Hold "as published"?

Heh!
I was once cleared to a lat/lon point 300 miles away from my St. Louis =
departure!

Turned out to be a VORTAC location that I'd actually filed to.
Somebody was foolin' with me.
I told clearance delivery I'd read back the clearance, soon as I found =
that lat/lon point.
---JRC---

"Robert Henry" wrote in message =
news:9s7ab.18898$pe.10355@lakeread06...
Actually, I think they have the mindset, but don't understand the =
ergonomic
factors that can be encountered trying to use it.
=20
For example, I've twice been cleared to random 5-letter fixes which do =
not
appear on enroute charts that turn out to be IF's for ILS approaches. =
These
clearances were issued en route, 60-100 miles away from the airport, =
well
before an expected approach had been specified. Actually, both =
approaches
ended up being visuals. I don't know every 5 character permutation of
"wip-pee" intersection and which one applies - running through the =
guesses
takes some serious knob time. Yet there's always a certain irritation
(noted by the poster as well) in the response to the request for
clarification, the spelling in my example.
=20
Maybe a screenshot of a Garmin 430 with intersections and data fields
represented on the 100nm scale will help to convey the problem.
=20
--
=20
Bob
PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI
=20
"JerryK" wrote in message
news:_Y6ab.487139$YN5.330405@sccrnsc01...
Sounds like you did the correct thing. It is going to ATC awhile to =
adopt
a
GPS mindset.
=20

"Robert Henry" wrote:
For example, I've twice been cleared to random 5-letter fixes which
do not appear on enroute charts that turn out to be IF's for ILS
approaches. These clearances were issued en route, 60-100 miles
away from the airport, well before an expected approach had been
specified. Actually, both approaches ended up being visuals. I
don't know every 5 character permutation of "wip-pee" intersection
and which one applies - running through the guesses takes some
serious knob time.

Hah! I hear ya. Try finding TIFTO on your GPS in south Georgia.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"John Clonts" wrote in message
...

Flying to Burnet, Texas (BMQ) the other day:

"Houston Center, 7nz request vectors-to-final Burnet GPS-01, or else
request direct JIBAJ for the GPS-19"

"7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet, expect further clearance
2125"
...
I didn't understand what he was telling me to do once I got there.
...
About 5 miles from Burnet:

"Center, 7nz, unclear my instructions when I get to Burnet"

"7nz, fly the hold as published"

I read that back, but then looked on my enroute, and there was no hold. I
looked on my approach plates (GPS-1 and GPS-19) and there was no hold
there. By this time I'm just about to crossing KBMQ.

"Center, 7nz, sorry I see no published hold"

"7nz, sigh then fly heading 270, vectors to Burnet"

I then eventually flew one missed approach (GPS-19) then a successful
approach (GPS-1).

Afterwards it dawned on me that the published hold that he was talking
about was the hold depicted on the BMQ NDB-1 approach plate. The
NDB is on the field, but my mind had been in "gps" mode since I don't
have ADF in this plane.

So my question (finally!) is: was that proper of Center to assign me that
hold "as published"?


When the pattern is charted, all holding instructions may be omitted except
the charted holding direction and the statement "as published". He should
have said "hold southwest as published", not "fly the hold as published".
It would probably have also helped if he had previously said "cleared direct
Burnet NDB", and not just "cleared direct Burnet".

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

It would probably have also helped if he had previously said "cleared direct
Burnet NDB", and not just "cleared direct Burnet".

What does "cleared direct Burnet" mean? To the airport? ARP? A navaid
on the field?

Ari.

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote:

What does "cleared direct Burnet" mean? To the airport? ARP? A navaid
on the field?

If I were to receive that clearance in that context, I would assume that
Burnet is some sort of navaid or named fix in the vicinity of the airport.
I would exclude the possibility that Burnet is the airport itself. After
all, who ever heard of a hold (published or otherwise) at an airport
reference point? This is my intuition; I'd be happy if someone could help
me formalize this.

I would probably know from my preflight preparation that there is an NDB by
that name on the field, and that's what I would add to my GPS flight plan.
Admittedly, I would probably not have the NDB approach plate handy unless it
just happened to be on the reverse side of one of the GPS approaches, so I'd
possibly have no clue as to the orientation of the published hold. I'd
probably have to ask for that.

Craig Prouse writes:

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote:

What does "cleared direct Burnet" mean? To the airport? ARP? A navaid
on the field?

If I were to receive that clearance in that context, I would assume that
Burnet is some sort of navaid or named fix in the vicinity of the airport.
I would exclude the possibility that Burnet is the airport itself. After
all, who ever heard of a hold (published or otherwise) at an airport
reference point?

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?

Ari.

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote:

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?

If you're 40 NM out and you have the airport in sight, you can navigate
directly to "the airport" by visual reference. Any number of lat/long
points would be satisfactory navigationally. If the air isn't so clear, I
happen to use the airport reference point in the GPS database.

In the case in question, the pilot was cleared to his destination airport,
and then his clearance was amended. His new clearance limit was an NDB with
the same name as the airport. The navaid happens to be on the field, so
even if he didn't pick up on the change, the problem was conceptual rather
than navigational. Conceptually, if he had made the connection, it might
have helped him better understand what was expected by ATC, and maybe even
got him pointed in the direction of the NDB approach plate which depicts the
hold.

Someplace like Sacramento, where the distance between the airport and its
homonymic* VORTAC is five miles, there's actually a navigational necessity
to get it right.

* I'll probably never get to use that word in a sentence again in my life,
so I take the opportunity now.

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?


The airport. While it looks like a very large "point" when you're standing
on it, it appears as a much smaller "point" on a radar scope. It's not
going to make a bit of difference while you're enroute if you're aimed at
the ARP, one of the runway thresholds, an on-field navaid, etc., etc., etc.

(K. Ari Krupnikov) writes:

I guess I was trying to ask a more general question. Forget the
context. If you are cleared direct to your destination, what point are
you cleared to?

As far as I understand, you have no clearance limit. If you lose
comms and cannot go VFR, then you just fly to your destination and
shoot an approach, no holds required.


All the best,


David

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

What does "cleared direct Burnet" mean? To the airport? ARP? A navaid
on the field?


The initial clearance limit at the point of departure was most probably the
airport. It may have been stated as "Burnet Municipal Airport", "Kate
Craddock Field", "Burnet Airport", "Bravo Mike Quebec Airport", or just
"Burnet", but in the US aircraft at departure are most often cleared to an
airport. When a hold became necessary the clearance limit changed, albeit
ever so slightly. The NDB is on the field and has the same name and same
identifier. Had the controller said "cleared to Burnet NDB via direct"
instead of "cleared direct Burnet", it may have prompted Mr. Clonts to
examine the NDB RWY 1 approach plate a bit earlier than he did, avoiding the
confusion about the hold entirely. It may also have prompted Mr. Clonts to
advise the controller that while he could hold at the NDB, he'd be unable to
execute the NDB approach as he had no ADF.