Crossing an NDB 3 times on an approach?

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:31:01 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:
You are officially "in the hold" the first time you cross
the fix {in this case the NDB or a VOR} and if you're
established on the inbound course after intercepting the
course after your teardrop or direct entry, you can proceed
inbound or you have the option at pilot's discretion to go
around until you're established and ready.

If the hold is for course reversal in lieu of a procedure turn (bold
type, and you have been cleared for the approach, you are only allowed
one circuit in the hold unless you obtain a clearance for more than one
circuit.


That is also a required reporting point.


(AIM 5-4-9 a 4)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:18:18 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

Jose wrote:

If the hold is for course reversal in lieu of a procedure turn


... so if you enter teardrop, turn and establish yourself inbound, you
just continue inbound? The teardrop entry counts as a circuit?

Jose

Yep!

Established inbound is a reporting point as I recall.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

wrote:
Would it make sense to cross an NDB 3 times in the completion of an
approach?

I'm thinking where there is a hold in lieu of a PT, you may cross the
NDB, complete a parallel hold entry, cross the NDB a second time, then
do a racetrack with timing and descent, then cross a third time as the
FAF.... Normal ops?

Once you've made the hold entry and are inbound at the fix, you've
completed the hold. You don't need to go around again.

Sam Spade wrote:
Jose wrote:

If the hold is for course reversal in lieu of a procedure turn


... so if you enter teardrop, turn and establish yourself inbound, you
just continue inbound? The teardrop entry counts as a circuit?

Jose

Yep!\

THE WORDS FROM THE AIM:

The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is
established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry.\

Jim Macklin wrote:
That is true, if at the altitude. For example in the case
of the Hendrick crash, the BE 200 was at 5.000 and the
initial is 3600. Then the crew got lost over the LOM and
just did a 360 and never went outbound.


You're a thousand feet high on both counts. They were told to hold at
4,000 and both the initial (minimum holding altitude) and intermediate
altitudes are 2,600.


From the NTSN report:

"As the airplane approached MTV, an air traffic controller advised the
flight crew that the airplane was second in line for the localizer
runway 30 approach. The controller instructed the pilots to hold 'as
published' on the localizer course at 4,000 feet mean sea level (msl)2
and to expect a 28-minute delay in the holding pattern. The flight crew
requested 5-mile legs in the holding pattern, and the controller
pproved 5- or 10-milelegs at the crew’s discretion."

"At 1224:19, while the accident airplane was still turning right to the
outbound leg of the holding pattern, the controller asked the flight
crew if the airplane was established in the holding pattern, and the
crew confirmed, 'we’re established.' At 1224:26, the controller cleared
the airplane for the localizer runway 30 approach and requested that the
flight crew advise him when the airplane was inbound on the approach.
The airplane then completed a continuous right turn toward the inbound
course and crossed the BALES LOM at an altitude of 3,900 feet."

In a case like this the holding pattern's primary purpose was to absorb
a traffic delay with course reversal being adjunct to that requirement.

The crew had just turned outbound when they received an unexcepted early
approach clearance, and they were not much higher than the two feeder
altitudes. Under AIM 5-9-4, they received the approach clearance *after
crossing the course-reversal/holding fix so they were cleared to fly a
full 1 minute pattern (the 10 mile pattern may have applied only at
4,000). So, with 3 minutes to loose 1,400 feet, they should have been
able to do that, but they did need the full 1-minute pattern to do that.
And, if they though 467 feet per mile was too steep (within the
maximum permitted by TERPs, though) they could have request yet another
circuit.

Roger wrote:

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:18:18 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:


Jose wrote:


If the hold is for course reversal in lieu of a procedure turn


... so if you enter teardrop, turn and establish yourself inbound, you
just continue inbound? The teardrop entry counts as a circuit?

Jose

Yep!


Established inbound is a reporting point as I recall.

Only if ATC requests it.

Ron Natalie wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:

Jose wrote:

If the hold is for course reversal in lieu of a procedure turn



... so if you enter teardrop, turn and establish yourself inbound,
you just continue inbound? The teardrop entry counts as a circuit?

Jose


Yep!\


THE WORDS FROM THE AIM:

The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is
established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry.\

That's what I meant by "yep!" to Jose question.

wrote:

Gentlemen, to recap, my example was with a parallel entry, where after
first crossing the ndb you are on the non holding side. So where do
you start descent then?

When you roll out inbound.

Also, after the first 1 minute and turn back to the holding side, in
the direction of the ndb, you perhaps may decide not to intercept the
inbound course but proceed direct to the fix. So now you proceed
straight in?

Yes, you're still inbound in the holding pattern.

Jose wrote:

Also, after the first 1 minute and turn back to the holding side, in
the direction of the ndb, you perhaps may decide not to intercept the
inbound course but proceed direct to the fix. So now you proceed
straight in?


While it's true that you don't have the benefit of a minute of flying to
determine wind correction, when you are over the NDB you know exactly
where you are and what direction you are facing. If you've approached
it with a 30 degree intercept, you may well have a good idea of what the
winds are. So, yes, I don't see any danger (in most situations) in
proceeding straight in.

This is, of course, different from saying that this is what the rules say.



The difference is because the proper execution of a holding pattern
(especially a course reversal holding pattern on an IAP) requires flying
inbound on course. If the pilot elects to fly offcourse inbound, he has
nonetheless used up his one circuit in the hold (absent further
clearance to a second circuit).

Ron Natalie wrote:

wrote:

Would it make sense to cross an NDB 3 times in the completion of an
approach?

I'm thinking where there is a hold in lieu of a PT, you may cross the
NDB, complete a parallel hold entry, cross the NDB a second time, then
do a racetrack with timing and descent, then cross a third time as the
FAF.... Normal ops?


Once you've made the hold entry and are inbound at the fix, you've
completed the hold. You don't need to go around again.

If you have approach clearance you can't go around again without an
amended clearance.