![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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"? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Hickory NC Airport Flight Pattern | HBYardSale | Aerobatics | 1 | March 11th 04 02:19 PM |
Machinista 2004 - call for entries | Robb Mitchell Machinista.org | Home Built | 0 | February 24th 04 02:19 PM |
the Jumping Jack - Electric ARF Pattern Plane | FlitonUSA | Aerobatics | 0 | January 15th 04 07:39 AM |