IR test - hold requirements
Guest
Posts: n/a
IR test - hold requirements
Info is required on requirements to hold in the IR test. The hold has to be part of a published approach, but does it have to be on a facility (usually NDB) or can it be a DME fix on LLZ? Examiners seem to want the former, but I would like to prove one way or other.
Is ICAO the place to look - maybe DOC 9379 but I can only find a copy in russian without paying £90 for one.
Example at EGTE the EX procedural approaches for 08 have been withdrawn for training (aircraft at Dinard were beating us to the LLZ as we left EX!). So TOMPO hold is used for procedural approaches to 08, which is what it is there for, but people are then being asked to demonstrate a hold at EX on the way out!
Vectors to point me towards the relevant docs would be much appreciated.
Is ICAO the place to look - maybe DOC 9379 but I can only find a copy in russian without paying £90 for one.
Example at EGTE the EX procedural approaches for 08 have been withdrawn for training (aircraft at Dinard were beating us to the LLZ as we left EX!). So TOMPO hold is used for procedural approaches to 08, which is what it is there for, but people are then being asked to demonstrate a hold at EX on the way out!
Vectors to point me towards the relevant docs would be much appreciated.
Hi Scherzo,
Extract from UK CAA Standards Doc 01A v6:
Notes for the Guidance of Applicants taking the Initial Instrument Rating Skill Test (Aeroplanes)
page 10 (my bold):
3.6.13 The execution of an en-route hold required by ATC will be assessed but will not negate the requirement for a hold at the destination facility and may not be substituted. A holding pattern will be required in either normal or asymmetric aeroplane configuration. The holding pattern should be conducted using a 'needle' instrument presentation from either an NDB or a VOR.
However: note the use of 'should'. The intro to the document states:
1.5 Throughout these notes the following editorial practices and definitions shall apply:
• "Shall" and "Must” are used to indicate a mandatory requirement.
• "Expect" and "Should" are used to indicate strong obligation.
• "May" is used to indicate discretion.
• "Examiner" is used to indicate a person who is authorised by the CAA to conduct the appropriate skill test.
• "Applicant" is used to indicate a person who is seeking the issue or renewal of a pilot’s licence or rating.
• A Skill Test is a demonstration of skill for the initial licence issue, licence renewal, rating issue or rating renewal. Such tests include oral examination and flight test as appropriate.
• "He/She". The pronoun 'he' is used throughout for ease of reading.
I suppose that means that the examiner is under a strong obligation to to arrange the flight so that a holding pattern based on a needle may be assessed, but if that's not possible then he/she has discretion to assess the hold using other displays.
The full document is available here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_FCL_01.PDF
Good luck!
Eck
Extract from UK CAA Standards Doc 01A v6:
Notes for the Guidance of Applicants taking the Initial Instrument Rating Skill Test (Aeroplanes)
page 10 (my bold):
3.6.13 The execution of an en-route hold required by ATC will be assessed but will not negate the requirement for a hold at the destination facility and may not be substituted. A holding pattern will be required in either normal or asymmetric aeroplane configuration. The holding pattern should be conducted using a 'needle' instrument presentation from either an NDB or a VOR.
However: note the use of 'should'. The intro to the document states:
1.5 Throughout these notes the following editorial practices and definitions shall apply:
• "Shall" and "Must” are used to indicate a mandatory requirement.
• "Expect" and "Should" are used to indicate strong obligation.
• "May" is used to indicate discretion.
• "Examiner" is used to indicate a person who is authorised by the CAA to conduct the appropriate skill test.
• "Applicant" is used to indicate a person who is seeking the issue or renewal of a pilot’s licence or rating.
• A Skill Test is a demonstration of skill for the initial licence issue, licence renewal, rating issue or rating renewal. Such tests include oral examination and flight test as appropriate.
• "He/She". The pronoun 'he' is used throughout for ease of reading.
I suppose that means that the examiner is under a strong obligation to to arrange the flight so that a holding pattern based on a needle may be assessed, but if that's not possible then he/she has discretion to assess the hold using other displays.
The full document is available here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_FCL_01.PDF
Good luck!
Eck
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent link by Eck.
I'm curious why you ask the question though? The examiner is perfectly entitled to ask for a hold after the approach in any circumstances (that's what they normally do when they're testing RNav approaches, which frequently don't start from a hold), and the candidate surely just has to get on with doing whatever he's asked to do?
FFF
-------------
I'm curious why you ask the question though? The examiner is perfectly entitled to ask for a hold after the approach in any circumstances (that's what they normally do when they're testing RNav approaches, which frequently don't start from a hold), and the candidate surely just has to get on with doing whatever he's asked to do?
FFF
-------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
yes...but!!
Thanks to both Eck and FF for comments. The Standards Doc is the CAA take on the matter, but I am interested to find out what lies behind that. As it happens I like flying/teaching NDB holds, but the point in case is where the published procedure involves a hold on the LLZ is it really necessary to repeat the hold elsewhere.
As it happens we are in the process of agreeing non-published holds at IAF on RNAV approaches, but not for test purposes.
If anybody could point me towards relevant ICAO docs it would be great.
As it happens we are in the process of agreeing non-published holds at IAF on RNAV approaches, but not for test purposes.
If anybody could point me towards relevant ICAO docs it would be great.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 79
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer to FFF's question "Why ask the question" is that the CAA FEs themselves seem to give a different answer when asked. Sometimes they say "Any hold that is part of a published approach" and sometimes they say "it must be on a facility". There appears doubt as to exactly what the ICAO requirement is and so it would be a good starting point to find the dam' thing. If it DOES say it must be on a facility then there is a case for the industry to go back to ICAO and suggest this needs amending as it is no longer practical to achieve this at several aerodromes.
It seems a good idea to be proactive - just for once - but the starting point has to be this ephemeral ICAO document.
All help gratefully received.
It seems a good idea to be proactive - just for once - but the starting point has to be this ephemeral ICAO document.
All help gratefully received.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just so happens I was chatting to one of the CAA examiners this morning about this. His opinion is that a TOMPO hold will not count as the required hold on an IR test. As well as eckhard's link to the relevant document (granted it's not an ICAO document), his opinion is that the ADF needle is so imprecise at that distance that it's not possible to judge whether the candidate is establishing and tracking accurately.
His current feelings on the subject are that when he goes to Exeter and runway 08 is in use, he's likely to ask candidates for an RNav approach followed by a standard missed approach and once around the EX hold (which he has confirmed with ATC will not be a problem). Obviously this is only one examiner of many, he is quite at liberty to change his mind at any point in the future, and what he said to me would only apply to candidates from those schools which teach RNav approaches (although a vectored ILS followed by an EX hold would be another option)..... but it was interesting to get his thoughts.
The key point he made, though (on this, and also on another subject which was the main reason I was speaking to him) is that examiners, instructors and students/candidates need to be flexible in a changing environment.
FFF
----------
His current feelings on the subject are that when he goes to Exeter and runway 08 is in use, he's likely to ask candidates for an RNav approach followed by a standard missed approach and once around the EX hold (which he has confirmed with ATC will not be a problem). Obviously this is only one examiner of many, he is quite at liberty to change his mind at any point in the future, and what he said to me would only apply to candidates from those schools which teach RNav approaches (although a vectored ILS followed by an EX hold would be another option)..... but it was interesting to get his thoughts.
The key point he made, though (on this, and also on another subject which was the main reason I was speaking to him) is that examiners, instructors and students/candidates need to be flexible in a changing environment.
FFF
----------
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 79
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely agree with the last para from FFF, but our query is different and didn't relate to any specific airport. However, mention of the Exeter TOMPO raises another question: Given that, as FFF says, some aircraft have poor ADFs, a better way to hold at TOMPO (and similar holds at other aerodromes) has hitherto been to use the localiser and DME, which gives a perfectly good hold. However, why not put the RNAV on TOMPO, couple it to the RMI VOR needle? Bingo! a perfectly normal single needle hold. Is this in accord with ICAO? Leading on from this, as more commercial air transport flights are using the same RNAV approach as training aircraft we sometimes need somewhere to "park" the trainer. We think a logical answer is a hold at the initial fix for the RNAV procedure with an inbound in line with the initial track of the procedure. Again the RNAV/RMI combination will give a perfectly good single needle hold. Does this meet ICAO requirements? Until some kind person tells us where to find this information we are a bit stuck!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lizard,
I don't believe the RMI needle can point to an RNav point on most kit?
That aside, setting the RNav point and then flying a published NDB hold based on RNav-derived tracking information sounds, to me, no more legal (but just as safe) as flying an NDB approach based on RNav-derived tracking information.
As for holding prior to an RNav approach, holding at the IAF seems entirely logical to me too. I heard a rumour recently (but I can't for the life of me remember where) that Exeter ATC are introducing informal procedures to do exactly this for locally-based aircraft, although if they are informal procedures I'm sure they wouldn't be appropriate for an IR test.
I've seen draft plates for the Alderney RNav procedures which featured a hold to the north of the airport, based on an RNav point. I have no idea how "draft" these plates were, or whether this hold will make it into the final procedure when it's eventually published - but it does show that offical, published holds away from beacons are feasible and are being considered.
FFF
-------------
I don't believe the RMI needle can point to an RNav point on most kit?
That aside, setting the RNav point and then flying a published NDB hold based on RNav-derived tracking information sounds, to me, no more legal (but just as safe) as flying an NDB approach based on RNav-derived tracking information.
As for holding prior to an RNav approach, holding at the IAF seems entirely logical to me too. I heard a rumour recently (but I can't for the life of me remember where) that Exeter ATC are introducing informal procedures to do exactly this for locally-based aircraft, although if they are informal procedures I'm sure they wouldn't be appropriate for an IR test.
I've seen draft plates for the Alderney RNav procedures which featured a hold to the north of the airport, based on an RNav point. I have no idea how "draft" these plates were, or whether this hold will make it into the final procedure when it's eventually published - but it does show that offical, published holds away from beacons are feasible and are being considered.
FFF
-------------
