Required to do a holding circuit for direct entry to IAF when doing full RNAV APR?

7 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   John D Collins on Apr 07, 2015

   If the hold is charted in Bold as part of the procedure, it is mandatory that you fly the Hold in Lieu of a Procedure Turn (HILPT), once around the hold. You are required to make the hold entry passing over the hold fix a first time for the entry and then tracking the inbound leg of the hold to the holding fix, passing over it a second time. There are exactly four exceptions and if they apply, you should not fly the HILPT:

   1) When being vectored to final.
   2) When cleared for the approach “Straight In”.
   3) When flying a segment or leg that is noted as NoPT.
   4) When when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix

   When you need the hold to loose altitude or other reason and one of the exceptions apply, you must obtain ATC permission to fly the hold.

   This can be found in the AIM section 5-4-9. It has also been the subject of FAA Chief Counsel opinion.

   +3 Votes 3 Votes  0 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   Russ Roslewski on Apr 08, 2015

   You didn’t give a specific example of a procedure, but remember that when the RNAV (GPS) approach has a “Terminal Arrival Area” (TAA) charted, you may already be in a NoPT segment as you approach that Hold-in-lieu fix. Consider for example the Prescott, AZ (PRC) RNAV (GPS) RWY 21L:

   http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1504/pdf/00546R21L.PDF

   Arriving at PEVYU from the North or East puts you in a NoPT segment of the approach (John’s “exception #3” above), so you not only are not expected to proceed straight-in, you aren’t allowed to do the hold without prior coordination (if you needed to lose altitude for example).

   I have more information on TAAs on my blog at http://cfiruss.blogspot.com/2014/10/taas-and-ilses-and-other-acronyms.html

   as well as (near the bottom of the article) a link to a great article on TAAs at BruceAir.com.

   0 Votes 1 Votes  1 Votes

3. 
   

   
   

   Drew on Apr 08, 2015

   I just thought it was counterintuitive. TD/parallel entries obviously need a PT to established on the inbound, but direct entries can do without them. Thanks for the answers.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

4. 
   

   
   

   John D Collins on Apr 09, 2015

   it is somewhat confusing when you really don’t need to fly the hold to get aligned with the final approach course. But there are some cases where it is necessary or the controller is expecting you to do the hold. More likely, the controller is not using proper phraseology and the clearance instead of “cleared direct CENTR, maintain 3000 until CENTR, cleared straight in RNAV runway one six approach”, omits the “straight in”. You have no way of distinguishing if the controller just did not include the “straight in”, or gave you a proper clearance and wants you to do the hold. 91.123 dictates you are responsible to clarify any clearance. “Approach, do you want two three four to proceed straight in?” I personally prefer to tell the controller what I want in the first instance “Approach, two three four would like to join the RNAV one six approach at CENTR, straight in.”

   So look at the ILS 24 to KHKY. Assume you start the approach at BZM. There is a feeder route to TAWBA. You can’t just proceed straight-in and have to do the PT. This involves at least a 180 degree turn to the left to intercept the localizer outbound.

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   Russ Roslewski on Apr 09, 2015

   To add to John’s example of the KHKY ILS 24 from BZM, at first glance it seems that you could “easily” make the turn onto final – and maybe you could. BUT, look at the minimum altitude along the route from BZM to TAWBA – it’s 4200 feet, well above the glideslope intercept altitude of 2700 feet.

   So if you did try to fly straight-in, not only would you be well above glideslope, if you just wanted to fly the LOC final instead your descent angle to the runway would be about 672 feet per nm, or about 6.3 degrees!

   So you do the PT and that lets you get down to the proper altitude for a nice,stabilized approach.

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

6. 
   

   
   

   Drew on Apr 09, 2015

   Thanks for the additional insight!

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

7. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Apr 10, 2015

   One comment to supplement John’s preference to tell the controller what we want.

   Once we get past understanding the need to sometimes do a course reversal for reasons of stabilization – IOW, Russ’ example of needing the turn in order to descend to a more appropriate altitude – the single most important thing to me is that the pilot and ATC are on the same page. That both expect the same thing to happen.

   For example, even when the PT is required by Part 91 rules, ATC might not be expecting it. This was brought home to me during an IPC given to me some years ago by a CFII who was also a controller. According to him, one =never= does a PT when “on airspeed, on altitude, and on course.” Incorrect according to Part 91, but this is what he expected as a controller. (And this was long, long before the AIM was finally amended to allow for straight-in approach clearances in some circumstances)

   So it’s always best to either, as John does, ask for what we want to do, or at least clarify with ATC what we expect to do.

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes