[index] [month] [prev] [next] [thead-prev] [thread-next]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:39:30 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
<roncachamp@writeme.com> wrote:

>
><les_Izmore@waitforit.com> wrote in message
>news:3c5a7078.52320351@netnews.att.net...
>>
>> But this guy (and Rosenfeld) have maintained from the beginning that
>> flying a ten mile leg is mandatory, and the pilot has no option to
>> turn early. That has been my bone of disagreement.
>>
>
>I know of nothing that indicates ten mile legs are mandatory. AJ and Ron
>are staking their claim on AIM 5-4-8.a.4:
>
>"A holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn may be specified for course
>reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is
>established over an intermediate fix or a final approach fix. The holding
>pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed.
>Maximum holding airspeed limitations as set forth for all holding patterns
>apply. The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is
>established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If
>cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the
>aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding
>pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make
>additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better
>established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon
>receipt of their approach clearance."
>
>Note the third sentence in the paragraph, "The holding pattern distance or
>time specified in the profile view must be observed." They take the view
>that that distance is mandatory, I don't believe that's the case. As far as
>I'm concerned, if a pilot is holding at the proper fix, at the proper
>altitude, in the proper direction from the fix, is turning in the proper
>direction, and does not exceed the specified leg length, then that pilot is
>holding as published, and is observing the holding pattern distance. I
>believe that's consistent with the AIM.
>
>


I totally agree.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: Signal Degradation on a SID, JerryK
Next message: Re: Signal Degradation on a SID, Mike Rapoport
Next message in thread: Re: GPS approach question, Steven P. McNicoll
Previous message in thread: Re: GPS approach question, Steven P. McNicoll