bookworm wrote:
I think the SSAs prove that!
From an obstacle clearance point of view, yes. But there are other factors…
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Basically, the ILS procedure proves that there isn’t a practical issue with flying an alternate profile from the end of the outbound hold leg.
I think the SSAs prove that!
Indeed you can’t but sometimes life just sucks. The point is that the ILS procedure has an alternate where you can join the hold, and then commence the (alternate) procedure from the end of the first outbound leg of the hold. Turn in at 7.6D rather than the 8.9D demanded by the ILS and you can pick-up the inbound VOR radial with ease. Basically, the ILS procedure proves that there isn’t a practical issue with flying an alternate profile from the end of the outbound hold leg.
Good catch that the ILS has a different pattern.
But that’s not a racetrack that works from the north, is it? You can’t do a parallel entry and get established again by the FAF?
I would fly the ILS profile but pick-up the 266R inbound rather than the ILS. Far more sensible. 
PS. It’s a dump in the middle of nowhere. I had a safety report raised against me for not following the yellow taxiway line; there wasn’t another aircraft on the airfield.
I don’t think the Kaunas procedure is PANS-OPS compliant. Vol II I-4 3.5.3
“Where entry is desired from tracks outside plusplus+/- 30 degrees], suitably protected airspace must be provided to allow the pilot to manoeuvre onto the outbound track. This manoeuvring will be in accordance with the entry procedures associated with a suitably located holding pattern, which must be shown on the approach chart.”
An example is given with the holding axis aligned with the outbound track of the reversal. I don’t see how the designer could argue that the depicted KNA hold is “suitable” for the purpose, as the holding axis is 160 degrees off the outbound track of the reversal.
Of course with the MSA that low and DME required the pragmatic solution is obvious. And in the modern day, your GNSS box will count you down to the turn…
If you want to be that strict, you would have to arrive over the VOR with a track that is a maximum of +/- 30 degrees from the outbound track…
You’re right Cobalt…. The only real difference is whether you want to over-fly the VOR station or not….my take from some of the preceding posts is that some believe you should…
Your way is almost the same, except you flatten the angle for the turn to intercept the outbound from 100 degrees to 60 degrees or so by approaching the beacon at track 220 or so instead of 180. It also gives you a bit more time to descend from 3,500 to 2,200 feet, although the outbound distance and the turn should be ample.
Should work equally well, but if you want a reasonable distance to intercept the new inbound track this add several miles, probably a couple of minutes of extra flight time, and it increases workload (one extra OBS setting and intercept).
Of course a 60 degree turn to intercept an outbound track over the VOR is easier than 100 degree turn (less overshoot if you turn late), I don’t think it’s worth the extra time.
I still think my way is best!
