Return to the initial?

[jackotron]

Ok,



I had my instrument checkride last week. I passed, but there seemed to be some confusion between myself and the examiner about a procedure.



I had gone missed on my approach, and then proceeded back to the NDB as prescribed by the Missed Approach Procedure. (yeah, I had an NDB on my checkride, 20 knots of wind too. it wasn't fun). I crossed over the fix with only an EFC time, but no further clearance, so I was setting up to hold. I opted to enter the hold with a parallel entry. I was outbound on the outbound course of the approach. During the entry and I was cleared for the approach. So I proceeded to turn back to the NDB in the hold after one minute outbound. The NDB was the only initial approach fix on the procedure. I crossed over the NDB, hung a right, intercepted the outbound course, I flew outbound for a couple of minutes, made the procedure turn, descended and landed.



Afterwards, he said, "why didn't you just proceed outbound for the procedure turn when you were cleared?"



I responded by looking up AIM 5-4-7(e) which says "Except when being...vectored...when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., 'cleared for the approach' ... pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF or and associated feeder route as described on the IAP charts..."



He said that ATC would not expect me to, nor would they want me to return to the Initial in this case. He said that the NDB could fall under the "associated feeder route," but I just don't think so. He said that it was no big deal, just more work than I needed to, and that I backed up my actions with a reasonable interpretation, but he would like to see it done differently.



Does anyone have any insight?



Jack

 

[avbug]

What approach?

 

[mar]

You did the right thing on a checkride

I was outbound on the outbound course of the approach. During the entry and I was cleared for the approach. So I proceeded to turn back to the NDB in the hold after one minute outbound. The NDB was the only initial approach fix on the procedure. I crossed over the NDB, hung a right, intercepted the outbound course, I flew outbound for a couple of minutes, made the procedure turn, descended and landed.

If the events happened in the same sequence as you described them above then I would say you did the right thing.

That is to say: You just started outbound (dead reckoning) on an NDB hold and *then* you get an approach clearance. If I were flying all by myself in an airplane that I was comfortable in and with an approach that I'm familiar with I *might* try to "cowboy" a procedure turn from that point (if I was in a good mood).

But on a checkride I think you're better off (as you say) commencing the entire procedure from a KNOWN point (the IAF) and flying a proper procedure turn.

I mean, that's the whole point of an instrument approach procedure (IAP). To start at a known point and finish at another predetermined point.

When you're outbound on a hold you're really just dead reckoning and who wants to start a checkride from that point?

Good job.

 

[jackotron]

What approach?

Rock Springs, Wyoming RKS NDB-C

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm looking at the approach chart. Let's make sure we understand the question. You executed the missed, climbed to 9100, headed for the NDB. You cross Antelope and heading approximately 065° for a parallel entry to the hold.

I think the point the DPE was making is that you were =already= outbound for the procedure turn. Especially from the point of view of ATC which only sees an airplane that is already on the outbound leg of the PT

I think the DE was saying you could simply (and legitimately) have continued the PT. And remember that the PT barb only tells you which side of the course is protected, not how to do the turn. You could have made the small correction to intercept the 065 bearing from the station (assuming you weren't already tacking it for the parallel entry) and continued the PT as described on the chart. Or, you could have used your parallel entry =as= the PT, descending once inbound.

What you did instead was continue to fly outbound in what to all eyes appears to be the outbound leg of the PT, turn inbound without descending and then fly it all over again for the PT.

Neither way is really "wrong" although the second turn around wasn't necessary and based on your position might have justified a call to ATC to advise that you were proceeding with the hold before turning outbound for the PT.

You had some options in your position. Neither your not the DE's way was "wrong." The DE's way was just more efficient.

 

[avbug]

Also what the DE may have been getting at is that you're not expected to take, and shouldn't take, additional turns in the hold without making a request to do so.

 

[nosehair]

Every entry into a hold awaiting for approach clearance should be traeted as if you are going to get the approach clearance during the holding entry - it happens often enough that you should be prepared for this event and make the approach out of the holding pattern. If you had just started your turn back inbound on the hold, you would treat it as if you had just completed procedure turn. Your holding turn becomes your procedure turn. If it happens just as you cross the fix outbound - you are no longer holding, and should complete the procedure turn, which can be shaped just like the holding pattern, and continue inbound on the approach.

Of course, if you need more time (extenuating circumstances, not lack of position awareness or lack of skill) you can return to the fix, advise ATC that you are going to make another turn and do so, but the examiner was trying to point out that you shouldn't need two turns.

 

[Cardinal]

I concur. Unless you're busy securing an engine or running a checklist, just shoot the approach from the hold when cleared.

 

[mar]

The Big Picture

I guess I really shouldn't have commented without looking at the plate. I had a different picture in my little head.

Anyway, DE's generally piss me off. They're always trying to prove some pet peeve of theirs.

I still think you did a good job.

 

[jackotron]

Thanks to all of you who have posted. This all helps.

**looking at the RKS NDB-C plate**

When I had gone missed, I turned back to the NDB. My bearing was such that allowed me to enter parallel. I did not parallel the outbound course, 065'. I flew the outbound course. It was inside that first minute, (when I had technically entered the hold) that I was cleared. Because I could not make a "normal descent to land" from the NDB at 9,000, to the MDA at 7,160 (that is 2 grand in 1 minute in a 172), I opted to go outbound for the procedure turn. I could not proceed outbound unless I had crossed an IAF, the NDB in this case.

Do I make any sense at all, or did I miss something in ground school?

-Jack