Holding / Reversal 2

28.10.2004

Submission:

Use of holding pattern vs. racetrack

I have a question regarding the above. The problem I'm trying to solve involves departures in inhospitable terrain (is there any other kind?). My only real solution involves a climb in a pattern, until a route lowest safe can be attained. My question relates to the use of a racetrack to reduce the susceptibility to steeply rising terrain using 2.5nm secondary rather than 5*1nm buffers. Is this allowable, and if not, why? I figure I'm climbing relative to a fix, thus secondary areas should be available, but the only reference to racetrack seems to be as a reversal for approach.

Ray.

Answer or Commentary:

(I.W.

As to "inhospitable terrain" we never see anything else on this site. ASAP does have a sister site that only deals with IFR procedures at airports that have no obstacles and are in flat areas (i.e. the sea). However the site doesn't have a lot of visitors.

Seriously, I think the difference in secondary areas between a reversal and a holding is because of this statement in Pans-Ops.

4.4.4 Shape of a racetrack procedure. The racetrack procedure has the same shape as a holding pattern but with different operating speeds and outbound timing.

In this instance if the aircraft is climbing in the hold I think the holding pattern criteria apply, with the 5 segmented holding buffers. One could try one of the following:


Increase the PDG dramatically in the first portion of the SID and then reduce it to 3.3% at a certain altitude.

Limit the speed while climbing in the hold

Use a VOR/DME arc to increase the track miles and keep the aircraft clear of terrain.

Move the holding pattern or create a new one

Without knowing the exact situation it is difficult to say which option is the best. Does anyone else have any other ideas or background to the reason behind the two different secondary areas?)