Holding patterns (check ride)

In the real world I'm really not worried about holding patterns. I completely understand how to insert a hold at any waypoint and how to make adjustments to that patterns. It's a beautiful thing really.

However, I was doing some IFR practice with a CFII a week or so ago and he asked me to track the 183 radial (V69) from ARG until intercepting the 270 radial from the JBR VOR. Hold West on the 270 radial from the JBR VOR.


OK, now I admit I haven't done much IFR flying (even as a pax) but I don't think these are real world (2018) things to expect. However, obviously this is testing my ability to do the hold.


My question. Is there an easy way to create that waypoint and get the hold displayed on the IFD 550 or am I simply going to have to go dual VOR style and do this thing the old way. Since the hold is on the JBR radial I am thinking I want that one tuned into the IFD 550 since I have dual G5's and the CDI (HSI display) function of the G5 is really nice. Use the #2 Kx155 to track the initial 183 radial from ARG.


What are my options? I don't want to bust my IFR check ride when I say WTF to instructions like this. lol

arkvet wrote: In the real world I'm really not worried about holding patterns. I completely understand how to insert a hold at any waypoint and how to make adjustments to that patterns. It's a beautiful thing really. However, I was doing some IFR practice with a CFII a week or so ago and he asked me to track the 183 radial (V69) from ARG until intercepting the 270 radial from the JBR VOR. Hold West on the 270 radial from the JBR VOR. OK, now I admit I haven't done much IFR flying (even as a pax) but I don't think these are real world (2018) things to expect. However, obviously this is testing my ability to do the hold. My question. Is there an easy way to create that waypoint and get the hold displayed on the IFD 550 or am I simply going to have to go dual VOR style and do this thing the old way. Since the hold is on the JBR radial I am thinking I want that one tuned into the IFD 550 since I have dual G5's and the CDI (HSI display) function of the G5 is really nice. Use the #2 Kx155 to track the initial 183 radial from ARG. What are my options? I don't want to bust my IFR check ride when I say WTF to instructions like this. lol

Kentucky Captain wrote: ... One more thing.  Holding on the 270 radial will having you holding east, while holding west would be the 090 radial.

dmtidler wrote: The Rad/Dist option would work well if the distance to the intersecting radials was known along at least one of  the radials. I agree that the Lat/Lon method could be cumbersome; I'd be prone to use the BT keyboard for that one. I would suggest that if the Lat/Lon of the intersection could be referenced on a chart (or map layer), the intersection is probably named and very likely to be a waypoint in the IFD navigation database. All of these options would require more information than initially presented in the problem that may (or may not) be found by referencing the appropriate chart (or map layer). I agree with Gring's option 1; using the Rad/Rad user waypoint format is probably the easiest way to create the appropriate holding waypoint in the IFD without the need to look up any additional information.

Orest is right for sure and it is something that caught me out one time when playing with the hold feature during pre certification testing.

If you are asked to do a hold using intersecting VOR's, I believe the examiner would expect it to be done using the VORs and not a GPS waypoint. Since the hold is not based on a DME/GPS, it would have to be based on time (1 minute) and a hold depicted by the IFD is based on distance.

The Examiner can simulate failures on a check ride.  What if he said during the check to assume a regional GPS outage due to military exercises, and asked you to hold somewhere?  Don't know if you would pass the check if you insisted on demonstrating your HSI or course following skills by using the GPS anyway.

Gring wrote: Catani wrote: The Examiner can simulate failures on a check ride.  What if he said during the check to assume a regional GPS outage due to military exercises, and asked you to hold somewhere?  Don't know if you would pass the check if you insisted on demonstrating your HSI or course following skills by using the GPS anyway.   That is not what I'm saying, and there are always exceptions. In your example, if you have a GPS outage, then you need to either go to an alternate navigation system (Radio Navigation), or be on ATC Vectors. If the former, then you would hold using the assigned VOR, Radial, Distance, and holding instructions. Your HSI or CDI will still be your primary instrument used to maintain proper navigation while in the hold.

It sounds like you may have been trying to make the point the AA Training Capt did in the "Children of the Magenta" video, something we can all agree on.  What I was responding to was your prior post that either method of locating the holding waypoint (GPS or VOR) would be acceptable since the PTS does not specify which technology must be used, and that an Examiner should not mind if you use the GPS to find the waypoint.  My point was that using the GPS won't be an acceptable means of finding the holding fix and entering the hold if the Examiner simulates a GPS failure.  So you have to learn and practice how to use both the VOR and the GPS system to find waypoints and hold there, you're not merely tested at the end of the day how well you can hold a course.  Taking VOR radios out of the plane to avoid being tested on VOR skills (as was permitted with ADFs) would likely render it an unsuitable plane for an instrument checkride. Also, if you have a GPS, you should know what the magenta line is and how to use it  also.  The Examiner can test you on any piece of navigational equipment you have in the plane.  I'm not sure you disagree with any of this, I just wanted to point out that it may not be enough on a rating ride to know how to perform navigational tasks using your GPS, but not your VORs. Either method is acceptable as you say, unless the Examiner says otherwise, then it's not.

Gring wrote: I agree with most of what you are saying, and we are saying similar things. One minor disagreement is that since WAAS GPS is legal as the sole source of navigation, it would be legal and acceptable to perform a checkride with only GPS...

It is legal to fly IFR using only WAAS GPS equipment, so long as you go VFR only when the GPS system is NOTAM'd out.  But the instrument checkride must be done in accordance with the PTS (and effective this month, the new ACS).  The PTS/ACS requires you to demonstrate two non-precision approaches, each using two separate navaids.  You can do that in an aircraft with only VOR/LOC receivers, but not in an aircraft with only WAAS GPS boxes.  

You're looking in the wrong place Gring.  Take a look at the Task Listing (in the ACS to be current, but the PTS is the same) that specifies what the candidate is required to demonstrate proficiency to the Examiner.  Specifically, look at the Instrument Approach task requirements.  The Examiner is not at liberty to deviate from them, and the two require NP approaches must each use two separate nav aids.  So, no VOR, no checkride.  Or plane has VOR, but candidate cannot demonstrate proficiency in how to use it - failed ride.

GPS and NBD might technically meet requirements, but as a practical matter you'd have to have two different reasonably close NDB approaches for that combination to work on a checkride.  But who wants to get proficient on no-gyro NDB approaches anymore?  And who wants to keep the ADF unit in their plane in good working order?  Learning how to demonstrate proficiency with VOR navaids is a whole lot easier, and planes still have VOR receivers in them that can be easily repaired, if need be.  

I agree with you that we need to be proficient with the two main navigation methods - GPS and VOR, and I'm a back to basics guy who believes that automation is eroding Pilot SA and basic skills. These skills are important as the electronics just are not as reliable as the old mechanical and radio based units (my experience). I've been in IMC and had a complete GPS failure including iPad and iPhone that turned out to be a bad antenna. I was able to isolate the offending GPS unit and turn it off to restore GPS in the airplane, but I did fly first on vectors until I transitioned to a VOR radial, and eventually back to GPS. In some ways, I wish I didn't pull my DME when I upgraded my panel.

Catani wrote: GPS and NBD might technically meet requirements, but as a practical matter you'd have to have two different reasonably close NDB approaches for that combination to work on a checkride.

Why?  Couldn't a NP GPS approach and an NDB meet that requirement?

Catani wrote: Bob H wrote: Catani wrote: GPS and NBD might technically meet requirements, but as a practical matter you'd have to have two different reasonably close NDB approaches for that combination to work on a checkride. Why? Couldn't a NP GPS approach and an NDB meet that requirement? Yes, if a local GPS approach available to the Examiner required use of an NDB for a segment of the approach.  That's unlikely in most places, I would think.

Bear with me as I'm still not fully understanding.  Are you saying that I can't do two independent NP approaches, one GPS and one NDB, that the two NP navaids must be part of the same approach?

Catani wrote: No.  Read up a little higher in the thread.  Each of the required NP approaches must use two separate navs.

OK, so to parse this differently.

Catani wrote: "Each of the required NP approaches must use two separate navs."  So for example, a GPS LNAV approach might have a VOR missed approach holding point, or a LOC approach might have a VOR radial that defines a fix.  The FAA wants you to demonstrate your ability to integrate both to successfully complete the NP approach.

Clear. Thanks!

You may be right, Bob, it is only my interpretation.  The fact you must have more than a GPS in the plane to satisfy the NP approach requirements means that the Examiner can, if he wants to, select approaches that require two separate navaids - which means you have to be able to do them no matter whether you are right or I am.  If you are right, the ACS would allow the Examiner to pass you even though each approach he selects uses only one navaid. I spent some looking to see if I could get something specific on this and could not find anything.  I would admit that unless there is something specific that says you MUST use two navaids on an approach, then you have the better argument. Since I could not find anything, I think you are probably right.  Thanks for pointing this detail out.