Re: Holding Pattern Entries

[Dan Luke]

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote:
> > If one's SA is what it should be, ciphering out which of the three
standard
> > entries to use becomes a waste of time and therefore counter to safe
> > practice.
>
> Shouldn't require any ciphering out. Once you visualize where you are and
where
> the hold is, figuring the entry should be essentially 'automatic.' This
is why
> I've never been a fan of any of the various 'memorization' methods such as
the
> thumb, dividing the DG into P-T-D, etc. If you can see what it looks
like, you
> just fly the entry without further thought. Frankly it sounds to me like
your
> initial instructor might have made this process painful enough for you
that you
> just wrote it off early. I nearly did the same myself.

Ha! I could feel you out there steaming!

If you draw a few entries via the method I posted, you'll see that it
produces practical P-T-D entries automatically.

> > That's why the concept of "the official entries" is a bad idea.
>
> The concept is good (and it's not going away.) The execution (by pilots)
is
> often bad. It leads to a frustration which sets in and can be hard to
combat.
> I was once more aligned with your thinking, but over time and with
experience
> I've come to realize that they're actually a very elegant and simple tool
> waiting to be discovered.

Any method that supports an industry of gizmos to figure it out isn't simple
and elegant.

> > That has not been my experience in my airplane. As you pointed out, the
> > whole secret to holding is situational awareness. If I'm doing a
one-shot
> > course reversal, I will adjust the procedure accordingly to give myself
the
> > time to intercept properly.
>
> Which procedure will you use and how will you select it?

The one I posted - it's the one I use every time. By "adjust the procedure"
I mean the time I fly on the outbound leg, which may mean adding 30 seconds
to it to ensure adequate time to intercept the FAC. I would do the same
thing if I had flown a "book" entry.

> Why are you willing to do that on course reversals and not hold entries?

I'll do it on any procedure I fly. Situational awareness, remember?

> > Shame on you if you do - that's why a racetrack is depicted; you're
allowed
> > to go all the way around if you need to.
>
> That's a poor choice and only an option that should be taken if your
flying was
> sufficiently sloppy to require it.

Not necessarily. Why do you think holds are depicted for some course
reversals? Why not a PT every time?

> The guy waiting to fly the approach behind
> you now has to wait. Why - simply because you didn't want to do a little
> applied thinking?

If I have to make a full circuit, it won't be because I didn't fly a perfect
teardrop entry. It will be because there is something about the approach
that requires it. I've never had to do this, BTW.(Really, the orthodox
teardrop is the only one that's any different from my method, and it's not
much different.)

And as for applied thinking, may I respectfully suggest that you might do
little more of it on this subject. Draw a series of entries with the
orthodox method and then overlay them with drawings of the method I suggest.
I think you'll see there's not enough difference to matter.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote:
> To Dan's credit, the 'when all else fails' method of hold entry is fine.
It works
> when you can't think straight...

Heyyyy...!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ryan Ferguson]

Dan Luke wrote:

> Heyyyy...!

:)

You're prolly the only guy on usenet with whom I have so many fundamental
disagreements, yet still like to chat with.

Stay cool, mang.

-Ryan
CFI-ASE-AME, CFI-RH, CP-ASMEL-IA, CP-RH, AGI

[Ryan Ferguson]

Yeah. And if we bring our wives along, we could have all-out grudge match!


> We really need to go flying sometime. No telling how many clearances we
> could bust while we were arguing.

[Ryan Ferguson]

It should be a method you can use without thinking. There's no hold 'entry,'
you just fly to the fix or navaid, turn to the outbound heading (regardless of
which direction you're coming from - let's hope that if it's a direct entry
you were able to puzzle that out, though), and focus intently on whether to
turn RIGHT or LEFT when your minute (assuming 1-minute legs) is up. Now fly
back to the fix and voila, you're established.

-Ryan
CFI-ASE-AME, CFI-RH, CP-ASMEL-IA, CP-RH, AGI


Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
> > "Ryan Ferguson" wrote:
> >>To Dan's credit, the 'when all else fails' method of hold entry is fine.
> >> It works when you can't think straight...
>
> > Heyyyy...!
>
> "Don't Think. You only hurt the team."
> -Bull Durham
>
> Sydney
>
> PS I tried drawing a few holding pattern entries by my interpretation
> of the method you describe, and I'm afraid I can't make them come
> out equivalent to T/P/D. Especially acute on the teardrop region.
> Unless I'm mistaking what you wrote, most of them come out to be
> P-ish which seems to me hardest to get established inbound, esp.
> if there's much xwind blowing you towards the holding pattern side.
> I dunno. It just seems to require more thought than just doing the
> "correct" entry, hmmmmmm, which way do I turn towards the inbound
> course, decisions decisions. Maybe I don't "get it"?

[Michael]

Ryan Ferguson > wrote
> > If one's SA is what it should be, ciphering out which of the three standard
> > entries to use becomes a waste of time and therefore counter to safe
> > practice.
>
> Shouldn't require any ciphering out...
> If you can see what it looks like, you
> just fly the entry without further thought.

You know, that was going to be my response - and then I realized we're
not all looking at it the same way. The AIM divides the compass into
three sectors - 180 degrees for direct, 110 for parallel, and 70 for
teardrop. Suppose you're close to one of the sector division lines?
Now you're going to be doing mental math or some other timewasting
procedure to figure out if you should be doing a parallel or teardrop
entry.

My solution is don't do that. Pick the one that looks right. So
you're doing a teardrop when you're really in the parallel sector by
10 whole degrees. SO WHAT? It's still going to work just fine. If
you've correctly visualized the entry, being off a few degrees is
irrelevant.

I would be happier if the official depiction, instead of using sector
lines, had grey sectors maybe 30 degrees wide (probably centered on
the present dividing lines) for those regions where either of the
entries is appropriate. After all, that's realistically how we do it.

Michael

[Stan Prevost]

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...

> The practical test is another matter. No, the official hold entries
> are no longer required.

Not for the instrument rating. But I have always heard it said that the
following excerpt from the ATP Airplane PTS is interpreted to require
standard PTD entries:

4. Follows appropriate entry procedures for a standard, nonstandard,
published, or non-published holding pattern.

Stan

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" wrote:
> I would be happier if the official depiction, instead of using sector
> lines, had grey sectors maybe 30 degrees wide (probably centered on
> the present dividing lines) for those regions where either of the
> entries is appropriate.

Oh, that would make it *so* much less confusing.
Jeez.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote:
> PS I tried drawing a few holding pattern entries by my interpretation
> of the method you describe, and I'm afraid I can't make them come
> out equivalent to T/P/D.

To hold on the 270 radial, right turns:

Arriving at the fix on a 315 heading, turn left to 270 for one minute, turn
towards the inbound course line, fly back to the fix and commence holding.
This is the same as a parallel entry.

Arriving at the fix on a 135 heading, turn right to 270 for one minute, turn
towards the inbound course line, fly back to the fix and commence holding.
This is the same as a direct entry.

Arriving at the fix on a 225 heading, turn right to 270 for one minute, turn
towards the inbound course line, fly back to the fix and commence holding.
This is the same as a teardrop entry. Yes, it can be "more acute" than a
standard teardrop. Widen out if you think it will be. Situational awareness,
remember?

The only things you have to figure out before before you get to the fix are
which direction is the shortest initial turn to the outbound course and
which side of it will you be on when it's time to turn back to the fix.
Neither of these things requires more than a glance at the heading indicator
and knowing which side of the inbound course you arrived from. No mnemonic
tricks, fingers-on-the-HI or Sporty's whiz-wheels required.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote:
> It should be a method you can use without thinking. There's no hold
'entry,'
> you just fly to the fix or navaid, turn to the outbound heading
(regardless of
> which direction you're coming from - let's hope that if it's a direct
entry
> you were able to puzzle that out, though), and focus intently on whether
to
> turn RIGHT or LEFT when your minute (assuming 1-minute legs) is up. Now
fly
> back to the fix and voila, you're established.

By George, I believe he's got it!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Snowbird]

Ryan Ferguson > wrote in message >...
> It should be a method you can use without thinking.<...>focus
> intently on whether to turn RIGHT or LEFT

Um, Ryan, dear chap:

Can you kindly explain how "focusing intently on whether
to turn RIGHT or LEFT" differs substantively from "thinking"????

Cheers,
Sydney

[Ryan Ferguson]

Snowbird wrote:

> Well, I dunno Dan. What floats your boat, but it seems to me
> that if I can visualize the holding pattern well enough to
> tell which side of the inbound course I'll be on and which direction
> is the shortest initial turn to the outbound course, I can visualize
> the holding pattern well enough to determine which entry I need to
> make (no mneumonic tricks, Sporty's gadgets, or fingers on the HI,
> and with less thinking. Maybe it's just me.

I'm on both sides of the fence here, because I understand Dan's methodology and reasoning, but I
agree with you that just flying the 'recommended' hold entry is easy in the first place. I don't use
any finger kung-fu or silicon memory implants to fly hold entries, I just do 'em. You and I are
probably similar in that we can just 'see' it.

But let's rehash the 'simple' way once more with an even more rudimentary breakdown. Maybe you'll
find some utility in it. I have.

Think basic here. Somewhere there's a VOR. You have to hold west of it, right turns. Fly to it
from wherever you are. Once you're over the station, fly the outbound heading (west.) You have one
minute to figure out which way to turn to stay in protected airspace. Do a 180 in that direction and
fly right back to the VOR. You're established. No thinking. (Unless you really think deciding
whether to turn left or right is 'thinking!')

So at the end of the day it's a three-step process:

1. Fly to the station or fix.
2. Turn to the outbound heading.
3. Turn inbound back to the station or fix.

That's it. You're established.

-Ryan
CFI-ASE-AME, CFI-RH, CP-ASMEL-IA, CP-RH, AGI

[Ryan Ferguson]

Dan Luke wrote:

> Not necessarily. Why do you think holds are depicted for some course
> reversals? Why not a PT every time?

Usually because the approach has to be designed that way, whether it's because
of obstructions, airspace, the missed approach procedure, or other issues. I
can assure you that when the weather's low and everyone's trying to get in, no
one will appreciate your extra lap if it wasn't necessary.


> And as for applied thinking, may I respectfully suggest that you might do
> little more of it on this subject. Draw a series of entries with the
> orthodox method and then overlay them with drawings of the method I suggest.
> I think you'll see there's not enough difference to matter.

Most of the time, you're right. There's very little perceivable difference
between the brain-mush method and the actual prescribed hold entries. The
difference occurs when:

1) You need to hold, winds are blowing perpendicular to the inbound and outbound
course, and you don't want to blown to the wrong side of the hold. (Yes, I
realize that you're actually protected well into what we think of as
'unprotected' airspace, but that's simply sloppy flying - and we GA pilots have
a cushion because our airplanes are slow.)

2) You need to fly a course reversal (hold-in-lieu) and stabilize the approach
early (when it ideally should be stabilized.) A 172 is easy to stabilize on
damn near any segment of any approach. A Twin Comanche is not.

3) When taking a flight test.

4) When instructing students who need to pass flight tests.

5) To satisfactorily pass an ATP flight test.

6) In many cases, to 'pass' a job interview, for the career-minded among us.

Regardless of the way you decide to fly, Dan, you just can't throw this out!

Best regards,

-Ryan
CFI-ASE-AME, CFI-RH, CP-ASMEL-IA, CP-RH, AGI

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

> "Focusing intently" was meant to be a humorous slant on that portion of the procedure, because
> figuring out whether to turn left or right shouldn't tax the brainpower of even the most
> sluggardly of instrument pilots.

Well, I guess I kinda feel that being situationally aware of where
the holding pattern is and from which direction one is approaching
shouldn't tax the brainpower, and once one knows that the correct
P/T/D entry is pretty obvious. If you fly across the holding pattern
(or the same side) to get to the fix, it's a direct entry. If
crossing the fix and proceding on course would have you flying
across the holding pattern, it's teardrop. If crossing the fix
would have you flying away from the holding pattern, it's parallel.
I don't worry about if I'm off by 10 degrees from what "looks right".

So I don't grasp where the supposed superior simplicity of a method
which requires one to be situationally aware enough to figure
out where the holding pattern is, what is the shortest direction
to turn to the outbound heading, and from there what is the
proper direction to turn towards the inbound leg. It honestly seems
to me that you're using as many or more brain cycles.

Maybe I'm just wierd, though.

Cheers,
Sydney

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Ryan Ferguson
> writes:

>> Well, I guess I kinda feel that being situationally aware of where
>> the holding pattern is and from which direction one is approaching
>> shouldn't tax the brainpower, and once one knows that the correct
>> P/T/D entry is pretty obvious.
>
>You'll get no disagreement from me! If that works for you, use it. As I've
>already mentioned in
>this thread, I believe learning the standard entries sans the various memory
>aids and finger tricks
>tends to lead toward proper visualization of the hold, your position, and how
>to enter it with very
>little thinking. For those who can't do that easily, the 'just turn
>outbound' method is an
>alternative which THEY might find simpler.
>

Lots of training for holds but, in 7 years, I've never had one. Sure, I do
them for practice but have never been given one by ATC. However, if the
training help spacial awareness, it's all for the good.

Chuck

[Ryan Ferguson]

I've had 3 assigned in 1,200 hours.

PaulaJay1 wrote:

> In article >, Ryan Ferguson
> > writes:
>
> >> Well, I guess I kinda feel that being situationally aware of where
> >> the holding pattern is and from which direction one is approaching
> >> shouldn't tax the brainpower, and once one knows that the correct
> >> P/T/D entry is pretty obvious.
> >
> >You'll get no disagreement from me! If that works for you, use it. As I've
> >already mentioned in
> >this thread, I believe learning the standard entries sans the various memory
> >aids and finger tricks
> >tends to lead toward proper visualization of the hold, your position, and how
> >to enter it with very
> >little thinking. For those who can't do that easily, the 'just turn
> >outbound' method is an
> >alternative which THEY might find simpler.
> >
>
> Lots of training for holds but, in 7 years, I've never had one. Sure, I do
> them for practice but have never been given one by ATC. However, if the
> training help spacial awareness, it's all for the good.
>
> Chuck

[Ray Andraka]

I've had about a half dozen in 800 hours. Seems they are much more likely when the
weather is yucky. Only two were in VMC, one for traffic control going into Atlantic
City for one of the airshows, and one for traffic outside of NYC on V16. The others
were all in IMC.

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

> I've had 3 assigned in 1,200 hours.
>
> PaulaJay1 wrote:
>
> > In article >, Ryan Ferguson
> > > writes:
> >
> > >> Well, I guess I kinda feel that being situationally aware of where
> > >> the holding pattern is and from which direction one is approaching
> > >> shouldn't tax the brainpower, and once one knows that the correct
> > >> P/T/D entry is pretty obvious.
> > >
> > >You'll get no disagreement from me! If that works for you, use it. As I've
> > >already mentioned in
> > >this thread, I believe learning the standard entries sans the various memory
> > >aids and finger tricks
> > >tends to lead toward proper visualization of the hold, your position, and how
> > >to enter it with very
> > >little thinking. For those who can't do that easily, the 'just turn
> > >outbound' method is an
> > >alternative which THEY might find simpler.
> > >
> >
> > Lots of training for holds but, in 7 years, I've never had one. Sure, I do
> > them for practice but have never been given one by ATC. However, if the
> > training help spacial awareness, it's all for the good.
> >
> > Chuck

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

PaulaJay1 wrote:

> Lots of training for holds but, in 7 years, I've never had one. Sure, I do
> them for practice but have never been given one by ATC. However, if the
> training help spacial awareness, it's all for the good.

We've had 3 IIRC, 2 out in the boonies for the same small airport.
Go figgur. The 2nd time we were able to cancel IFR and go in to
our true destination visually.

Equally common (2) has been "just circle a few times, present
position". Frankly I hate this instruction; I can create a waypoint
anywhere I want with my GPS or hold at any DME distance off a VOR,
and I'd much prefer a hold to constant circling.

Cheers,
Sydney