Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk

[Terence Wilson]

Hello,

A couple of quick questions/calrifications:

1) When executing a direct entry to a hold e.g. for the KAPC LOC Rwy
36L missed:

"...climb 3000' direct SGD VOR & hold"

I have been flying directly to the VOR then, upon watching the to/from
flag flip, I turn to the inbound course (167 deg) momentarily before
executing a standard rate turn to the outbound course of 347 deg.

Is this the correct technique for entering a direct hold or should I
be intercepting the inbound radial? It seems this would result in a
better pattern because of tendency to overshoot when flying direct
and immediately turning.

2) What would be an appropriate holding speed in a 172? I have been
using 80kts, which requires about 1700-1800rpm at 3000'.

Thanks.

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A couple of quick questions/calrifications:
>
> 1) When executing a direct entry to a hold e.g. for the KAPC LOC Rwy
> 36L missed:
>
> "...climb 3000' direct SGD VOR & hold"
>
> I have been flying directly to the VOR then, upon watching the to/from
> flag flip, I turn to the inbound course (167 deg) momentarily before
> executing a standard rate turn to the outbound course of 347 deg.

I haven't looked at the approach plate to which you refer, but wonder
if you're confusing a couple of different terms, so I would like to
clarify.

When told to proceed "direct" to a fix, that does not necessarily mean
you will use a "direct" (versus teardrop/parallel) entry to the hold.

Your entry to the hold will be dictated by the direction from which you
approach the holding fix.

If the appropriate entry is direct, then when you cross the fix, you turn
to the outbound heading.

>
> Is this the correct technique for entering a direct hold or should I
> be intercepting the inbound radial? It seems this would result in a
> better pattern because of tendency to overshoot when flying direct
> and immediately turning.
>
> 2) What would be an appropriate holding speed in a 172? I have been
> using 80kts, which requires about 1700-1800rpm at 3000'.

I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
with their timings, etc.

>
> Thanks.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Terence Wilson]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> A couple of quick questions/calrifications:
>>
>> 1) When executing a direct entry to a hold e.g. for the KAPC LOC Rwy
>> 36L missed:
>>
>> "...climb 3000' direct SGD VOR & hold"
>>
>> I have been flying directly to the VOR then, upon watching the to/from
>> flag flip, I turn to the inbound course (167 deg) momentarily before
>> executing a standard rate turn to the outbound course of 347 deg.
>
>I haven't looked at the approach plate to which you refer, but wonder
>if you're confusing a couple of different terms, so I would like to
>clarify.
>
>When told to proceed "direct" to a fix, that does not necessarily mean
>you will use a "direct" (versus teardrop/parallel) entry to the hold.
>
>Your entry to the hold will be dictated by the direction from which you
>approach the holding fix.
>

Duh! Of course. Thanks for pointing that out.

>I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
>than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
>with their timings, etc.
>

I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
efficient). Obviously I need more practice.

Cheers,

Terence

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/12/07 08:58, Terence Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen
> > wrote:
>
>>On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> A couple of quick questions/calrifications:
>>>
>>> 1) When executing a direct entry to a hold e.g. for the KAPC LOC Rwy
>>> 36L missed:
>>>
>>> "...climb 3000' direct SGD VOR & hold"
>>>
>>> I have been flying directly to the VOR then, upon watching the to/from
>>> flag flip, I turn to the inbound course (167 deg) momentarily before
>>> executing a standard rate turn to the outbound course of 347 deg.
>>
>>I haven't looked at the approach plate to which you refer, but wonder
>>if you're confusing a couple of different terms, so I would like to
>>clarify.
>>
>>When told to proceed "direct" to a fix, that does not necessarily mean
>>you will use a "direct" (versus teardrop/parallel) entry to the hold.
>>
>>Your entry to the hold will be dictated by the direction from which you
>>approach the holding fix.
>>
>
> Duh! Of course. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
>>I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
>>than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
>>with their timings, etc.
>>
>
> I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
> standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
> efficient). Obviously I need more practice.

You can execute the maneuver at any speed (within legal speed limits,
of course). However, the faster you go, the more turbulent the ride
may be (depending on the weather), etc. 90 seems to be a good compromise
for the type of airplane. At least, that is what I was taught.

Are you an instrument student? What does your instructor say?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Matt Whiting]

Terence Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:

>> I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
>> than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
>> with their timings, etc.
>>
>
> I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
> standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
> efficient). Obviously I need more practice.

The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
with that.

Matt

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
> than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
> with their timings, etc.


Why would they care? They want you to drill holes in a little chunk of sky to
kill time. They don't want you flying out of the protected chunk of sky
assigned to you but what you do within it really doesn't matter. You shouldn't
be competing with other aircraft within the circle... ATC will stack traffic
vertically instead of within the circle itself.

Remember, the prime reason to hold is to kill time... plain and simple. The
reason to slow down is only to save fuel since you're not going anywhere. You
could fly around at full speed if you've got the fuel to waste.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Terence Wilson]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:04:42 -0700, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>You can execute the maneuver at any speed (within legal speed limits,
>of course). However, the faster you go, the more turbulent the ride
>may be (depending on the weather), etc. 90 seems to be a good compromise
>for the type of airplane. At least, that is what I was taught.
>
>Are you an instrument student? What does your instructor say?

I'm a lapsed PP-SEL working on my BFR, then transitioning to
instruments. Recently I've been stymied by weather, aircraft
availability etc. so I've been using the time to study and practice in
MS FlightSim.

[Chris]

> Remember, the prime reason to hold is to kill time... plain and simple. The
> reason to slow down is only to save fuel since you're not going anywhere. You
> could fly around at full speed if you've got the fuel to waste.
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Agreed. No reason to go blasting around the racetrack. You aren't
going 'anywhere'. <g>

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/12/07 14:46, Terence Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:04:42 -0700, Mark Hansen
> > wrote:
>
>>You can execute the maneuver at any speed (within legal speed limits,
>>of course). However, the faster you go, the more turbulent the ride
>>may be (depending on the weather), etc. 90 seems to be a good compromise
>>for the type of airplane. At least, that is what I was taught.
>>
>>Are you an instrument student? What does your instructor say?
>
> I'm a lapsed PP-SEL working on my BFR, then transitioning to
> instruments. Recently I've been stymied by weather, aircraft
> availability etc. so I've been using the time to study and practice in
> MS FlightSim.

Congratulations on getting back to flying. Stay on the group, as there
are a lot of great people here that can help.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/12/07 14:17, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>> I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
>> than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
>> with their timings, etc.
>
>
> Why would they care? They want you to drill holes in a little chunk of sky to
> kill time. They don't want you flying out of the protected chunk of sky
> assigned to you but what you do within it really doesn't matter. You shouldn't
> be competing with other aircraft within the circle... ATC will stack traffic
> vertically instead of within the circle itself.
>
> Remember, the prime reason to hold is to kill time... plain and simple. The
> reason to slow down is only to save fuel since you're not going anywhere. You
> could fly around at full speed if you've got the fuel to waste.

Sorry about the confusion. I use the same speed for holds that I do for other
flight around the approach area (for example, while on "base" getting vectored
to the FAC), and I was thinking of these other phases.

Still, you can go as slow as you want, and I didn't mean to imply that there
was any requirement to the contrary.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Thomas Borchert]

Terence,

What Mark said. As for speed, I use 90 in a comparable plane, 80 seems
a little slow to me, but it is a matter of taste. The controller would
probably appreciate a heads-up about the speed change (here in Europe
you must inform them). Also, should you actually get a hold in earnest,
I would ask for slower immediately on the way to the hold, since the
whole purpose of the excercise is to delay me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

I used 80K while in Oklahoma where you don't fly in the clouds in summer or
winter very often. When I moved to Seattle I switched to 90K because the 172
likes to make carb ice at 1700 rpm more than at 1900 (90K) and we flew in
visible moisture a lot up there. I didn't like flying holds with the carb
heat turned on. I'd rather use it when necessary at lower power settings.

I had an instrument student that came to me after several hours of work with
other instructors. He was adamant about flying the holds at 75K so I let him
(for a while). During one lesson where we were holding over Kitsap at some
intersection for a while, he had to keep adding power to maintain airspeed
and altitude. He finally figured out that he was picking up carb ice and
applied it full on all at once. I'm sure there weren't more than 10 or 12
revolutions of the engine while it tried to burn water, but that was the
longest "stumble" he'd ever experienced and was an object lesson in forming
bad habits.

You really should be able to fly the holds at various speeds ranging from
best endurance, to low-cruise because sometimes you need the higher speed to
avoid ridiculous wind correction angles. I really think you should plan your
hold speeds based on conditions at the time of the hold. Flight is a dynamic
thing after all.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[SimGuy]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:36:03 GMT, "Jim Carter" >
wrote:

>I used 80K while in Oklahoma where you don't fly in the clouds in summer or
>winter very often. When I moved to Seattle I switched to 90K because the 172
>likes to make carb ice at 1700 rpm more than at 1900 (90K) and we flew in
>visible moisture a lot up there. I didn't like flying holds with the carb
>heat turned on. I'd rather use it when necessary at lower power settings.
>
>I had an instrument student that came to me after several hours of work with
>other instructors. He was adamant about flying the holds at 75K so I let him
>(for a while). During one lesson where we were holding over Kitsap at some
>intersection for a while, he had to keep adding power to maintain airspeed
>and altitude. He finally figured out that he was picking up carb ice and
>applied it full on all at once. I'm sure there weren't more than 10 or 12
>revolutions of the engine while it tried to burn water, but that was the
>longest "stumble" he'd ever experienced and was an object lesson in forming
>bad habits.
>
>You really should be able to fly the holds at various speeds ranging from
>best endurance, to low-cruise because sometimes you need the higher speed to
>avoid ridiculous wind correction angles. I really think you should plan your
>hold speeds based on conditions at the time of the hold. Flight is a dynamic
>thing after all.


Great post Jim. Thanks!

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
> least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
> with that.
>
Besides, what's the point of flying in circles faster than you have to.
As Scotty would say, at Warp 10, we're going nowhere mighty fast.

[Blanche]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
>Terence Wilson wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen
>>
>>> On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
>
>>> I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
>>> than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
>>> with their timings, etc.
>>>
>>
>> I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
>> standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
>> efficient). Obviously I need more practice.
>
>The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
>least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
>with that.

The other advantage of going a bit slower (for the time being) is having
more time to pay attention to what's going on, not being rushed when
ATC calls, etc. On the other hand, if ATC states "keep your speed up",
then that's another matter entirely.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Blanche wrote:
> The other advantage of going a bit slower (for the time being) is having
> more time to pay attention to what's going on, not being rushed when
> ATC calls, etc. On the other hand, if ATC states "keep your speed up",
> then that's another matter entirely.


They never will. They put you in the hold to keep you from going anywhere. Why
would they possibly want you to fly in place faster?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Doug[_1_]]

I'll never forget getting dinged on my IFR checkride for not reducing
power in the hold. DE said it was to save gas and "very important". I
thought it was BS but agreed with him mightily. This was in a Skyhawk
similar plane (actually my Husky). But saving gas could be an issue as
you never really know how long you will be in the hold. I am reminded
of the ATC joke when informed that it cost $2000 to take the Boeing
around once in a hold an the ATC guy said "well, give me 6 grands
worth". ...

[Jim Macklin]

A hold can begin when you are told to "expect" a hold ahead.
Slow down, lean it out and be sure to tell ATC you are now
slower than your filed speed. By the time you get there,
there may not be a hold required.

But when you get into some airplanes there is a minimum
holding speed in icing conditions. So the speed should be
as slow as reasonable considering limitations, such as
autopilot limitations and fast enough to keep any ice on the
protected surfaces.



"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| I'll never forget getting dinged on my IFR checkride for
not reducing
| power in the hold. DE said it was to save gas and "very
important". I
| thought it was BS but agreed with him mightily. This was
in a Skyhawk
| similar plane (actually my Husky). But saving gas could be
an issue as
| you never really know how long you will be in the hold. I
am reminded
| of the ATC joke when informed that it cost $2000 to take
the Boeing
| around once in a hold an the ATC guy said "well, give me 6
grands
| worth". ...
|

[Matt Whiting]

Blanche wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Terence Wilson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
>>>> I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
>>>> than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
>>>> with their timings, etc.
>>>>
>>> I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
>>> standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
>>> efficient). Obviously I need more practice.
>> The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
>> least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
>> with that.
>
> The other advantage of going a bit slower (for the time being) is having
> more time to pay attention to what's going on, not being rushed when
> ATC calls, etc. On the other hand, if ATC states "keep your speed up",
> then that's another matter entirely.
>

You fly holds generally by time not distance, so how does flying slower
make things happen slower? A one minute leg takes one minute no matter
how fast you are flying. :-)

Matt

[Clay[_2_]]

On Oct 16, 5:03 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Blanche wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> Terence Wilson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen
>
> >>>> On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
> >>>> I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
> >>>> than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
> >>>> with their timings, etc.
>
> >>> I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
> >>> standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
> >>> efficient). Obviously I need more practice.
> >> The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
> >> least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
> >> with that.
>
> > The other advantage of going a bit slower (for the time being) is having
> > more time to pay attention to what's going on, not being rushed when
> > ATC calls, etc. On the other hand, if ATC states "keep your speed up",
> > then that's another matter entirely.
>
> You fly holds generally by time not distance, so how does flying slower
> make things happen slower? A one minute leg takes one minute no matter
> how fast you are flying. :-)
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Matt, you are correct about the one minute holds. However, ATC may
reqequest you do a distance hold such as 5 mile legs.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Clay wrote:
> Matt, you are correct about the one minute holds. However, ATC may
> reqequest you do a distance hold such as 5 mile legs.


And yet the reason remains the same... to keep you from going anywhere until
they clear some airspace ahead of your aircraft. Since you're not going
anywhere, why does it matter how fast you don't get there? A hold's purpose is
to kill time. It's ATC's equivalent to your mother telling you to sit down
until supper is ready.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Bee]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Blanche wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:

>
> You fly holds generally by time not distance, so how does flying slower
> make things happen slower? A one minute leg takes one minute no matter
> how fast you are flying. :-)
>
> Matt

Depends on equipment these days. A lot of us RNAV folks fly mostly
distance holds.

[[email protected]]

"Keep your speed up" in a hold?

For what purpose would ATC ever ask that you "keep your speed up" in a
hold?


On 16 Oct 2007 16:29:19 GMT, Blanche > wrote:

>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>Terence Wilson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>> I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
>>>> than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
>>>> with their timings, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
>>> standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
>>> efficient). Obviously I need more practice.
>>
>>The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
>>least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
>>with that.
>
>The other advantage of going a bit slower (for the time being) is having
>more time to pay attention to what's going on, not being rushed when
>ATC calls, etc. On the other hand, if ATC states "keep your speed up",
>then that's another matter entirely.

[[email protected]]

In this day and age, why would anyone bother with one minute inbound
legs?


On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:03:00 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Blanche wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> Terence Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
>>>>> I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
>>>>> than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
>>>>> with their timings, etc.
>>>>>
>>>> I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
>>>> standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
>>>> efficient). Obviously I need more practice.
>>> The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
>>> least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
>>> with that.
>>
>> The other advantage of going a bit slower (for the time being) is having
>> more time to pay attention to what's going on, not being rushed when
>> ATC calls, etc. On the other hand, if ATC states "keep your speed up",
>> then that's another matter entirely.
>>
>
>You fly holds generally by time not distance, so how does flying slower
>make things happen slower? A one minute leg takes one minute no matter
>how fast you are flying. :-)
>
>Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> "Keep your speed up" in a hold?
>
> For what purpose would ATC ever ask that you "keep your speed up" in a
> hold?

It is more fun to watch if you are moving faster on their scope! :-)

Matt