Does ATC care how you enter a hold?

aterpster said:
I agree. That wasn't stated previously. I had feds on the jump seat that were assigned to other carriers and not typed on the airplane I was flying.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've had that before too, and I agree...they generally have no idea what they're looking at, hehe.
 
gbanker said:
For example , if you enter a hold via a teardrop when you were supposed to do a parallel entry will you get yelled at?
Click to expand...
Don't you just press the button on your nav system and do what it says?
 
No one cares how you get into the hold. Someone in this thread said that if their GPS won’t direct their hold entry they won’t hold...that would require declaring an emergency and scrutiny from FAA if you’re unable (or unwilling) to comply with an ATC instruction...so be careful with that move. If you file an IFR flight plan, the expectation is that you can follow basic ATC instructions (like navigating into a hold). If your navigation system is malfunctioning, that may be an emergency.

If terrain isn’t a factor, ATC isn’t watching your entry and as long as you’re more or less in the vicinity of the holding fix, the objective of the hold is being met. On the other hand, if you’re in a non-radar environment, botching the hold entry could potentially be fatal if you’re operating near terrain.

I once issued the same holding instructions to two 737s, same airline. One did the hold I issued, the other did the 180 degree reciprocal of the instruction. Since The point of the hold was to wait for weather to pass, and I just wanted them to stay close to a particular VOR, it didn’t matter, and I didn’t say anything. ATC isn’t out to get anyone for minor infractions of no consequence. If you need a vector to get yourself set up, ask for it.
 
gbanker said:
For example , if you enter a hold via a teardrop when you were supposed to do a parallel entry will you get yelled at?
Click to expand...
I was told by a DPE that because most people screw up a teardrop, that you should instead fly a parallel entry being careful to stay on the protected side.
 
The parallel entry seems superfluous. Direct or teardrop make more sense and keep you on the side with more protected airspace. Just a thought.
 
Daz said:
I was told by a DPE that because most people screw up a teardrop, that you should instead fly a parallel entry being careful to stay on the protected side.
Click to expand...

Is it possible you have that backward? I think most pilots prefer teardrop.
 
Daz said:
I was told by a DPE that because most people screw up a teardrop, that you should instead fly a parallel entry being careful to stay on the protected side.
Click to expand...

The teardrop entry is a pretty easy course reversal method in a hold. In real life I probably fly this more than anything else.
 
I think it can’t be terribly sacred. The reason I say that is that I remember my son in law telling me that on his instrument checkride he was headed for the hold and asked the DPE if he could use a different hold method than it called for and the DPE was good with it. He might have been only a few degrees away from the one that was called for. I don’t remember details.
 
Daz said:
I was told by a DPE that because most people screw up a teardrop, that you should instead fly a parallel entry being careful to stay on the protected side.
Click to expand...
As others said, a lot of people prefer teardrop to parallel.

But, two points on the part I bolded.
  1. The holding side is more protected than the non holding side, but both sides are protected.
  2. If you look at the official description of the parallel entry, it is flown on the non holding side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top