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
|
|||
|
|||
Holding Pattern Entries
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |