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:
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.
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:
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.
