Hold "as published"?

In article ,
John Clonts wrote:

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.

I don't think that's legitimate. A given navaid can have different holds
for different procedures. The AST VOR Rwy 8 (Astoria, OR) missed approach
terminates in a hold on the 115 radial of AST, left turns. The AST ILS
Rwy 26 missed approach ends in a hold on the 075 radial of AST, right
turns. I guess all the published holds have sufficient protected airspace
(in this case, mostly the Pacific ocean), but there is no hold depicted
on the enroute chart, so I don't know what the controller would expect
if they just said "hold at AST as published".

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

It's a local knowledge thing, Ben, but you know and I know that there is no
conflicting airspace in the vicinity of Astoria that would obviate holding
on the course on which you approach the holding fix. From what I have seen
and experienced, holding pattern airspace placement is designed to keep two
or more "reserved for holding or other ATC purposes" blocks of airspace from
overlapping.

Bob Gardner

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:%Nbab.376350$Oz4.157019@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
John Clonts wrote:

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.

I don't think that's legitimate. A given navaid can have different holds
for different procedures. The AST VOR Rwy 8 (Astoria, OR) missed approach
terminates in a hold on the 115 radial of AST, left turns. The AST ILS
Rwy 26 missed approach ends in a hold on the 075 radial of AST, right
turns. I guess all the published holds have sufficient protected airspace
(in this case, mostly the Pacific ocean), but there is no hold depicted
on the enroute chart, so I don't know what the controller would expect
if they just said "hold at AST as published".

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:34:36 -0500, "John Clonts"
wrote:

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.
...

It sounds as if he probably expected you to hold at the BMQ NDB but did not
give you proper instructions per the AIM (or the 7110.65). As a minimum,
he should have given you the charted holding direction and the phrase "as
published" unless he also informed you to "expect no delay".

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"?

Well, he didn't do it correctly. And I've seen them do that using other
than holds that are published only on approach charts (which may or may not
be the chart you're looking at).

However, ATC is also supposed to issue complete holding instructions when
requested to do so by the pilot. So in your situation, I would have asked
for that, and early on.


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

"John Clonts" wrote
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.

Unsurprising - he didn't tell you what to do. That was improper. The
only question in my mind is this - why didn't you immediately ask for
a clarification? Why wait until you're 5 miles out?

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"?

The clearance was proper. Your GPS substitutes for an ADF in all
situations other than an NDB approach with no GPS overlay.

The WAY the clearance was issued (phraseology) was confusing at best.
The controller used nonstandard phraseology. The correct clearance
would have read:

"7nz, you're number three, cleared direct Burnet NDB, hold South as
published, expect further clearance 2125"

Hopefully that would have tipped you that the hold was depicted on the
NDB approach chart, and all would have been well.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message om...

The clearance was proper. Your GPS substitutes for an ADF in all
situations other than an NDB approach with no GPS overlay.

Correct, and the hold issued is only published on the NDB approach that
has no overlay. The two GPS approaches are distinct from the NDB 1.

Hopefully that would have tipped you that the hold was depicted on the
NDB approach chart, and all would have been well.

Why would he look at the NDB chart when he was:

1. Not equipped to fly it.
2. Cleared for the GPS approach he was equipped to fly?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

Why would he look at the NDB chart when he was:

1. Not equipped to fly it.
2. Cleared for the GPS approach he was equipped to fly?


At the time he hadn't been cleared for a GPS approach.