Peter wrote:
Anybody flying those two in my post above will be cleared for the approach. If you got sent to SECKA and not cleared for the approach, what does @ncyankee think of whether that is even possible?
It would be possible if the approach could not begin. ATC would normally specify the hold, but if the only clearance was direct to SECKA, it would become the clearance limit, and sans a clearance for the approach, the aircraft would be expected to hold in the pattern. A subsequent approach clearance would allow the next time established inbound on the 242R of IWA to continue the approach at SECKA. If the clearance for the approach came before crossing SECKA, but after the initial crossing to enter the hold, there would be no delay, since one has to fly the hold at least once to get aligned with the FAC.
This doesn’t answer your question regarding how this works in Europe, where I am not an expert and would rely on the European forum members expertise.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In the case of SECKA, there is a charted arrival route from PXR. When you arrive over SECKA, you make an offset entry into the racetrack to establish on the inbound course.
In FAA land, the terminology would be a hold southwest (Hold in lieu of a procedure turn – HILPT) at SECKA, on the IWA 242 radial, 1 minute turns, . I agree that the purpose of the hold is to permit a course reversal to align with the IAP FAC. Because it is published as a part of the procedure, 91.175 requires the procedure turn to be flown unless one of the 4 exceptions apply. The hold would be required by regulation even if the aircraft was tracking 062 along the 242 inbound to IWA and logically just proceed straight in. The hold is shown as part of the procedure in both the plan and profile views. There are two feeder routes to SECKA, and the one from TFD would enable the right turn on to final if the aircraft was cleared straight in.
Peter wrote:
That, however, is a non-answer w.r.t. to whether a hold is mandatory.
It is an answer as I wrote that both are racetracks, not holds. So they can’t be mandatory holds!
Flying the racetracks is very likely mandatory as no direct arrival is charted. In the case of ESPIG the intermediate approach segment would certainly be shorter than the minimum permitted if you don’t fly the racetrack.
That, however, is a non-answer w.r.t. to whether a hold is mandatory.
Anybody flying those two in my post above will be cleared for the approach. If you got sent to SECKA and not cleared for the approach, what does @ncyankee think of whether that is even possible?
Can anyone find an example of a mandatory hold in Europe?
Peter wrote:
The one at SECKA looks like it could be a hold, the one at ESPIG looks like a racetrack and definitely not a hold.
Both are racetracks, which is why they are in bold. In the case of SECKA, there is a charted arrival route from PXR. When you arrive over SECKA, you make an offset entry into the racetrack to establish on the inbound course.
The one at SECKA looks like it could be a hold, the one at ESPIG looks like a racetrack and definitely not a hold. Probably just a drafting difference, and anyway a redherring. I haven’t found an example of what looks like a mandatory hold over here.
Normally, there is no ambiguity because you get the ATC clearance. This thread originates from ambiguities due to incomplete specification or due to somebody jumping on the radio right at the moment you wanted to clarify it.
Peter wrote:
This however is LFMT. Does that count as “bold” or is it just a coincidence?
That’s a racetrack and not a hold and it is part of the procedure – which is why it is bold.
It is very common to see a “thin hold” inside a “bold hold” and in the case the “thin hold” is an actual hold while the “bold hold” is a racetrack. The reason the “thin hold” is inside is that holds almost always have 1 minute legs while racetracks almost always have longer legs.
With my training, both holds are part of the IAP. I used the term bold, but really it is the weight of the line used for the route. In the FAA IAC4 specification for charting approaches, they specify: “Terminal routes shall be shown as 4 weight (.010”)" and “The procedure track shall be indicated by an 8 weight (.020”) line". So if the terminal route gets you to an IAF, it is depicted using 4 weight lines and once reaching the IAF, everything else is part of the procedure track to the MAP and uses an 8 weight line. So if the hold is not part of the procedure, it is shown in 4 weight lines, but if it is part of the procedure, it is 8 weight. Jeppesen uses a similar coding scheme. A hold that is not part of an IAP is often called an arrival hold and is used to adjust altitude if the aircraft arrives too high to commence the procedure. These holds must be approved by ATC in order to be flown. Arrival holds are often found in mountainous areas. An example in the US is the RNAV (GPS) Rwy 15 at 20N Kingston, NY. The hold at ILGEZ is an arrival hold and not part of the IAP track.
Dimme wrote:
I would imagine they wanted you to do something like this:
I’d do the same.
The first example looks to me like a racetrack used as a course reversal and needs to be flown.
The second also looks like a course reversal may not need not be flown. It will depend at what angle you are approaching ESPIG from and the clearance from ATS.
Usually if the hold has to be flown it is mentioned in the text of the IAC.
Both can be used by ATS or PIC with permission as a hold.
The reason they are in bold is that IIRC they are included in modern databases and are depicted on the MFD as a an oval white line (georeferenced). You just follow the line as opposed to making calculations for wind offsets etc.
