DME Hold entry

[paulsalem]

If you have a required Hold for a course reversial at an IAF that has DME legs do you have to go the full length out before turning inbound.

Example:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0503/05861R25.PDF

Let's say your inbound from the Southwest direct to HOPAX, when you enter the hold (teardrop we'll say) do you have to go outbound for 4DME before turning in bound, then proced to TACOY Or can you just turn inbound after 1min, cross HOPAX and proceed to TACOY?

We're Non Radar so we don't get any of those vector things. And yes, I know I could go to CISBO or DEVAY and not do a PT.

I guess same question would apply if you were just assinged to hold over HOPAX.

Thanks

 

[Lil Jon]

good question. my jepp approach chart legend says to be completed within that distance but they use the standard 10nm in the example.

 

[HMR]

Let's say your inbound from the Southwest direct to HOPAX, when you enter the hold (teardrop we'll say) do you have to go outbound for 4DME before turning in bound, then proced to TACOY Or can you just turn inbound after 1min, cross HOPAX and proceed to TACOY?

We're Non Radar so we don't get any of those vector things. And yes, I know I could go to CISBO or DEVAY and not do a PT.

I guess same question would apply if you were just assinged to hold over HOPAX.

Thanks

Great Question. From AIM 5-4-9(4):
A holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn may be specified for course reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is established over an intermediate fix or a final approach fix. The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. Maximum holding airspeed limitations as set forth for all holding patterns apply. The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance.

If you were entering the hold at 200kts (speed limit below 6,000') and had more than a 40kt tailwind, you could easily blow through the 4nm "protected area" in one minute. Therefore, I can see why you'd want to follow DME.

Also reference 5-3-7.

 

[paulsalem]

Well I feel dumb, I read right past that.

Thanks Your Royal Magesty

 

[paulsalem]

The funny thing is, another CFI called HTS approach (our controlling agency), asked the same question, and they said 4DME leg on the entry wasn't required.
However its spelled out in black in white above.

 

[HMR]

I'll bet if you're in a slower A/C where staying within the protected area isn't a problem, ATC doesn't care how you do it as long as you let them know.

As CFII's we teach Parallel, Teardrop, and Direct entries. Remember, those are only "recommended" by the FAA (see AIM 5-3-7(3)(d)). I tend to always use one of those 3 but I've flown with guys who never use them. My old CP used to hit the fix, turn 90 degrees away from the inbound and immediately upon reaching that heading do a standard rate 270 degree turn in the opposite direction. It worked great but I don't know if I'd introduce it to a new Instrument student. As a CFI it's good to CYA and stick to the "black and white".

 

[wheelsup]

My old CP used to hit the fix, turn 90 degrees away from the inbound and immediately upon reaching that heading do a standard rate 270 degree turn in the opposite direction. It worked great but I don't know if I'd introduce it to a new Instrument student. As a CFI it's good to CYA and stick to the "black and white".

I knew a CFI that taught that way - confused the heck out of his instrument students .

~wheelsup

 

[labbats]

Draw it out on chalk, walk it, learn it.

Holding patterns are too abstract otherwise.

 

[A Squared]

I'm not convinced that the AIM excerpt quoted above answers the question, if I understand the question correctly.

As I understand it, the question was "do you have to fly 4 NM legs on the hold, or could you fly, say 3 NM legs?" In other words; "Is the 4 NM a *mandatory* leg length, or a *maximum* leg length?" The AIM only requires that it be "observed" it does not say whether it must be observed as a maximum leg length, or a mandatory leg length. If it is intended as a mandatory length, obviously you must fly 4 nm legs. If it is intended as a maximum, then the maximum is observed by flying 4nm legs, 3 nm legs or 2 nm legs. Merely stating that it must be observed doesn't shed any light on whether it's mandatory or maximum.

In my mind, I don't see any logic to the leg length being mandatory rather than maximum. There's no benefit to it, and presumably regulatory requirements have a reason. There are plenty of reasons for the leg length to be a maximum, it keeps you from hitting hills, trees, radio towers or other airplanes. But if a 4 nm leg will keep you out of the rocks or nearby airspace, a 3 nm leg will too. There's no way you can hit something by flying a leg shorter than specified.

 

[HMR]

There are plenty of reasons for the leg length to be a maximum, it keeps you from hitting hills, trees, radio towers or other airplanes. But if a 4 nm leg will keep you out of the rocks or nearby airspace, a 3 nm leg will too. There's no way you can hit something by flying a leg shorter than specified.

Makes sense to me.

EDIT* Now that you've edited your post it makes even more sense.