Holding Patterns.

[meritflyer]

What does the Canadian AIM define it as?

[tgrayson]

Ok, I got a response from Air Traffic Publications:

Thank you for reporting this concern and request. I am copying someone who can initiate the discovery and implementation of this request if justified.

XXXXXX - This is an interesting observation and, should it be found as a part of controller lexicon, may need to be added. Please direct this to an appropriate office for consideration.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

What does the Canadian AIM define it as?

What everyone assumes it to mean....crossing the fix inbound.

[B767Driver]

The below is copied from the AIM.

Notice the subtle difference in language pertaining to "established in a holding pattern", then later on " maintain last assigned altitude until leaving the holding pattern and established on the inbound course".

Here's a question for y'all. When you are cleared for an approach from a hold...and have not yet intercepted the holding course...do you descend? Or do you wait until intercepting the holding course to descend to the holding altitude??





3. If an aircraft is established in a published holding pattern at an assigned altitude above the published minimum holding altitude and subsequently cleared for the approach, the pilot may descend to the published minimum holding altitude. The holding pattern would only be a segment of the IAP if it is published on the instrument procedure chart and is used in lieu of a procedure turn.

m. For those holding patterns where there are no published minimum holding altitudes, the pilot, upon receiving an approach clearance, must maintain the last assigned altitude until leaving the holding pattern and established on the inbound course. Thereafter, the published minimum altitude of the route segment being flown will apply. It is expected that the pilot will be assigned a holding altitude that will permit a normal descent on the inbound course.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

Here's a question for y'all. When you are cleared for an approach from a hold...and have not yet intercepted the holding course...do you descend? Or do you wait until intercepting the holding course to descend to the holding altitude??

The airspace is protected at the published holding altitude and this protection extends to the entry.

But I see what you're saying. If we defined "established in the hold" to mean only intercepting the inbound course, it may arguably be not legal to descend during the entry phase.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

But I see what you're saying. If we defined "established in the hold" to mean only intercepting the inbound course, it may arguably be not legal to descend during the entry phase.

Exactly.

How do you teach this, TG?

Do you descend once you reach this holding fix on the entry?

[meritflyer]

I have always taught to never descend blindly without course guidance upon entering a hold. Begin the descent to the MHA once established with course guidance on the inbound course.

[B767Driver]

Once you are in protected airspace you could descend. The question arises...how do you know where you are without first becoming established on the course?

When I used to give checkrides I had FAA guys recommend different ways. Some were okay to descend once you hit the holding fix...some wanted to see course guidance. I never put an applicant in the position to have to make that decision. I would always work out a clearance with ATC to descend to the minimum altitude right away.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

Exactly.
How do you teach this, TG?
Do you descend once you reach this holding fix on the entry?

Yes. I know the airspace is protected for the entry, even on the "nonholding" side, which has at least 3.5 miles of primary airspace, followed by 2 miles of secondary airspace. This is the reason for the max airspeeds for entering hold.

You don't have course guidance on the outbound, and neither the teardrop nor the direct are any worse in this regard. Parallel is somewhat more risky, but at least you aren't flying away from the course. You may have a partial deflection of the needle. It'd take quite a bit of wind to blow you 5.5 miles away from the course.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

I have always taught to never descend blindly without course guidance upon entering a hold. Begin the descent to the MHA once established with course guidance on the inbound course.

Both the holding pattern and procedure turn areas are protected for "blind" letdowns; you fly parts of these maneuvers with dead reckoning anyway, so letting down to the published altitude isn't any different. I'm a bit more conservative with regards to the PT, for two reasons:

1. It's easy for a student to become confused over when it's ok to have a "blind" letdown vs when it is not.
2. Many examiners may not understand that "blind" letdowns are ok.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Many examiners may not understand that "blind" letdowns are ok.

I know several students who have busted their instrument checkride doing the VOR RWY 5 into KCGZ and descended "prematurely" at the HILO.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

Once you are in protected airspace you could descend. The question arises...how do you know where you are without first becoming established on the course?

If you follow AIM recommended entries, you'd have a hard time leaving the protected airspace.

When I used to give checkrides I had FAA guys recommend different ways. Some were okay to descend once you hit the holding fix...some wanted to see course guidance.

I never knew this was debated. Were the FAA guys of a mind to fail applicants for not doing it their way, or did it remain a recommendation?

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

I know several students who have busted their instrument checkride doing the VOR RWY 5 into KCGZ and descended "prematurely" at the HILO.

If an examiner failed a candidate of mine on that, I'd have some serious words with him, FSDO, and I'd bring the FAAs Flight Procedures into it as needed.

Here's a question: there's a hold there and you have to make an entry. Surely you would accept that TERPS criteria allow a hold to be entered safely? At what altitude do you think they evaluate the safety of the maneuver, if not the altitude published?

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

If you follow AIM recommended entries, you'd have a hard time leaving the protected airspace.

I never knew this was debated. Were the FAA guys of a mind to fail applicants for not doing it their way, or did it remain a recommendation?

Im my experience, not all guys were technically correct in some of the instrument procedures.

When I was an active CFI, I believe I taught pilots to descend at the entry fix. Many times the holding pattern was a course reversal...and I wanted the person to descent at the earliest opportunity to be in a position to fly the approach and get stabilized.

Another big one, and I never saw this until I went to work for some Part 135 and 121 outfits, is that they want you to track the radial outbound during a parallel entry into a hold. I never taught this as a GA instructor. And basically, it should be a technique...but at some places it was procedure.

With FMS airplanes...it's really not an issue. You just let the FMS do its thing. The FMS will stay within the protected airspace, but it's an ugly thing to watch.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

track the radial outbound during a parallel entry into a hold. I never taught this as a GA instructor. And basically, it should be a technique...but at some places it was procedure.

And it makes intercepting the inbound that much more difficult.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

What does the Canadian AIM define it as?

Just what one might think based on the assumption that we're talking about something in English

==============================
When crossing the fix to enter a holding pattern, the appropriate ATC unit shall be advised. ATC may also request that the pilot report “established in the hold”. The pilot is to report “established” when crossing the fix after having completed the entry procedure.
==============================
TC AIM, RC §10.0

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Just what one might think based on the assumption that we're talking about something in English

Obviously, they thought that the english was insufficient, so they disagree with you. And as B767Driver points out, that definition conflicts with other implicit meanings of the phrase in the US.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Obviously, they thought that the english was insufficient, so they disagree with you.

Not necessarily. You'll find in regulatory law a lot of instances where the regulators redefine regular english into regular english because of audience expectation that it =just has to= be more complicated or have a special meaning.

Problem is that there are words used in regulatory law that have special meanings that are not English, while others are plain English. I've become convinced through exposure that you get some definitions and clarifications because it's inherently difficult for many, perhaps most members of the audience to tell when the regulator is using English and when the regulator is using Regulese.

Sort of a corollary of my signature quote