"New" holding procedures
Thread Starter
"New" holding procedures
[
]
A few questions for all the IREs out there. Several UK military airfields now have TACAN holds which specify joins via the inbound radial or the outbound fix only.
1) Is it correct that civil rules have always specified this technique for joining holds that are defined by a fix? So was it only the military that performed Sector 1, 2 or 3 joins onto a fix-defined hold?
2) I have heard some people say that Sector 1, 2 and 3 joins are becoming history. Is this true? My reading of the ICAO rules leads me to believe that those joins still apply where the hold is defined by the navaid itself.
3) If we no longer need to navigate accurately directly to a fix (because we can join a radial and track it to the fix, or track directly towards the navaid), is there any longer a need for the black art of 'point-to-point' navigation based on the tail of the RMI pointer? If so, that will be a hard one for the crusty old generation of QFIs to let go!
4) The fastest holding speed (in non-turbulent conditions) under ICAO seems to be 230kts. Is there a reference somewhere that permits routine holding at 250kts in PANS-OPS, MIPS or TERPS holds? I'm aware of the HPMA specification but that only applies to specifically-labelled procedures, which I have seen in some European countries but not in the UK.
[/]
]A few questions for all the IREs out there. Several UK military airfields now have TACAN holds which specify joins via the inbound radial or the outbound fix only.
1) Is it correct that civil rules have always specified this technique for joining holds that are defined by a fix? So was it only the military that performed Sector 1, 2 or 3 joins onto a fix-defined hold?
2) I have heard some people say that Sector 1, 2 and 3 joins are becoming history. Is this true? My reading of the ICAO rules leads me to believe that those joins still apply where the hold is defined by the navaid itself.
3) If we no longer need to navigate accurately directly to a fix (because we can join a radial and track it to the fix, or track directly towards the navaid), is there any longer a need for the black art of 'point-to-point' navigation based on the tail of the RMI pointer? If so, that will be a hard one for the crusty old generation of QFIs to let go!
4) The fastest holding speed (in non-turbulent conditions) under ICAO seems to be 230kts. Is there a reference somewhere that permits routine holding at 250kts in PANS-OPS, MIPS or TERPS holds? I'm aware of the HPMA specification but that only applies to specifically-labelled procedures, which I have seen in some European countries but not in the UK.
[/
]
1) Yes.
2) No, they are not becoming history.
3) Point-to-point TACAN is fine for pilot navigation in Class G airspace, but not for holding procedures.
4) 250KIAS is OK above FL200, or in turbulence with ATC approval, or in certain circumstances associated with airways holding. See the table in the FIH ('yellow book').
The technique of attempting to fly point-to-point to join a place/bearing/distance fix was always something which used to cause arguments! Particularly when the fix was very close to the TACAN itself. The USAF had a good rule of thumb which said that if DME (in miles) was less than height (in thousands of feet), you couldn't trust it. E.g. if trying to join a 260/3 fix at FL40. The requirements for TACAN joins at a place/bearing/distance fix should be the same as for VOR/DME place/bearing/distance fixes, which are stated in the FIH thus:
Yet crusty old 'point-to-point' TACAN gurus used to attempt to use such fixes as if they were actual beacons. When I took over as IRE, I insisted on the correct procedures as per the FIH - which some old duffers thought "made things too easy"......
The FIH used to provide an excellent summary of the requirements. I presume it still does?
2) No, they are not becoming history.
3) Point-to-point TACAN is fine for pilot navigation in Class G airspace, but not for holding procedures.
4) 250KIAS is OK above FL200, or in turbulence with ATC approval, or in certain circumstances associated with airways holding. See the table in the FIH ('yellow book').
The technique of attempting to fly point-to-point to join a place/bearing/distance fix was always something which used to cause arguments! Particularly when the fix was very close to the TACAN itself. The USAF had a good rule of thumb which said that if DME (in miles) was less than height (in thousands of feet), you couldn't trust it. E.g. if trying to join a 260/3 fix at FL40. The requirements for TACAN joins at a place/bearing/distance fix should be the same as for VOR/DME place/bearing/distance fixes, which are stated in the FIH thus:
For holding on a VOR/DME fix, the entry track is limited to either the VOR radial, DME arc, or alternatively along the entry radial to a VOR/DME fix at the end of the outbound leg, as published.
DME Arc Entry.
Having reached the fix the aircraft shall enter the holding pattern in accordance with either the Sector 1 or Sector 3 entry procedure. Note - A DME arc entry procedure is specified only when there is a specific operational difficulty which precludes the use of other entry procedures. Entry Procedure for VOR/DME and TACAN Holding.
If an entry radial to a secondary fix at the end of the outbound leg of a VOR/DME and TACAN holding pattern is specified (Figures 2 and 3), Sector 1 and Sector 2 entries are not authorized. The holding pattern shall be entered directly using the published entry radial or the Sector 3 entry procedure. Having reached the fix, the aircraft shall be turned to follow the holding pattern.
Note: Where a special entry procedure is used, the entry radial is clearly depicted.
Having reached the fix the aircraft shall enter the holding pattern in accordance with either the Sector 1 or Sector 3 entry procedure. Note - A DME arc entry procedure is specified only when there is a specific operational difficulty which precludes the use of other entry procedures. Entry Procedure for VOR/DME and TACAN Holding.
If an entry radial to a secondary fix at the end of the outbound leg of a VOR/DME and TACAN holding pattern is specified (Figures 2 and 3), Sector 1 and Sector 2 entries are not authorized. The holding pattern shall be entered directly using the published entry radial or the Sector 3 entry procedure. Having reached the fix, the aircraft shall be turned to follow the holding pattern.
Note: Where a special entry procedure is used, the entry radial is clearly depicted.
The FIH used to provide an excellent summary of the requirements. I presume it still does?
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Aug 2012 at 21:19.
Thread Starter
Yes, it is still there in the FIH. The fact that the military procedures use TACAN fixes rather than VOR/DME fixes has probably encouraged people to believe that these paragraphs do not apply to them.
Until the current overhaul is complete, the majority of military airfields still have a hold defined by a fix, with no outbound entry radial specified. Where no DME arc entry is specified, I now understand that these holds should only be entered on the inbound radial. I'm at a loss to know why the sector joins to fixes have been so religiously taught at every stage of training - my BFT, AFT and OCU instructors all actively penalised 'fudging' the join to achieve a sector 3, when it appears all along that that was the only permitted course of action!
Until the current overhaul is complete, the majority of military airfields still have a hold defined by a fix, with no outbound entry radial specified. Where no DME arc entry is specified, I now understand that these holds should only be entered on the inbound radial. I'm at a loss to know why the sector joins to fixes have been so religiously taught at every stage of training - my BFT, AFT and OCU instructors all actively penalised 'fudging' the join to achieve a sector 3, when it appears all along that that was the only permitted course of action!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably because the training system struggles to determine the capacity level of the student without resorting to inane techniques that arenas from best practice. Mdr winds during flight? Sod off, think I will china graph them on my map before I launch thanks.
Unfortunately, too many people seem to have misunderstood the new holding procedures, and spent up to three years shambling around without direction or purpose...
Thread Starter
The 'old' military holds are depicted by AIDU thus:
The presence of the sector markings (150/330) implies that even AIDU expected the sector joins to be flown. No wonder everyone disregarded the direction in the FIH. The new holds are shown thus:
and they come with explicit instructions in the notes that e.g. "hold entries are restricted to the 072 radial inbound and via the 286 radial / 10 DME outbound". It is almost like the rules are having to be written on each TAP in order to get the recalcitrant to follow correct procedures!
I think it's clear why so many are confused right now. I think some definitive instruction needs to be issued by CFS, to the tune of "the procedures in the FIH are the law and apply to all TACAN holds", to accompany the revised procedures!
The presence of the sector markings (150/330) implies that even AIDU expected the sector joins to be flown. No wonder everyone disregarded the direction in the FIH. The new holds are shown thus:
and they come with explicit instructions in the notes that e.g. "hold entries are restricted to the 072 radial inbound and via the 286 radial / 10 DME outbound". It is almost like the rules are having to be written on each TAP in order to get the recalcitrant to follow correct procedures!
I think it's clear why so many are confused right now. I think some definitive instruction needs to be issued by CFS, to the tune of "the procedures in the FIH are the law and apply to all TACAN holds", to accompany the revised procedures!
A typically daft hold. OK if using some system overlay which eliminates slant range errors, but as published, an aircraft with basic TACAN holding at FL80 on a low pressure day would actually see a range of about 3.4 miles when overhead the 3d fix..... If the pilot waited until he/she saw 3.0 miles before turning, he would in fact be at 0.5d beyond the fix, thanks to slant range error......
Why so high / close?
The old Valley Point Alpha is perhaps a legacy of Gnat days when it could set up as a TACAN offset point as 220/14, giving 'pseudo-overhead' indications at the fix - hence it would be possible to make sector entries? Although anyone risking such a comment in those days would probably have found themselves on a one-way train to Oakington PDQ!
I have an old 'Jet Instrument Approach Chart' for Valley, dated 5 Aug 1954. Initial approach to overhead the CR DF ('Homer' on 110.98 Mc/s) not below 12000 ft. Track outbound on 020° to 'half initial approach altitude plus 2000 ft, then turn left and fly inbound to make good a track of 190°. Then a 'check altitude' of 2000 ft followed by a minimum approach altitude of 600 ft.... Variation was 11°W, so it must have been quite sporting trying to get in on RW 14 on minima.....
Why so high / close?
The old Valley Point Alpha is perhaps a legacy of Gnat days when it could set up as a TACAN offset point as 220/14, giving 'pseudo-overhead' indications at the fix - hence it would be possible to make sector entries? Although anyone risking such a comment in those days would probably have found themselves on a one-way train to Oakington PDQ!
I have an old 'Jet Instrument Approach Chart' for Valley, dated 5 Aug 1954. Initial approach to overhead the CR DF ('Homer' on 110.98 Mc/s) not below 12000 ft. Track outbound on 020° to 'half initial approach altitude plus 2000 ft, then turn left and fly inbound to make good a track of 190°. Then a 'check altitude' of 2000 ft followed by a minimum approach altitude of 600 ft.... Variation was 11°W, so it must have been quite sporting trying to get in on RW 14 on minima.....
Last edited by BEagle; 15th Aug 2012 at 12:47.
Wot BEagle said. Except for a couple of minor points:
Q1: A hold defined by a radial/DME distance should ony be entered along the radial/localizer or a published DME arc. Was always so, regardless of civil/military. Except the the RAF IREs who liked to prove they were better than everyone else liked to insist on fix joins from any angle.
Q2: No - as you said. As nearly every pilot with the exception of a few flying steam driven aircraft on manually selected Navaids on tests will be flying with a FMC where a hold is entered with a couple of button pushes. All joins are easy.
Q3: No point - aprat from tests and the RAF where everything has to be hard. But as BEagle said, you won't be doing point to point in real life - you aren't allowed as most procedures in real life are RNAV procedures these days.
Q4: The max hold speed can be defiened by PANSOPS/TERPS or national variations. But if you want to hold at a higher speed for operational reasons, just ask. If above and within MSA, you will be safe.
Q1: A hold defined by a radial/DME distance should ony be entered along the radial/localizer or a published DME arc. Was always so, regardless of civil/military. Except the the RAF IREs who liked to prove they were better than everyone else liked to insist on fix joins from any angle.
Q2: No - as you said. As nearly every pilot with the exception of a few flying steam driven aircraft on manually selected Navaids on tests will be flying with a FMC where a hold is entered with a couple of button pushes. All joins are easy.
Q3: No point - aprat from tests and the RAF where everything has to be hard. But as BEagle said, you won't be doing point to point in real life - you aren't allowed as most procedures in real life are RNAV procedures these days.
Q4: The max hold speed can be defiened by PANSOPS/TERPS or national variations. But if you want to hold at a higher speed for operational reasons, just ask. If above and within MSA, you will be safe.
....Except the the RAF IREs who liked to prove they were better than everyone else liked to insist on fix joins from any angle.
Mind you, the CAA were even kinder. My 'observed' IR on the '10 included a radar vectored ILS at Lyneham on RW25, then an NDB join, hold and asymmetric NDB on RW26 at Brize. But instead of insisting on a direct transit, followed by an appropriate sector entry and join, the IRE was perfectly happy to allow me to poke off north, then turn to join on the precise sector 3 holding course...
Nice chap!! A shame that such things are no longer possible though...
Last edited by BEagle; 15th Aug 2012 at 13:27.
Sorry BEags - I should have emphasised that I wasn't referring to ALL the RAF IREs. If I recall correctly, my last IRT in the RAF was with you - with a CAAFU examiner on the jump seat. Snake had kindly drawn the hold on the ND for me and I entered it with a sector three join down the inbound radial. You and the CAAFU examiner said nothing!
I think so, Dan! 30 Mar 2000 in ZA148?
Some IR though - 5:30 including 6 prods for me as it was an AARI check on another pilot as well. Then back for your IR, then his? CAA Examiner seemed to enjoy himself!
Some IR though - 5:30 including 6 prods for me as it was an AARI check on another pilot as well. Then back for your IR, then his? CAA Examiner seemed to enjoy himself!
That's it! Seem to remember I started it in the RHS, then it was my AARI check on MH to requalify him, then his IRT. Then I finished my IRT in the LHS. Can't be many pilots around who have done their initial IRT from both seats. the CAAFU guy had never seen AAR. Might have helped my score!
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 15th Aug 2012 at 16:18.
Not as boring as all that helicopter stuff you used to post about, llamaman.
No-one is forcing you to discuss holding procedures, so perhaps you might wish to $od off elsewhere?
No-one is forcing you to discuss holding procedures, so perhaps you might wish to $od off elsewhere?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last nav at waddo who gave a sh1t about this sh1t no longer gives a sh1t, I can say with a fair degree of certainty.
(It's not sh1t, but I spent too long banging my head against the nearest solid object when my 'suggestions' on procedural work were ignored in favour of a tourettes like response from the front seats of "radar vectored ILS" to the ATC question of what approach we'd like.)
(It's not sh1t, but I spent too long banging my head against the nearest solid object when my 'suggestions' on procedural work were ignored in favour of a tourettes like response from the front seats of "radar vectored ILS" to the ATC question of what approach we'd like.)
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 1st Jan 2014 at 14:52.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunately, despite the pointlesness of manually flown holds, (and flying a type that flys an fms hold, to be followed by my next type flying fms holds) the caa still give a $hit about examining holds on the cpl(ir), so a few of us on here may be interested in finding out areas where the mil thinks it knows more than it does.
Last edited by VinRouge; 16th Aug 2012 at 02:59.
I'm quite sure you don't miss the clattering vibration, squalor and hemorrhoids of your sort of 'flying'....
So feel free to leave this thread to those professionals who are interested in the correct techniques for flying holding procedures.
So feel free to leave this thread to those professionals who are interested in the correct techniques for flying holding procedures.
Last edited by BEagle; 16th Aug 2012 at 10:57.
Whatever turns you on Beagle, I say again whatever........and btw, it's haemorrhoids Beagle, a pain in the arse, like holding patterns.
Perhaps you should leave big words and sarcasm to the professionals?
Perhaps you should leave big words and sarcasm to the professionals?
Last edited by Al-bert; 16th Aug 2012 at 11:33.