Why is a standard hold right turns?

You can still get in...just 2 weeks back someone took a training twin in
from 06C at 11pm for a T&G


Iain


Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few
touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so.

Roy Smith wrote:

It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.

But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

The Wright Bros flipped a coin?

You sure that wasn't just an RJ? Probability is pretty high ducking.

"Iain Wilson" wrote in message
news | You can still get in...just 2 weeks back someone took a training twin in
| from 06C at 11pm for a T&G
|
|
| Iain
|
|
| Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few
| touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so.
|
|
|
|

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.

But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?


I've wondered that myself. I've got a pretty good collection of old
training and procedures manuals that go back to the thirties but I've never
found a definite answer. The only thing fairly close was an explanation for
the shape of the holding pattern. Gyro instruments needed time to settle
down after a turn, so the one minute straight leg was established to allow
them to do that. A holding pattern of a continuous turn would cause
excessive precession. That explanation seemed rather weak to me. A
circular pattern would seem rather dizzying and make maintaining one's
position more difficult, which I think would be more than enough reason to
have the level segment. But it does bring up the issue of excessive
precession. I'm certainly no expert on the mechanics of gyros, but it seems
reasonable that a turn in one direction could cause more precession than a
turn in the opposite direction. Assuming gyros turned in a standard
direction, perhaps right turns were made standard because they caused less
precession.

Well, that's my best guess.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.

But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?


I've wondered that myself. I've got a pretty good collection of old
training and procedures manuals that go back to the thirties but I've
never
found a definite answer.

Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the
holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the
holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction?

My guess would be the traffic pattern. People were landing airplanes
long before they were holding them.

I don't have any idea.
One idea I'll throw out is that if a pilot already in a right turn sees
a conflicting aircraft ahead of him, he'll already be deviating to the
right since he's in a right turn pattern. If he was in a left pattern he
would have to switch to a right turn to avoid the oncoming aircraft if
they were approaching head on, since both aircraft are supposed to turn
right to avoid a head on conflict per the FAR's.

JPH

Roy Smith wrote:
It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.

But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:35:03 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left
turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for
landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the
cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.

But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or
the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?

As an IFR student, I was told that it is so controllers can easily
pick out planes in a hold vs planes in the pattern. It sounded good
at the time, but in retrospect, I question the statement:

1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the
surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely.

2. Is a controller really going to use relative motion to pick
targets? It seems to me it would be easier to just look at their
squawk code or altitude.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:43:15 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

Minimum holding altitude is 2000 agl, according to FAAO 7130.3...hard to
conflict with traffic in the pattern at that altitude.

My copy says "MHA's are determined by the National Flight Procedures
Office." It also says

2-11. ALTITUDE LEVELS.
....Holding at 2,000' and below requires use of the appropriate pattern
for 2,000'....

Anyway, a local approach has a hold at 2,000 MSL, which is about 1,500
AGL.

"Nathan Young" wrote in message =
...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:35:03 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
=20
It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left=20
turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for =

landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of =
the=20
cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns.

But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way =
or=20
the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard?
=20
As an IFR student, I was told that it is so controllers can easily
pick out planes in a hold vs planes in the pattern. It sounded good
at the time, but in retrospect, I question the statement:
=20
1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the
surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely.
=20
2. Is a controller really going to use relative motion to pick
targets? It seems to me it would be easier to just look at their
squawk code or altitude.

How about: "3. Right-Hand Holds predated Radar by decades!"
---JRC---