Teardrop Entry - Doesn't Make Sense?

In real life, it doesn't really matter what you do as long as you stay in the protected side of the course reversal, My approach to course reversals is: if you can safely make the turn for a direct entry, do it; if you can safely make a teardrop entry, do it; if those options don't look good, make a parallel entry. That's it. 90% of the time you can safely make a direct or teardrop entry, and they are the easiest entries to get set up correctly for the inbound leg.

Cheers.
 
chemgeek said:
In real life, it doesn't really matter what you do as long as you stay in the protected side of the course reversal, My approach to course reversals is: if you can safely make the turn for a direct entry, do it; if you can safely make a teardrop entry, do it; if those options don't look good, make a parallel entry. That's it. 90% of the time you can safely make a direct or teardrop entry, and they are the easiest entries to get set up correctly for the inbound leg.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Yeah, I can look at my position approaching a hold, realize both parallel and teardrop will work and select my preference too. The problem is, that requires a level of holding pattern situational awareness many pilots simply don't have and, unfortunately doesn't appear to be part of the instrument training curriculum.
 
I remember this thread.

The FAA recommended hold entries don't take wind into consideration. As such, I'd rather not be trying to fly a teardrop entry with the wind trying to blow me back onto the inbound approach course if I could have just flown that same course outbound and then turn into the wind (making a much smaller radius turn). Once you visualize what you're trying to do and the direction of the wind it makes it a lot easier.
 
Brad Z said:
I remember this thread.

The FAA recommended hold entries don't take wind into consideration. As such, I'd rather not be trying to fly a teardrop entry with the wind trying to blow me back onto the inbound approach course if I could have just flown that same course outbound and then turn into the wind (making a much smaller radius turn). Once you visualize what you're trying to do and the direction of the wind it makes it a lot easier.
Click to expand...
That needs a bit of clarification, IMO. Wind IS taken into consideration, but for the boundaries of airspace protection not for the tracking purposes you bring up. Good point though.

dtuuri
 
Couple months ago there was a discussion at a local lunch of instructors and students that anything other than direct could be handled witha procedure turn. I stayed out of it because I dunno anything about it. But it was fun listening.
 
murphey said:
Couple months ago there was a discussion at a local lunch of instructors and students that anything other than direct could be handled witha procedure turn. I stayed out of it because I dunno anything about it. But it was fun listening.
Click to expand...
The smallest-sized holding pattern template approved for approaches is about the same size as the procedure turn area for category "A" aircraft and helicopters. So, those CFIs better keep their ground speeds nice and slow: See slide #6 .

dtuuri
 
Brad Z said:
I remember this thread.

The FAA recommended hold entries don't take wind into consideration. As such, I'd rather not be trying to fly a teardrop entry with the wind trying to blow me back onto the inbound approach course if I could have just flown that same course outbound and then turn into the wind (making a much smaller radius turn). Once you visualize what you're trying to do and the direction of the wind it makes it a lot easier.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You have lots of protected airspace in that direction, and if you KNOW the wind is howling, you can compensate.

The counter-argument is that, the teardrop gives you much more time on the inbound leg, with positive guidance, than the parallel entry. This is particularly important when holding at a VOR. You may never see it during a parallel entry, before entering the zone of confusion.
 
murphey said:
Couple months ago there was a discussion at a local lunch of instructors and students that anything other than direct could be handled witha procedure turn. I stayed out of it because I dunno anything about it. But it was fun listening.
Click to expand...
Never heard that argument before. It works, except that using the whole 10 miles could get you out of the airspace to be protected for the holding pattern. Substituting a holding pattern entry for PT instead of following the "pictures" of the 45 degree barbs or the 80/260 you see on some charts I have heard. If arriving at the fix from a direction to do a teardrop entry, that's what I do. Two turns and one intercept instead of three turns and two intercepts
 
murphey said:
Couple months ago there was a discussion at a local lunch of instructors and students that anything other than direct could be handled witha procedure turn. I stayed out of it because I dunno anything about it. But it was fun listening.
Click to expand...
The opposite is definitely true - A barbed PT can be flown using a racetrack pattern. Even the AIM says that.

But the reason that is so makes it difficult to comprehend the opposite. A barbed PT can be flow in any manner so long as (1) the turns within the procedure are on the protected side and (2) you stay within the PT distance limits. @dtuuri and @luvflyin already mentioned it, but I'd be a little concerned with flying at Category B speeds using an 80/260 PT maneuver, at least with any significant wind coming from the unprotected side.
 
the only time you have to worry about what entry you use is a) on the written and b) on the check ride.

I'll be honest - on my instrument check ride I told my examiner that as long as I stay on the protected side I'm gonna choose the entry that makes the most sense to me at the time - if I'm in solid IMC I'm gonna take the easiest one involving the least risk of spatial disorientation -

He did not disagree with that and only wanted to know if I knew what the preferred entry - and I really had no clue unless I overlaid an entry chart - was not downgraded for that
 
In real life, direct is easy, nose in the hold, tear drop, nose out, parallel.
 
The reason the three entry methods were originally chosen was based on worst case winds and the amount of airspace used in the transition to the hold. Maximum holding speed is assumed. Since most GA aircraft can't reach these speeds, you have a lot more leeway.
 
What's a worst case wind? If I'm flying in a 200 knot jet stream and I can only go 100 knots, I'm not staying in the protected airspace in a hold no matter what entry I choose.
 
If you get to the fix and don't know which way to go, turn to the cardinal direction given when you got the hold from ATC (if it's hold NE, turn to NE). That will get you in the ball park....
 
midlifeflyer said:
The opposite is definitely true - A barbed PT can be flown using a racetrack pattern. Even the AIM says that.

But the reason that is so makes it difficult to comprehend the opposite. A barbed PT can be flow in any manner so long as (1) the turns within the procedure are on the protected side and (2) you stay within the PT distance limits. @dtuuri and @luvflyin already mentioned it, but I'd be a little concerned with flying at Category B speeds using an 80/260 PT maneuver, at least with any significant wind coming from the unprotected side.
Click to expand...
Yeah. You better keep in mind the holding pattern airspace to be protected is based on one minute. Go ahead and do a PT as a substitute for a holding pattern entry but don't dally around doing it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top