC authorization is required.



I was looking at the ILS 2 approach into EEN, and there is a
segment at 4000' from an IAF at the GDM VOR marked No PT.
The intercept altitude for the ILS is 2600', which is a fairly
quick descent along the localizer (though certainly doable).


Fairly quick descent? If your clearance is via GDM and you've been cleared
for the approach, you can descend to 4000 once you reach GDM. If you reach
4000 by CAHOW, you'll find yourself about 240 feet BELOW the glideslope as
you join the localizer.



If you wanted to take a turn around the hold to descend, do
you need ATC authorization the way you would for a PT?


Yes.



I can't tell from the wording in the AIM though perhaps I'm missing the
place where it is spelled out.


§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...

The NoPT is for the GDM transition. For the CAHOW transition
(from EEN) you will be expected to do a PT (hold in this case).
This all assumes a non radar environment.


If you're cleared via EEN VORTAC you will be expected to do a PT whether or
not you're receiving radar services.

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

What are some of the factors in ATC's decision on this request?


Other traffic.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net

If an approach has a hold in lieu of a PT, but the chart says
"No PT", is the hold optional, or is it only available with ATC
authorization the way a PT would be in this situation?

ATC authorization is required.

What are some of the factors in ATC's decision on this request?

The only times I can think of that I'd request a hold would be to configure
my cockpit (which would hopefully have been done prior to entering the
approach segment) or to drop altitude if I'd been cleared inbound high for
whatever reason.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________