Holding at non-charted intersections

[XcalibeR]

I was just talking to one of my classmates, and he asked what the proper phraseology is for a clearance to hold at non-charted intersections. Needless to say, I had no clue. Even though it probably never happens, I'm sure the FAA has something to say on the subject. So could you give an example clearance for such a scenario?

[Clocks]

I believe an example would be something like...

"N12345 hold northeast of TAPPY intersection on V54. Time now 1500z, expect further clearance 1515z."

Add leg length and nonstandard turns as needed.

[XcalibeR]

Originally Posted by Clocks

I believe an example would be something like...

"N12345 hold northeast of TAPPY intersection on V54. Time now 1500z, expect further clearance 1515z."

Add leg length and nonstandard turns as needed.

That clearance, though, would mean TAPPY is a charted intersection. I'm wondering, rather, what would the phraseology be if for some reason ATC wanted you to hold at some random intersection? Like, the intersection between ABC 350 and XYZ 270.

[Clocks]

Sorry, I misread the question.

I answered "non-charted holds at intersections", instead of what you asked.

Ignore me

[Fox Xray]

I often hold A/C at a point in space when I am unable to use a published hold due to wx or there is no published hold in my airspace on the A/C route of flight. As a rule I do not hold A/C on a fix or navaid unless it is on their route of flight, I am not a pilot but it always seemed to me like it would be confusing to the flight crew.

When not using a published hold I often use a fixed radial distance off a VOR. Whenever issuing holding instructions a good rule to remember is the acronym:

F R A H E ~> Fix Route Altitude Hold EFC Time

I would clear an A/C as follows:

N12345 cleared to the ABC 180 radial 045 DME Fix via direct maintain one zero thousand hold south on the one eight zero degree radial right turns one zero mile legs expect further clearance @ 1200Z. I would require the EXACT read back...

Now, lets say N12345 is cruising on V1 southwest bound and I need to hold the A/C and there is nothing published but there is a intersection ahead of the aircraft, we'll call the intersection ATCER

ATCER intersection is northeast of the ABC VOR 059 degree radial. I would then clear the A/C as follows:

N12345 cleared to the ATCER intersection maintain one zero thousand hold northeast on the 059 degree radial right turns 10 mile legs expect further clearance @ 1200Z.

In this case I did not issue a route such as direct because the intersection ATCER is on the A/C route of flight and that would have been redundant.

I hope I was able to answer your questions and also hope I explained it in simple terms.

[Duck_Twacy]

Interesting thread, I was just asking my instructor about this. So do you typically give a DME holding fix that is generally aligned with the current flightpath? IOW, if an aircraft were approaching a VOR from the west, either on an airway or perhaps navigating direct, would you have them hold close to the 260-270-280?

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by Fox Xray

Now, lets say N12345 is cruising on V1 southwest bound and I need to hold the A/C and there is nothing published but there is a intersection ahead of the aircraft, we'll call the intersection ATCER

ATCER intersection is northeast of the ABC VOR 059 degree radial. I would then clear the A/C as follows:

N12345 cleared to the ATCER intersection maintain one zero thousand hold northeast on the 059 degree radial right turns 10 mile legs expect further clearance @ 1200Z.

I'm assuming in this example the sequences of fixes on V1 is ATCER...ABC? Because if ABC isn't on the airway past ATCER I would have no idea what 059 radial I was supposed to be holding on. If I am reading this correctly could you not give this hold as "hold at ACTER on V1, right turns etc. etc."?

[XcalibeR]

Thanks, Fox Xray, I guess you answered my question, so thank you. Now, let me rephrase the question so we can get to what I was actually getting at What would the phraseology be to assign a hold at an undefined, non-charted intersection of two VOR radials? ie no fix name, no DME.

Say you want someone to hold at the intersection of ABC 180 and XYZ 270. How might you say that over the radio? Let's assume that they are already cleared and established outbound along the ABC 180, and that the hold will be standard (right turns, one minute legs)

N12345, hold north on the ABC 180 degree radial at the XYZ 270 radial fix, maintain one zero thousand, expect further clearance @ 1200Z.

or

N12345, hold north at the intersection of ABC 180 degree radial and the XYZ 270 degree radial, maintain one zero thousand, expect further clearance @ 1200Z.

or something else? It's not really that important, we were just wondering what "the book" says is the correct way.

[fish314]

It may be the case that you CAN'T give an aircraft a hold at an intersection of two radials without a DME. I know, for example, aircraft that are TACAN only (i.e., don't have a VOR, but have a TACAN instead) aren't allowed to hold over a TACAN (or a VORTAC, for that matter). I'll try to find some references.

[fish314]

OOops. Turns out that you can hold on the intersection of 2 radials (or so I am led to believe by looking at the Figure 5-3-2 in the AIM).)

Here's the reference for the TACAN only thing: it comes from FAA Order 7110.65R

Originally Posted by FAA Order 7110.65R

d. TACAN-only aircraft (type suffix M, N, or P) possess TACAN with DME, but no VOR or LF navigation system capability. Assign fixes based on TACAN or VORTAC facilities only.
NOTE-
TACAN-only aircraft can never be held overhead the NAVAID, be it TACAN or VORTAC.

[Fox Xray]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

I'm assuming in this example the sequences of fixes on V1 is ATCER...ABC? Because if ABC isn't on the airway past ATCER I would have no idea what 059 radial I was supposed to be holding on. If I am reading this correctly could you not give this hold as "hold at ACTER on V1, right turns etc. etc."?

I should have given my post a quick proof read before hitting send. I was trying to create a scenario that all could follow and goofed...

You are correct... in my example the A/C is navigating to the ABC VOR via outbound radial of 059 which is V1. Hence the clearance would be Cleared to ATCER hold northeast on the ABC 059 radial ... etc.

[Fox Xray]

Originally Posted by XcalibeR

Thanks, Fox Xray, I guess you answered my question, so thank you. Now, let me rephrase the question so we can get to what I was actually getting at What would the phraseology be to assign a hold at an undefined, non-charted intersection of two VOR radials? ie no fix name, no DME.

Say you want someone to hold at the intersection of ABC 180 and XYZ 270. How might you say that over the radio? Let's assume that they are already cleared and established outbound along the ABC 180, and that the hold will be standard (right turns, one minute legs)
or
or something else? It's not really that important, we were just wondering what "the book" says is the correct way.

I have never issued a hold at the intersection of 2 VOR radials. To be honest I have not only never seen it done I'm not sure how to issue it.

With the equipment I use I would have no way of figuring out a point like that. A straight forward fixed radial distance hold is something we are equipped to do. I have a range bearing function that I can determine a radial and DME from a point. I can even mark that point on my radar screen, label it, and even track A/C DME to the created point in a dynamic way. It actually works very well.

Holding at anything other then a published place is a last resort. Published holds are charted and protected as long as the A/C follows the published instructions.

In your scenario if I had a non DME equipped A/C that I had to hold at a point in space I would just vector the A/C around. On rare occasions I have been caught in that situation and that is what I did.

[H46Bubba]

So realistically ATC will hold an aircraft on a charted holding pattern vs. holding at any old intersection?

[XcalibeR]

Originally Posted by H46Bubba

So realistically ATC will hold an aircraft on a charted holding pattern vs. holding at any old intersection?

Huh... imagine that... lol

Ok, that's kind of what I was figuring would be the case, FX. We were just bored in CFII class and started wondering what kind of clearance that would be. Thanks!

[Fox Xray]

Originally Posted by H46Bubba

So realistically ATC will hold an aircraft on a charted holding pattern vs. holding at any old intersection?

Oh yea... no question about it. I'm not a pilot... my job is to get A/C through my sector in a safe and expeditious manner. I try and keep things as simple as possible and for me a published hold is simple and allows the pilot to do his job while I do mine. A published hold has all the info the pilot needs right there to look at, it generally is on the A/C route of flight which makes things less confusing for the pilot as well.

When I have to issue a non published hold it makes more work for me and I would assume (maybe wrong) that it's more work for the pilot (or flight crew). By not being published (charted) there is no "built in" protected airspace. On a published hold the A/C route in the hold is protected, airways, fixes, etc. are separated away from the hold. When I'm holding you at a random point in space non of that applies anymore, I have to watch the holding A/C much more carefully. Another factor is the chance for an error, reading the radial, DME, legs, altitude, to the pilot and listening for the read back there is more of a chance for myself of the pilot to miss something.

There are other factors but those are the main ones.

[H46Bubba]

Originally Posted by Fox Xray

Oh yea... no question about it. I'm not a pilot... my job is to get A/C through my sector in a safe and expeditious manner. I try and keep things as simple as possible and for me a published hold is simple and allows the pilot to do his job while I do mine. A published hold has all the info the pilot needs right there to look at, it generally is on the A/C route of flight which makes things less confusing for the pilot as well.

When I have to issue a non published hold it makes more work for me and I would assume (maybe wrong) that it's more work for the pilot (or flight crew). By not being published (charted) there is no "built in" protected airspace. On a published hold the A/C route in the hold is protected, airways, fixes, etc. are separated away from the hold. When I'm holding you at a random point in space non of that applies anymore, I have to watch the holding A/C much more carefully. Another factor is the chance for an error, reading the radial, DME, legs, altitude, to the pilot and listening for the read back there is more of a chance for myself of the pilot to miss something.

There are other factors but those are the main ones.

Thanks. Very good info to know.