What's magic about hold entry angles?

[midlifeflyer]

What do you do about parallel entries when using RNAV Navigators? Do you let it lead the outbound turn and join the holding course outbound? Or do you fly over the Fix and then ‘parallel’ the outbound course?

I look and try to remain situationally aware. I've never been fond of the parallel entry because, at least in the 1 minute version, there is too much chance of not intercepting the inbound until after the holding fix. Heck, I sometimes fly teardrop instead. So, unless there is a significant crosswind to move me to the nonholding side, anticipating the turn makes it even worse.

 

[John Collins]

I have attached a 1964 FAA document that describes the logic behind the holding pattern and where the 70/110 angles came from. The names have changed for the entry types, but the theory is the same.

 

[iamtheari]

I have attached a 1964 FAA document that describes the logic behind the holding pattern and where the 70/110 angles came from. The names have changed for the entry types, but the theory is the same.

This document also shows that the FAA has incorrectly written "random" to mean "arbitrary" for essentially its entire existence as an agency. (I will never make a random entry to a holding pattern or file a random route. That would be extremely inefficient!)

 

[John Collins]

This document also shows that the FAA has incorrectly written "random" to mean "arbitrary" for essentially its entire existence as an agency. (I will never make a random entry to a holding pattern or file a random route. That would be extremely inefficient!)

I believe that In the FAA context, random is a route that is not charted or along a route/airway. Most holds are direct entry and along a charted route or reciprocal, opposite direction along a charted route/airway.

 

[iamtheari]

I believe that In the FAA context, random is a route that is not charted or along a route/airway. Most holds are direct entry and along a charted route or reciprocal, opposite direction along a charted route/airway.

That is indeed the sense that the FAA uses the word. But the hill I chose long ago to die on is misuse of words like random, unique, and ironic. I'm glad to see that, at least in this context, they improved reciprocal to teardrop and random to parallel.

So far, my favorite part of the document you shared is the holding speed specific to the F-105, F-111, and B-58. Yowza!

 

[Pinecone]

I have attached a 1964 FAA document that describes the logic behind the holding pattern and where the 70/110 angles came from. The names have changed for the entry types, but the theory is the same.

Interesting. But a quick read says they picked 70 to reduce distance to the point where the outbound timing starts, but that distance is further at 70 degrees versus 90 degrees.

 

[dtuuri]

Interesting. But a quick read says they picked 70 to reduce distance to the point where the outbound timing starts, but that distance is further at 70 degrees versus 90 degrees.

You read too fast. See page 8 top two paragraphs.

 

[chemgeek]

My approach to holds is simple. If I can reasonably make a direct entry and stay on the protected side, I'll do it. If that looks dodgy, I'll fly a teardrop entry if I can make the turn easily. A parallel entry is my last choice if the turn is too sharp for the direct or teardrop entries. I find I fly very few parallel entries in real IFR. It comes up fairly often when entering HILPTs from other than NoPT headings to the IAF.

 

[Andrew]

Thanks everyone. A bit behind but this is a great read.

I guess a follow-up question I have is whether anyone (or a guess as to what percentage of pilots) is flying a procedure turn without equipment that lets them know their distance to the entry point?

 

[MauleSkinner]

I guess a follow-up question I have is whether anyone (or a guess as to what percentage of pilots) is flying a procedure turn without equipment that lets them know their distance to the entry point?

There are still airplanes out there without GPS, but I’d guess the percentage is pretty small.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks everyone. A bit behind but this is a great read.

I guess a follow-up question I have is whether anyone (or a guess as to what percentage of pilots) is flying a procedure turn without equipment that lets them know their distance to the entry point?

@MauleSkinner beat me to it. It was done all the time in the past. Many VORs don't have DME and many airplanes didn't have it either. But given how ubiquitous GPS has become, it's probably small. Even a handheld GPS is going to give better situational awareness than air/ground speed estimates.