Understanding how to fly a holding pattern

[Larry in TN]

Even with this, it seems to make sense to me to fly direct, even in the upper two "parallel" and "teardrop" entries. A quick right turn, and boom, you're right on the outbound turn, within the protected area.

I don't know how much bank angle you use but try that anywhere near the applicable max holding speed and you'll be nowhere near the protected airspace at the recommended 25/30deg bank angle.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Even with this, it seems to make sense to me to fly direct, even in the upper two "parallel" and "teardrop" entries. A quick right turn, and boom, you're right on the outbound turn, within the protected area.

Try it with a DG and a real situation. To make it easy, picture the top of the DG on 360 and the hold being west of the VOR on the 270° radial.

Your "direct" right turn entry will put you east of the fix in the wrong direction altogether.

I guess you could make a 270° right turn and make it work, but i don't think that's the best plan And, as Larry said, you'd be well outside the holding area for quite a while.

 

[dtuuri]

Try it with a DG and a real situation. To make it easy, picture the top of the DG on 360 and the hold being west of the VOR on the 270° radial.

Your "direct" right turn entry will put you east of the fix in the wrong direction altogether.

I guess you could make a 270° right turn and make it work, but i don't think that's the best plan And, as Larry said, you'd be well outside the holding area for quite a while.

More info:

dtuuri

 

[SkyHog]

More info:

dtuuri

In that picture - you fly straight to the fix, essentially crossing the outbound leg, turn right and roll out back on the outbound leg. It will probably work out to just about a perfect turn.

 

[dtuuri]

In that picture - you fly straight to the fix, essentially crossing the outbound leg, turn right and roll out back on the outbound leg. It will probably work out to just about a perfect turn.

Whether it "works out" is only a guess without knowing the exact limits of protected airspace. There are, what, thirty-some templates in use? Some, I understand, are only allowed to be assigned by ATC when an aircraft is approaching from certain specified directions with the assumption that the hold will be entered using only the default entries. I can't give an example, though. On the other hand, simply using a default entry is beyond reproach. This tutorial of mine shows the dimensions of the smallest IAP holding pattern template. I had included the link in a post yesterday, but it was corrupted, fixed in that post now.

dtuuri

 

[aterpster]

Whether it "works out" is only a guess without knowing the exact limits of protected airspace. There are, what, thirty-some templates in use? Some, I understand, are only allowed to be assigned by ATC when an aircraft is approaching from certain specified directions with the assumption that the hold will be entered using only the default entries. I can't give an example, though. On the other hand, simply using a default entry is beyond reproach. This tutorial of mine shows the dimensions of the smallest IAP holding pattern template. I had included the link in a post yesterday, but it was corrupted, fixed in that post now.

dtuuri

Those are known as end-area reductions and can only be done for holding patterns used regularly by ATC and only with a direct entry. End area reductions cannot be used in IAPs.

EDIT: More correctly: "Fix end reduction area," which cannot be used for obstacle clearance.

 

[dtuuri]

Ok they won't be over the exact same point. But the same displacement from the inbound course line. You did exactly what I'm talking about in slide 44 of the slideshow you provided.

That must be how I instantly knew the math was wrong.

We did. The 70 degree method.

Direct if the inbound course is within 70 degrees of the aircrafts heading.
If it isn't, parallel. You can teardrop if you want if you are conveniently aligned with the teardrop course(usually 45 degrees as a guide).

Been trying to get a grasp of this. In your scenario where a plane approaches the fix perpendicular from the non-holding side (like in my slide #44) the FAA says to make a direct entry, but are you saying the USAF wants a parallel? Which way do you turn at the end of the outbound leg, toward the course like doing a teardrop or away from it like doing an FAA parallel? If the former, I'd expect an overshoot undershoot of the course. If the latter, I'd expect a huge interception angle from your position far, far away from the course.

On my checkride I got flustered and instead of doing the "recommended" parallel entry I did a 45/180 course reversal. Examiner said I stayed on the protected side and the entry methods were only recommendations so he couldn't fail me on it.

Did you see my other tutorial on the relationship to a Category A (5 nm) procedure turn? The space is about the same as the smallest holding pattern associated with approaches. If the 45/180 is a procedure turn you refer to, then I'm skeptical the examiner can authoritatively say you remained within the protected airspace unless you were flying below Category A airspeeds. Both sides are "protected", of course, just less so on the non-holding side. Also, of course, since the smallest allowable holding pattern is a worst case, you may have had more room to spare, but I think when there's doubt--assume worst case.

dtuuri

 

[aterpster]

I'm not getting involved in the teaching & checking part, but from a practical standpoint, as long as you stay in protected airspace, you can do figure eights if you like.

My question, as a TERPs guy, how does the pilot know he/she is remaining within protected airspace, unless they are TERPs specialists with TERPs maps of the holding pattern?

 

[dtuuri]

Those are known as end-area reductions and can only be done for holding patterns used regularly by ATC and only with a direct entry. End area reductions cannot be used in IAPs.

Thanks for clearing that up. I hope ATC doesn't expect a USAF plane to use a direct entry when approaching such a fix 90° from the non-holding side.

dtuuri

 

[Kritchlow]

My question, as a TERPs guy, how does the pilot know he/she is remaining within protected airspace, unless they are TERPs specialists with TERPs maps of the holding pattern?

How does he know when doing a standard pattern? After a few turns one can learn a good heading for the outbound, but initially??

Also at least some nave systems can show this.

One last thought... Remember most folks here fly slower airplanes. The turning radius will generally fall well within limits.

 

[aterpster]

How does he know when doing a standard pattern? After a few turns one can learn a good heading for the outbound, but initially??

Also at least some nave systems can show this.

One last thought... Remember most folks here fly slower airplanes. The turning radius will generally fall well within limits.

The last thought is significant. But, that is not everyone here.

 

[luvflyin]

Those are known as end-area reductions and can only be done for holding patterns used regularly by ATC and only with a direct entry. End area reductions cannot be used in IAPs.

EDIT: More correctly: "Fix end reduction area," which cannot be used for obstacle clearance.

Fix end reduction areas can be used during entry if the aircraft arrives at the fix from, or within 10 degrees of the non-maneuvering side. If you're going to hold south on the 180 radial, right turns, the fix end reduction area can be used if the aircraft arrives at the fix from 170 radial clockwise to the 010 radial. There are outbound end reduction areas also that have some complex rules. Reduction areas are only used to separate aircraft from each other, not obstructions.

 

[midlifeflyer]

In that picture - you fly straight to the fix, essentially crossing the outbound leg, turn right and roll out back on the outbound leg. It will probably work out to just about a perfect turn.

Whether or not it works,why do you prefer a 270 degree right turn to a 90 degree left turn or even a 120 degree left turn? Just curious.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My question, as a TERPs guy, how does the pilot know he/she is remaining within protected airspace, unless they are TERPs specialists with TERPs maps of the holding pattern?

It depends what the pilot is doing. My answer to SkyHog's right 270, initially away from the hold, is a definite "I dunno." And I'd even agree that a turn away from the hold merits an explanation on a check ride.

But when we get into variations that turn you toward the hold, that put you in the same place as a standard entry, like a preference for parallel over teardrop, all you have to do is look at a simple picture, whether mental or physical.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Been trying to get a grasp of this. In your scenario where a plane approaches the fix perpendicular from the non-holding side (like in my slide #44) the FAA says to make a direct entry, but are you saying the USAF wants a parallel? Which way do you turn at the end of the outbound leg, toward the course like doing a teardrop or away from it like doing an FAA parallel? If the former, I'd expect an overshoot undershoot of the course. If the latter, I'd expect a huge interception angle from your position far, far away from the course.

From our text:

Not within 70°: If the inbound holding course is not within 70° of the aircraft heading, turn outbound in the shorter direction to parallel the holding course. If this turn places you on the non-holding side, either parallel (adjust for wind) or attempt to intercept the holding course inbound. If you are on the non-holding side or on the holding course at the completion of the outbound leg, turn toward the holding side, then proceed direct or intercept the holding course to the fix.

The way I read that is it will look the same as in slide 44. You are still paralleling the inbound course, just on the outbound leg on the holding side.

 

[aterpster]

Fix end reduction areas can be used during entry if the aircraft arrives at the fix from, or within 10 degrees of the non-maneuvering side. If you're going to hold south on the 180 radial, right turns, the fix end reduction area can be used if the aircraft arrives at the fix from 170 radial clockwise to the 010 radial. There are outbound end reduction areas also that have some complex rules. Reduction areas are only used to separate aircraft from each other, not obstructions.

Ok, let's not pussyfoot around.

If anyone wants to delve further than this, they can download the entire order:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol....cfm/go/document.information/documentID/10408

 

[dtuuri]

From our text:



The way I read that is it will look the same as in slide 44. You are still paralleling the inbound course, just on the outbound leg on the holding side.

Well, then for that particular 90° scenario it's a semantic difference only--the FAA calls it a direct entry. However, where the FAA deems a teardrop, especially at the shallow angles closer to their parallel sector, it seems to me the Air Force's technique would result in most of the maneuvering to intercept the inbound course being on the non-holding side. Frankly, I think you guys ought to be cerebral enough to just do it the FAA's way--the way things were designed.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Ok, let's not pussyfoot around.

If anyone wants to delve further than this, they can download the entire order:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol....cfm/go/document.information/documentID/10408

I think this statement places a very high bar for those who want to hurdle over the FAA's "recommended" entries by rolling their own (my emphasis):

CHAPTER 2. CONVENTIONAL HOLDING CRITERIA
SECTION 1. BASIC FACTORS CONSIDERED
2-1. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. Efficient and economical use of airspace requires standardization of aircraft entry and holding maneuvers. Factors which affect aircraft during these maneuvers are incorporated in the criteria.​

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7130.3A.pdf

dtuuri

 

[aterpster]

I think this statement places a very high bar for those who want to hurdle over the FAA's "recommended" entries by rolling their own (my emphasis):

CHAPTER 2. CONVENTIONAL HOLDING CRITERIA
SECTION 1. BASIC FACTORS CONSIDERED
2-1. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. Efficient and economical use of airspace requires standardization of aircraft entry and holding maneuvers. Factors which affect aircraft during these maneuvers are incorporated in the criteria.​

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7130.3A.pdf

dtuuri

Absolutely. Particularly in jet aircraft that fly the maximum holding speeds as a standard practice. At my airline the handbook entries were mandatory.

 

[vontresc]

I have found that most books instructors tent to way over complicate holds.

My crusty old CFII taught me this method.

Based on the holding clearance figure out the teardrop entry heading, and the outbound heading. No matter what entry method you use you will fly one of these headings.

If you are within 30 degrees (either side) of the teardrop heading use the teardrop method. Otherwise turn to the outbound heading.

For your second turn turn the same way as the first turn to the outbound heading. After that hold as published.

Pretty damn simple

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Well, then for that particular 90° scenario it's a semantic difference only--the FAA calls it a direct entry. However, where the FAA deems a teardrop, especially at the shallow angles closer to their parallel sector, it seems to me the Air Force's technique would result in most of the maneuvering to intercept the inbound course being on the non-holding side. Frankly, I think you guys ought to be cerebral enough to just do it the FAA's way--the way things were designed.

dtuuri

The 70 degree method teardrop is pretty much identical to the AIM method.

 

[luvflyin]

Absolutely. Particularly in jet aircraft that fly the maximum holding speeds as a standard practice. At my airline the handbook entries were mandatory.

That order is good reading for anyone who wants to get the picture on the "why's" of the rules. It's pretty easy to see the intents in the first few pages and the diagrams tell the story. Check rides aside, you can see that the entry isn't really all that crucial for a hundred knot airplane flying into a pattern built to contain a two hundred knot airplane.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think this statement places a very high bar for those who want to hurdle over the FAA's "recommended" entries by rolling their own (my emphasis):

CHAPTER 2. CONVENTIONAL HOLDING CRITERIA
SECTION 1. BASIC FACTORS CONSIDERED
2-1. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. Efficient and economical use of airspace requires standardization of aircraft entry and holding maneuvers. Factors which affect aircraft during these maneuvers are incorporated in the criteria.​

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7130.3A.pdf

dtuuri

I guess I'm going to have to reverse myself and agree. After all, the improper (green) teardrop entry to this hold is going to cause all sorts of problems when compared to the proper (red) parallel entry. It will probably tie up air traffic for months. And, of course, there's no way one can be sure that teardrop is in protected airspace.

 

[dtuuri]

I guess I'm going to have to reverse myself and agree. After all, the improper (green) teardrop entry to this hold is going to cause all sorts of problems when compared to the proper (red) parallel entry. It will probably tie up air traffic for months. And, of course, there's no way one can be sure that teardrop is in protected airspace.

Ha, ha. Your sarcasm overwhelms me. Not performing good enough to handle the worst case goes against everything I've ever learned about what it takes to be a good pilot. Now, on the other hand, if you agree to put a 90 knot airspeed limitation on your students' instrument ratings, the same way they put centerline thrust limitations on multiengine ratings for Skymaster candidates...

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

I have found that most books instructors tent to way over complicate holds.

My crusty old CFII taught me this method.

Based on the holding clearance figure out the teardrop entry heading, and the outbound heading. No matter what entry method you use you will fly one of these headings.

If you are within 30 degrees (either side) of the teardrop heading use the teardrop method. Otherwise turn to the outbound heading.

For your second turn turn the same way as the first turn to the outbound heading. After that hold as published.

Pretty damn simple

You gotta be kidding me.

dtuuri

 

[luvflyin]

I guess I'm going to have to reverse myself and agree. After all, the improper (green) teardrop entry to this hold is going to cause all sorts of problems when compared to the proper (red) parallel entry. It will probably tie up air traffic for months. And, of course, there's no way one can be sure that teardrop is in protected airspace.

If you did wait until station passage, were flying a pretty fast airplane and didn't exceed 30 degrees of bank that green line would look a whole lot different

 

[dtuuri]

If you did wait until station passage, were flying a pretty fast airplane and didn't exceed 30 degrees of bank that green line would look a whole lot different

So much different that the FAA specifically developed the parallel entry because it was deemed "undesireable". See Figure 2 in the first link below:

Here is the original study, as downloaded from Wally Roberts' TERPS site: http://www.avclicks.com/files/Order_7130_8_Mar31_1964.pdf

Here is the missing page 4 from that download: http://www.avclicks.com/files/Order_7130_8_Page_4.pdf
A lot was considered with very few changes since then.

dtuuri

Btw, I repaired the second link which was apparently corrupted in the original post. Don't know why I'm having trouble with links lately.

dtuuri

 

[vontresc]

You gotta be kidding me.

dtuuri

Why???

 

[dtuuri]

Why???

Well, I'm having a hard time convincing a CFII to have his students "draw" the holding pattern on the DG and simply look for the outbound heading. He needs paper and pencil already. If you want him to also find the "teardrop" heading, why he'll need a drawing board, protractor and T-square for sure!

dtuuri

 

[MAKG1]

If you did wait until station passage, were flying a pretty fast airplane and didn't exceed 30 degrees of bank that green line would look a whole lot different

Umm, those two entries are exactly the same until reaching the outbound heading. After that, the parallel entry remains slightly on the non-holding side, while the teardrop continues to turn inside.

 

[dtuuri]

Umm, those two entries are exactly the same until reaching the outbound heading. After that, the parallel entry remains slightly on the non-holding side, while the teardrop continues to turn inside.

It's like an M.C. Escher painting-- it can be drawn, not built. At some speed the interception of the outbound leg occurs too far from the fix.

dtuuri

 

[SkyHog]

Whether or not it works,why do you prefer a 270 degree right turn to a 90 degree left turn or even a 120 degree left turn? Just curious.

Because it is consistent. You always do the same thing, so you can focus on other, more important items at hand.

"Oh, I have to hold, let me fly to the fix and turn outbound," sounds a hell of a lot more simple than "Oh, I have to hold, let me take my hand, hold it over the DG, determine where I'm coming from and going to, and which of the three divided areas I fall into. Then, I guess I'll do a tear drop entry, and proceed to hold."

Its like when people complain about NDB approaches. People only hate it because it was so confusing in the way it was taught. Its quite simple: tune the ADF, fly the needle. Adjust as necessary.

As pilots/instructors, we have a knack for over-complicating things. I think that's one of the reasons we obtain an elitist attitude. Its easy to say that people can't do what we do, when we make it as difficult as possible to do it.

 

[eetrojan]

I have found that most books instructors tent to way over complicate holds.

My crusty old CFII taught me this method.

Based on the holding clearance figure out the teardrop entry heading, and the outbound heading. No matter what entry method you use you will fly one of these headings.

If you are within 30 degrees (either side) of the teardrop heading use the teardrop method. Otherwise turn to the outbound heading.

For your second turn turn the same way as the first turn to the outbound heading. After that hold as published.

Pretty damn simple

I'm unclear on what you mean by the teardrop entry heading?

The teardrop pie-slice is a 70° sector. Are you referring to the border between teardrop and direct? The border between teardrop and parallel? Something else?

Thanks!

 

[vontresc]

Teardrop is 30 degrees off of the outbound heading. +30 for left turns -30 for right turns.

Forget about that awful chart in the AIM.

 

[MAKG1]

I'm unclear on what you mean by the teardrop entry heading?

The teardrop pie-slice is a 70° sector. Are you referring to the border between teardrop and direct? The border between teardrop and parallel? Something else?

Thanks!

I think he means 30 deg right or left of the outbound heading.

 

[eetrojan]

Teardrop is 30 degrees off of the outbound heading. +30 for left turns -30 for right turns.

Forget about that awful chart in the AIM.

Thanks. I haven't run across that approach before.

Do you have a diagram?

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Honestly, if I am that close that I am worried about protected airspace to avoid hitting a mountain, I'm just gonna ask for a higher holding altitude, or use the resources in the cockpit to avoid the terrain.

 

[dtuuri]

"Oh, I have to hold, let me take my hand, hold it over the DG,

Not really.

...determine where I'm coming from and going to,

Always coming from the same place, the bottom of the DG. Always going to the same place too, the center of the DG.

..and which of the three divided areas I fall into.

Not where "you" fall, it's where the the holding pattern falls. Just spot the outbound heading and...

...I guess I'll do a tear drop entry, and proceed to hold."

It's students who refuse to do their homework that make things complicated.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Honestly, if I am that close that I am worried about protected airspace to avoid hitting a mountain, I'm just gonna ask for a higher holding altitude, or use the resources in the cockpit to avoid the terrain.

How about hitting TWA?

dtuuri

 

[Gucci Pilot]

How about hitting TWA?

dtuuri

I just looked it up and it doesn't look like it was a problem with entry procedures, it looked like they didn't even hold and went past their clearance limit. Plus I saw something in there about inoperative nav equipment and an inoperative VOR. Not 100% because I just skimmed it and I couldn't find a CAB investigation on it or anything.