First "real" hold (long)

"Roy Smith" wrote:
I suppose so. I always have this feeling my old CFII is sitting in the
right seat, shaking his head when I don't do something "by the book."

Single-pilot IFR is all about task prioritization. Take care of the
important stuff, and don't waste time on the **** that doesn't matter.
As long as you stay in the protected airspace, nobody cares what your
holds look like, or how perfectly timed the legs are.

Save the mental effort for important things like making sure your fuel
planning is right, getting a good picture of the weather from flight
watch so you know when to divert (and where), and briefing the approach
you're about to fly.

Good points, I know, but after 20 minutes of holding you've done all that
and you'e really in need of something else to do! The PNS controller was
doing a good job of updating aircraft on the freq. about conditions at
nearby airports, but calling FW would have been a good idea.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Ask for 6 mile legs.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message ...
"Roy Smith" wrote:
I suppose so. I always have this feeling my old CFII is sitting in the
right seat, shaking his head when I don't do something "by the book."

Single-pilot IFR is all about task prioritization. Take care of the
important stuff, and don't waste time on the **** that doesn't matter.
As long as you stay in the protected airspace, nobody cares what your
holds look like, or how perfectly timed the legs are.

Save the mental effort for important things like making sure your fuel
planning is right, getting a good picture of the weather from flight
watch so you know when to divert (and where), and briefing the approach
you're about to fly.

Good points, I know, but after 20 minutes of holding you've done all that
and you'e really in need of something else to do! The PNS controller was
doing a good job of updating aircraft on the freq. about conditions at
nearby airports, but calling FW would have been a good idea.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:56:11 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:



30 minutes' wait only got the RVR up to 200, so I told Approach I wanted
30 more. I could see the fog becoming patchy south and west of the
airport, but I still had to start considering my fuel state: I might
actually have to fly 250 miles to find somewhere to land with reserves.
Unlikely, but ya gotta go with it. The thought of being above a
thousand square miles of 100' ceilings with low fuel is enough to make
me very conservative.

In the event, after about 20 minutes a C-208 came in and completed the
approach and the rvr was up to 400, so I asked for vectors for another
try. The next technical glitch appeared at the outer marker when the
flaps refused to work until I toggled the handle a few times (at least
it wasn't the landing gear!). That problem dealt with, I headed down
the glide slope with more than usual concentration on keeping the
needles centered; I wanted to make this one. This time I saw enough
lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and that was it: made it.

Sounds alot like a hold I had several years ago at GTU in Texas.
After trying the NDB approach, I went and held for an hour and ten
minutes until the clouds decided to climb up enought to try again.
What made matters worst, was the fact that we had around a 42 knot
tail wind on the outbound leg, which made for a 15 second outbound
just for a 1 min inbound. Talk about work!

When I asked the controler for another shot, it sounded like he was
feeling sorry for me buy the tone in his voice. He asked me to make
one more round while he moved several aircraft around. Then he gave
me the go ahead. It sure was a pretty site when the runway came into
view. I was glad to be on the ground. I needed the break.


Scott D.

In article , Scott D.
wrote:

What made matters worst, was the fact that we had around a 42 knot
tail wind on the outbound leg, which made for a 15 second outbound
just for a 1 min inbound. Talk about work!

In a situation like that, you can make life easier on yourself by asking
for longer legs.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 07:57:31 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

In article , Scott D.
wrote:

What made matters worst, was the fact that we had around a 42 knot
tail wind on the outbound leg, which made for a 15 second outbound
just for a 1 min inbound. Talk about work!

In a situation like that, you can make life easier on yourself by asking
for longer legs.

You know, honestly that never really occurred to me. That was about
the first real hold that I ever had to do in about 5 years of flying
so my first thought was, am I actually doing this correctly But
that is something to think about if I ever had to do that again.

Today, I was stuck at SAF waiting for the fog to burn off because we
had some avionic/electrical issues on the plane I was flying and I
told my boss that I was not going to fly out of their IFR with some
known issues and that we were going to wait till it went VFR, but in
the mean time, We were out on the flight line when we heard a jet
going missed, we could hear him but could not see him. Then about an
hour later here he came and went again. I knew his pain and felt
sorry for him. Then about another hour later, the fog had lifted
enough and he was able to set it on the ground. It was a Challenger.
I talked to the pilot and asked him how long he had held and he said
that was the longest 2 hours he had ever lived. He said he had enough
fuel for 1 more hour but he didn't thing that "HE" would have made it.


Scott D.

Dan Luke wrote:
Yesterday, for the first time since I got the instrument rating 5 years
ago, I had to hold for real.

It was a reposition flight from Mobile Downtown to Pensacola to pick up
an Angel Flight. When I checked the weather at home at 6am, fog was
reported everywhere on the central Gulf Coast - the nearest legal
alternate I found was Birmingham. Mobile was below minimums, but PNS
was just at minimums and forecast to improve slightly. When I took off,
BFM was still below minimums for the ILS, and when I checked the PNS
ATIS it was 1/4, indefinite ceiling 100.

Did you consider postponing the flight until PNS was reporting weather that you
would need to complete the approach? According to my calculations, this was only
a 46 mile flight, so it wouldn't have delayed your arrival at PNS by much, and
would have saved you a bunch of fuel used in holding, not to mention the risk
exposure of being airborne with nowhere to land.

snip

That problem dealt with, I headed down
the glide slope with more than usual concentration on keeping the
needles centered; I wanted to make this one. This time I saw enough
lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and that was it: made it.

.... and you also had the required flight visibility?

snip

--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367

"Dave Butler" wrote:
Did you consider postponing the flight until PNS was reporting weather
that you would need to complete the approach? According to my
calculations, this was only a 46 mile flight, so it wouldn't have
delayed
your arrival at PNS by much, and would have saved you a bunch
of fuel used in holding, ...

Good question. Yes, I did consider it, but at the time I took off, my
information was that PNS was at minimums with improvement forecast. I
wanted to get the first leg of the Angel Flight started on time if
possible, because there were other people - next leg pilot, patient's
relatives, etc. - waiting on the flight.

...not to mention the risk exposure of being
airborne with nowhere to land

Well, the airplane has 6+ hours endurance at max range power, so I
wasn't _too_ worried.

This time I saw enough lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and
that was it: made it.

... and you also had the required flight visibility?

To be honest, I must say I did not count how many markings I could see
down the runway. I was spring-loaded for another miss if it didn't look
good to me. At DH I had the threshold lights; 100' lower, it looked to
me like I had plenty of vis.

This was not the first ILS I ever flew to minimums but it was the first
one where I _really_ needed the extra 100' to get in. It was a very
rapid transition from total whiteout to not-so-bad.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

This time I saw enough lights at DH to give me 100 more feet, and that was
it: made it.

... and you also had the required flight visibility?

To be honest, I must say I did not count how many markings I could see down
the runway. I was spring-loaded for another miss if it didn't look good to
me. At DH I had the threshold lights; 100' lower, it looked to me like I
had plenty of vis.

On a standard ILS, at DH on the glide slope you're 3000 feet from the
threshold, so (though slant visibility is not quite the same as forward
visibility) you probably had the required 1/2 mile vis. A lot of pilots don't
understand that the rule about going down to 100' on the approach lights
doesn't remove the visibility requirement. If you see only a few approach
lights at DH, you almost certainly do not have the required visibility, and
should go missed.

"Barry" wrote
A lot of pilots don't
understand that the rule about going down to 100' on the approach lights
doesn't remove the visibility requirement. If you see only a few approach
lights at DH, you almost certainly do not have the required visibility, and
should go missed.

I don't agree with that at all.

As you mentioned above, slant visibility is not at all the same as
ground visibility. If it were, I would agree. However, in my
experience slant visibility is almost always much worse than ground
visibility (RVR) with the sole exception being ground fog.

At Pensacola, the minimum RVR is 2400 ft. I've seen it as low as 1800
ft for Cat I approaches.

From 200' and assuming no displaced threshold and a typical TCH of 50
ft (as is the case for PNS) it's just under 2900 ft from airplane at
DH (200 ft) to threshold. So of course if you can see the threshold,
you have vis - but if you can't, that doesn't necessarily mean you
don't.

If you see just a few lights from 200 ft, that can mean different
things. Sometimes it means that ground visibility is below mins, and
then you do need to miss. However, more often (at least in my
experience) it means that the VERTICAL visibility is poor - meaning
you can see fine from 100 ft or so, but can't see much of anything
from 200. I've personally experienced approaches where at 200 ft I
could see just a few lights, but at 100 ft I could see halfway down
that (6000+ ft) runway.

Granted most of my IFR experience is limited to the Gulf Coast, but on
the Gulf Coast this situation is VERY common - and very short lived.
Give it an hour, and it almost always clears to VFR.

Michael

As you mentioned above, slant visibility is not at all the same as
ground visibility. If it were, I would agree. However, in my
experience slant visibility is almost always much worse than ground
visibility (RVR) with the sole exception being ground fog.

If you see just a few lights from 200 ft, that can mean different
things. Sometimes it means that ground visibility is below mins, and
then you do need to miss. However, more often (at least in my
experience) it means that the VERTICAL visibility is poor - meaning
you can see fine from 100 ft or so, but can't see much of anything
from 200. I've personally experienced approaches where at 200 ft I
could see just a few lights, but at 100 ft I could see halfway down
that (6000+ ft) runway.

But as I replied to Dan Luke, neither the visibility at 100' nor the ground
visibility can replace the requirement for flight visibility to continue the
approach below DH. I've always interpreted 91.175(c)(2) to mean that you must
have the required visibility at all times below DH. Is there a reference that
contradicts this? In the case you describe, you almost certainly do not have
the required forward visibility at all points along your path. One exception
I can think of would be near the edge of a sloping cloud, but this must be
rare.