The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I resisted the GPS/Loran movement when it appeared in the late '70s/80s. Mostly for the expense and the fact that most destinations I used were accomodated "on route". I kept SA (situational awareness) without difficulty, perhaps because I have an active imagination, according to my friends.

When the Northstar Loran units came out, I was not someone who rushed out to get one...I only acquired one in my third airplane because the installation had already been made and I wanted to fill the hole in the panel left when the previous owner insisted on keeping the box for his other (stored) airplane he'd inherited from his father...a Fleetwing Seabird!

Anyway....the Northstar only provided textual guidance...no "moving map"...except in the mind.....(SA). Many of my friends ridiculed me about being "behind" technology, and urged me to come into the present-time..... "Get a GPS! You'll LOVE the MOVING MAP."

I did. And I do. But....

The other day, in the simulator, I had a pair of clients who were truly talented aviators. They had no difficulty in the various maneuvers required for their Part 135 recurrency and we had actually finished the lesson a bit early with some time left to spare. We'd enjoyed the interaction ....(I believe in the philosophy that, in the sim, if you're laughing...you're learning. If you're not laughing at your discovered weaknesses/errors...if you're frustrated and overstressed by the experience...then you might as well come off-motion and go home because all learning has ended.)

These guys were having a good time, and with the extra time available, they challenged me to give them a "little extra".
They had thrown down the gauntlet.

(If you're interested in the details of this discussion, you'll want to study the approach plate for the ILS to Rwy 11L at Tuscon (KTUS). I failed the local radar and the glideslope. And the aircraft DME and FMS (Flight Managment System which provides GPS/moving map). The crew would have to use good-ol' basic navigation of VOR/Localalzer and ADF to take off and return to the same airport.
I set the weather to basic-VFR of 1,000 overcast and 3 miles visibility. No problem...right? (Hell! Lindbergh found Paris with a compass and a clock! You'd think an ATP-rated crew with thousands of hours in a modern jet airplane could takeoff and land at the same airport. RIght?)

With the aircraft taking-off on Rwy 29R, they were cleared to RYAN NDB, then to LIPTE intersection, maintain 6,000. Upon reaching LIPTE, "Cleared for ILS (localizer only) approach to KTUS."

I was never more surprised to watch this talented and experienced flight crew draw a bowl of spaghetti in the sky as they wandered all over the area searching for the inbound course. This crew had become so dependent upon FMS moving maps and ATC radar ...they became completely disoriented, required two missed approaches, wandered beyond the area for the MSA (Minimum Safe Altitude) and ended up in a (generally) downward-spiralling approach to a point 4 miles from and 2000' above the runway. They were waay behind the necessary descent rate, increasing their descent and worried about the terrain...about to go "missed" for the third time...
I had to instantily/drastically "raise the weather" minimums from published (virtually VFR)...to CLEAR/UNLIMITED....in order for them to see the runway sufficiently to land.... or we'd be up there still!

All they had to do was, Take off Rwy 29R, turn left to approximately WEST and proceed to the RYAN NDB, then fly NORTH via the RYAN bearing (about 350 degrees, right?) then identify when they crossed over the LOCalizer course, fly another 15 seconds, turn LEFT (Northwest) for a minute, then turn LEFT again to intercept the inbound LOCalizer course, and using RYAN NDB bearings, step-down at each intersection until reaching minimums, look up, see the runway and land.
Four turns and land the airplane.
It was a real eye-opener for all of us. It had seemed a simple navigation problem but this highly experienced crew discovered themselves so accustomed to moving maps...they'd completely forgotten how to keep Situational Awareness (SA) in their heads.

Don't let that happen guys. If you think YOU are immune..... then you'd better get with an instructor and hand him a challenge....to CHALLENGE YOU!

I hope it's a fun experience for you.

George, your plan puts them on the unprotected side of the localizer, they needed to go to LIPTE, track outbound on the LOC for 1 minute, then make a standard rate left turn to get back to LIPTE so as to complete the parallel entry into the hold to fly outbound 1 minute, making a right turn as depicted to rejoin the localizer to complete the approach.

Tim

Tim, this was not a holding pattern... it was a course reversal.... the common"parallel" entry method is the recommended entry, and is well accepted. This entails the method described. ( See the AIM.)

George, don't have a problem with the course reversal, and was aware of it without review. Very uncomfortable with the technique of flying 15 seconds into the unprotected airspace rather than tracking the LOC outbound to complete the parallel entry to the "holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn" depicted by a thick line on the approach plate. I also agree that entering the hold is not required IF established on the inbound course and cleared for the approach (as in the original clearance received) prior to the holding fix (LIPTE). I also understand that the point of your post was to make readers consider that moving maps and automation are not a substitute for situational awareness and carefully monitoring of where you are going. I agree with this also.

Tim

Point well taken George. Even us non IFR guys can understand that total reliance on electronics is not a smart thing to do. I wouldn't have known what to do had all systems been working, but even in a VFR situation we still need to be aware of where we are on a sectional map.

Of course when you mentioned you were going to "test" that crew a bit extra I thought you were going to test them on the benefits of MMO, MOGAS or RED vs GREEN airplanes

bat443 wrote:George, don't have a problem with the course reversal, and was aware of it without review. Very uncomfortable with the technique of flying 15 seconds into the unprotected airspace rather than tracking the LOC outbound to complete the parallel entry to the "holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn" depicted by a thick line on the approach plate. I also agree that entering the hold is not required IF established on the inbound course and cleared for the approach (as in the original clearance received) prior to the holding fix (LIPTE). I also understand that the point of your post was to make readers consider that moving maps and automation are not a substitute for situational awareness and carefully monitoring of where you are going. I agree with this also.

Tim

Airman's Information Manual, "Holding Pattern Entry Procedures, 3.(a). Parallel Procedure. When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in sector (a), the parallel entry procedure would be to turn to a heading to parallel the holding course outbound on the nonholding side for one minute, turn in the direction of the holding pattern through more than 180 degrees, and return to the holding fix or intercept the holding course inbound."

(sector (a) is from the holding side. While other methods may enable an aircraft to enter the holding pattern and remain within protected airspace, the parallel method indicated above is the procedure recommended by the FAA and so-specified in the AIM.)

delete

Again George if you reread my reply, you will see that I support using the parallel entry, the problem is the 15 seconds on the 350 heading before turning left to fly outbound.

Tim

bat443 wrote:Again George if you reread my reply, you will see that I support using the parallel entry, the problem is the 15 seconds on the 350 heading before turning left to fly outbound.

Tim

Tim, I'm with you. Cross the fix and start the turn!

Not desiring to diverge into a discussion about technique, but...
While holding patterns are described as consisting of "protected" and "non-protected" areas.... in actual fact, ALL the lateral limits of the holding pattern are "protected" airspace, including the smaller, non-holding side.

As the AIM and FARs state, any technique which results in the course-reversal within the defined airspace is allowable.
In the "old days", it was commonly taught to delay 15 seconds when crossing the fix while turning outbound on the non-holding side as a technique, to result in a more symmetrical pattern.
The standard-rate turn recommended for holding patterns, performed for one minute, results in course-reversal of 180 degrees. Approaching a fix from the perpendicular, a delay of 15 seconds approximates one-half of that 180-degree turn...resulting in the outbound heading. Clearly, I have retained an old habit, but one which I find useful in some instances.

In the example used, the assigned altitude was 6,000 MSL, and the maximum airspeed (per FARs) for holding at this altitude is 200 kts. For convenience let's use 180 kts, (which happens to coincide with the speed used by the clients in the example) which correlates to travelling 3 nm per minute in no-wind conditions. (Although not previously noted, the wind experienced that day by the clients was 060/10 which presented them with a headwind while crossing LIPTE.)
In 15-seconds they would have travelled 3/4 nm (no-wind), well within the lateral limits on the non-holidng side of the "hold", and well within "protected airspace", especially if one considers the wind component. (As well, they did not arrive at LIPTE completely perpendicular, therefore a 15 sec. delay outbound results in even less distance travelled on the non-holding side. But I digress.)

There is no requirement to wait 15-seconds before initiating the outbound turn. The only reason to do so would be to make the outbound turn more symmetrical and avoid exceeding the defined airspace while turning downwind at the next turn INbound (when the aircraft will be experiencing greater groundspeed due to the wind component.)

It was merely a technique....one which complies with lateral airspace limits....intended to result in a more symmetrical radar/print-out of the flight-path. Your technique will certainly also work.

The cardinal point, as noted, was the total loss of SA of the crew. I believe it is a common result of widespread use of moving map displays by crews.

"I was never more surprised to watch this talented and experienced flight crew draw a bowl of spaghetti in the sky as they wandered all over the area searching for the inbound course. This crew had become so dependent upon FMS moving maps and ATC radar ...they became completely disoriented, required two missed approaches, wandered beyond the area for the MSA (Minimum Safe Altitude) and ended up in a (generally) downward-spiralling approach to a point 4 miles from and 2000' above the runway. They were waay behind the necessary descent rate, increasing their descent and worried about the terrain...about to go "missed" for the third time...
I had to instantily/drastically "raise the weather" minimums from published (virtually VFR)...to CLEAR/UNLIMITED....in order for them to see the runway sufficiently to land.... or we'd be up there still!"

Way out of context, I know. But the bar has been lowered in many other real life situations, and it is very surprising when we realize how far we/they are removed from what should be common knowledge/ability. Not meant to hijack