NoyGonnaDoIt

But VWXYZ is not your clearance limit. The destination is. So land and "hold" in the airport restaurant and have a beer if you're done flying for the day.

This has been one of those questions people argue about from time to time. And a lot of the "common wisdom" (usually defined as very commons, but not all that wise) has been that you hold somewhere you haven't be authorized to and is =not= the clearance limit.

Hopefully, these two Chief Counsel opinions help to clear that one up:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...2010/Turri.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...2011/Tuuri.pdf

From the latter:

==============================
This response does not change our interpretation issued November 23,2010. In that interpretation, which was at your request, we stated that based on the definitions of clearance limit and holding fix, a clearance limit can be a holding fix, but is not necessarily one. In your subsequent question of November 28, 20 I0, you ask specifically if a pilot is cleared to the destination airport should he hold at an unapproved fix. Again, the answer is no because in your scenario the pilot was cleared to an airport without any holding instructions. If, however, the pilot had been cleared to a point other than his or her destination and instructed to hold for further clearance, that point would be both a clearance limit and a holding fix.
==============================

rickair7777

Either. Occasionally you will get an initial clearance to a fix prior to the destination...this probably only happens at a certain places, and probably not to 121 flights. It has happened to me a few times but don't recall if I was given an EFC or whether it was assumed that I would use my filed destination ETA in the event of lost comms.

I actually don't think I ever got an EFC, but it was probably severe clear in SOCAL.

NoyGonnaDoIt

Of course it could be either. But the reaosn I asked is that the legal (if not the practical) answer is different depending on which scenario we're talking about.

Rustee

I have to be honest, that seems like a clear statement against holding. Am I reading that incorrectly?

It's a good point that in almost every case, the clearance limit is the destination airport. And unless you are RNAV-capable, holding there isn't usually possible. I think we can all agree holding over the airport itself is an absurd application of FAR 91.185. As such, I only believe that gives more weight to the interpretation of 91.185 that you do not hold, even if early.

Now in the rare cases you are cleared to a fix with holding instructions (which should contain an EFC), then that clearly means hold until the EFC, then proceed. If no EFC was given, per 91.185, then depart the hold and continue as close as possible to the ETA. (Keep in mind you may always ask for an EFC time if one is not provided.)

To me, that seems like the correct application of 91.185, and also one that makes sense.

NoyGonnaDoIt

I think you're reading it correctly.

For some reason, a lot of teaching in the area had made the assumption that the "clearance Limit" had to be a point in the air where you hold until your ETA even though there was nothing to support it. I think part of the problem was that the language of 91.185 since it talks in terms of two types of clearance limits - a fix where an approach begins and a fix where an approach doesn't begin - both of which assume that the clearance limit is some identifiable fix in the air. It doesn't really address the most common situation - where the clearance limit isn't a fix at all - it's on the ground at the destination airport.

rickair7777

I don't think holding would be appropriate if you were cleared all the way to the airport, adjust speed as much as practical to comply with your filed flight plan but when you get there, approach and land.

If your clearance limit was not the airport then I think you would do one of these:

1. Hold until your EFC time (if provided), then proceed to approach/land.
2. If VMC, proceed VFR immediately.
3. If no EFC time was given, then hold until you are close to your ETA, then approach/land.

Number 3. is the checkride answer, and would not necessarily be realistic in a radar environment. If your XPDR is getting secondary hits, then you can probably assume that you are in radar contact. Since this is an emergency, you always have PIC emergency discretion to deviate from the FARs (within reason).

I think this jives with the FAA interpretation...NGDI?

NoyGonnaDoIt

I think it does (but what do I know?). The opinion is really only dealing with the airport as clearance limit.

But why do you say that #3 is the checkride answer? I think that all three answers are the checkride answer and exactly what the reg says to cover three situations.

rickair7777

Yes, all three are checkride answers. 1 & 2 make sense regardless, #3 is the one which is questionable in real-world ops.