HILPT teardrop angle

jssmith.lh

jssmith.lh

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
55
Location
Central Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Goldthwaite flyer
Is there a rule of thumb for initial offset angle when doing HILPT teardrop entry? KBWD RNAV 17 coming from the southeast using MUSRE IAF. 8 mile holding pattern. Normal 30 degree offset for teardrop obviously doesn't work.
upload_2019-2-16_17-3-21.png
 
jssmith.lh said:
Is there a rule of thumb for initial offset angle when doing HILPT teardrop entry? KBWD RNAV 17 coming from the southeast using MUSRE IAF. 8 mile holding pattern. Normal 30 degree offset for teardrop obviously doesn't work.
View attachment 71747
Click to expand...

Two things, first, wouldn't they give you Zihmy? If not, I'd ask for it. Second, I would probably do a one minute leg on the teardrop, or better yet, just do a parallel, especially if the wind is a howling crosswind, that way you don't get blown out of the protected area.
 
For a HILPT you are not required to fly the 8nm leg, although you may if needed to lose altitude. A standard 30 degree teardrop would keep you within the protected area for hold even if you went the full 8nm.
 
interesting, I was actually going to post something similar...…..I noticed the gtn650 was painting a teardrop entry even though I was flying direct to the IAF outbound. in the OPs example, I would have been flying 355 from INUWE to MUSRE. I never would have imagined anything other than a parallel entry but the 650 painted teardrop. I was gonna ask @midlifeflyer cause I know he flies the 650/750 sim often. seems similar enough to the OPs question to hijack a lil bit.
 
I think if you are flying the magenta line, the teardrop would be fine, but if you fly with out it, problems as the 30 degrees would put you 4 nm from the final approach course with out considering the wind. Of course, you need a gps to fly this so the point is probably moot.
 
eman1200 said:
interesting, I was actually going to post something similar...…..I noticed the gtn650 was painting a teardrop entry even though I was flying direct to the IAF outbound. in the OPs example, I would have been flying 355 from INUWE to MUSRE. I never would have imagined anything other than a parallel entry but the 650 painted teardrop. I was gonna ask @midlifeflyer cause I know he flies the 650/750 sim often. seems similar enough to the OPs question to hijack a lil bit.
Click to expand...

Won't comment on the GTN but I would choose teardrop too.
 
Because a tear drop is easier than a parallel. When you do these on a VOR you will see why.
 
Sad when you hijack your own thread :) When I was doing my IR there was a question on a practice test where you are basically opposite the inbound heading. The correct entry was teardrop. I asked my instructor why and he wasn't sure. He said it wasn't a big deal because you would probably never see that. Next fight we were in this exact situation so luckily I knew what to do. The only thing I can think of is teardrop gets you on the final course quicker which is always a good thing.
 
eman1200 said:
interesting, I was actually going to post something similar...…..I noticed the gtn650 was painting a teardrop entry even though I was flying direct to the IAF outbound. in the OPs example, I would have been flying 355 from INUWE to MUSRE. I never would have imagined anything other than a parallel entry but the 650 painted teardrop. I was gonna ask @midlifeflyer cause I know he flies the 650/750 sim often. seems similar enough to the OPs question to hijack a lil bit.
Click to expand...

Dunno. I'm away and can't run the sim. I'll accept that your test resulyed in a teardrop.

Personally, I'm one of those who prefers teardrop to parallel when the choice between them is close, so left to my own devices, I'd choose teardrop for this one. May or may not be the same reason as @Clip4. I found doing a standard 1 minute hold in the olden days, a standard rate parallel entry turn will put you on the holding fix in zero wind. Increase to almost any inbound tailwind and you need a steep turn or a bigger intercept. I prefer to intercept the inbound course well before the holding fix. But that's just personal preference like my preference for parallel over direct when they are close and parallel will give me a substantially smaller turn. On this one, with an 8 mile published leg, I would be less concerned and mightvwell choose parallel. I'm not very religious about it.

I have no idea what standard Garmin uses to mark its changeover point. But like @PaulS, since this is a GPS approach, I wouldn't especially worry about either. When you ran it in the sim, did it change the teardrop entry to follow a "normal" direct entry outbound once it intercepted it?
 
jssmith.lh said:
The only thing I can think of is teardrop gets you on the final course quicker which is always a good thing.
Click to expand...
Protected areas are based on a reasonable wind correction angle on the initial outbound leg, + or - 10° IIRC, which of course is usually based on the inbound track. A parallel entry actually gives you one minute to find an exact (wrong direction) WCA, but that's not too useful because the HILPT outbound leg also needs to correct for the fact wind isn't supposed to be adjusted for during the turns. A teardrop gives a fighting chance at finding an inbound WCA that works with the thumb rule of tripling that WCA on the outbound to compensate for wind drift during the turn too.

EDIT: But the entry is all that's required, you don't normally have to do the outbound leg.
 
Last edited:
Entering a IAP via a half or full lap in the published hold is like the aviation version of a roundabout.

eman1200 said:
if you're the red arrow, you'd do teardrop and not parallel? why?

View attachment 71748
Click to expand...

Not that it really matters, but I’d teardrop, I think my nav system would also do the same.
 
Last edited:
Rgbeard said:
Why all the hate on parallel entries?
Click to expand...
Don't know, especially since we're talking a GPS here. Head outbound and then just start turning left until you're heading back towards the inbound course. It's not like trying to guess how fast you're heading back to the VOR. Of course, the 480 will tell you how to enter the pattern based on its own ideas anyhow.
 
Walboy said:
You're a DPE, correct? Will you accept any entry on a checkride that keeps the airplane in the protected airspace regardless of FAA recommended entries?

If you are in a region where the AIM recommends a parallel entry (figure 5-3-4) what would you do in lieu of a parallel entry? I would assume you would cross the fix and then turn an additional 30 degrees past the outbound heading to for a teardrop entry.
Click to expand...
Is there anything that mandates the recommended entry?

Personally, I do a teardrop unless it's obviously direct.
 
Walboy said:
There is nothing that mandates the entry, but I would be hesitant to go against a FAA recommendation on a checkride. Just curious is all.
Click to expand...
It's merely technique...if you can explain that your technique is legal and reasonably safe, there's no reason for it to be a problem on a checkride.

As an examiner, I'd rather evaluate what you do in real life rather than something you learned just to take a checkride.
 
Walboy said:
There is nothing that mandates the entry, but I would be hesitant to go against a FAA recommendation on a checkride. Just curious is all.
Click to expand...
There used to be an FAA periodical called "Designee Update." Over a series of articles, the first one reminded DPEs they were not permitted to fail an applicant for using a nonstandard entry. The last said, "hey guys, we mean it!"

It apparently was an issue when DPEs could say, "prove you stayed in protected airspace!" Another thing GPS with moving maps helped with.
 
Rgbeard said:
Why all the hate on parallel entries?
Click to expand...
I don't hate them. I prefer teardrop to parallel when they are close because it gets me lined up on the inbound earlier. But I prefer parallel to direct when they are close because of the smaller turn outbound.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There used to be an FAA periodical called "Designee Update." Over a series of articles, the first one reminded DPEs they were not permitted to fail an applicant for using a nonstandard entry. The last said, "hey guys, we mean it!"

It apparently was an issue when DPEs could say, "prove you stayed in protected airspace!" Another thing GPS with moving maps helped with.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is accurate, Mark. Can you post the "hey guys, we mean it!" update? The current ACS requires:

The applicant demonstrates the ability to:
IR.III.B.S1 Explain and use an entry procedure that ensures the air plane
remains within the holding pattern airspace for a standard, nonstandard, published, or non-published holding pattern.​

It doesn't say they can simply make up any old entry without explaining how it ensures the airplane remains within holding airspace. The easiest way would be to just utilize the FAA recommended entry. Are you saying examiners aren't required to follow the ACS?

Also, do moving maps even show the boundaries of holding airspace?
 
The parallel entry is always the last choice, due to the more likely chance of disorientation. Not everyone has a moving map...

Even though the pattern is over eight miles long, your teardrop will only be 40 seconds to a minute, as needed to start a standard rate turn back to the fix.

There is obviously an issue with the nearby enroute segment MEA, since there are no nearby airways. That explains the "at or below 10,000" in the hold and they give you ten miles of airspace to lose all that altitude.

Most likely, you would be cleared to one of the feeder fixes to allow you to descend PD to 4,000 ft. This is obviously a remote IAP, since it is so independent of any surrounding airways or intersections.

Better yet, just go to Stephenville, land, go to Hard 8 for awesome BBQ, then continue VFR to Brownwood!
 
Walboy said:
There is nothing that mandates the entry, but I would be hesitant to go against a FAA recommendation on a checkride. Just curious is all.
Click to expand...

“Explain and use an entry procedure that ensures the airplane remains within the holding pattern airspace for a standard, nonstandard, published, or non-published holding pattern” is all that is required by the ACS.
dtuuri said:
I don't think this is accurate, Mark. Can you post the "hey guys, we mean it!" update? The current ACS requires:

The applicant demonstrates the ability to:
IR.III.B.S1 Explain and use an entry procedure that ensures the air plane
remains within the holding pattern airspace for a standard, nonstandard, published, or non-published holding pattern.​

It doesn't say they can simply make up any old entry without explaining how it ensures the airplane remains within holding airspace. The easiest way would be to just utilize the FAA recommended entry. Are you saying examiners aren't required to follow the ACS?

Also, do moving maps even show the boundaries of holding airspace?
Click to expand...

The Nav page shows how far you are from the inbound leg in a numeric representation.
 
IK04 said:
The parallel entry is always the last choice, due to the more likely chance of disorientation. Not everyone has a moving map...
Click to expand...
With one scant exception, there's no navigator for that approach that doesn't have a moving map.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I have no idea what standard Garmin uses to mark its changeover point. But like @PaulS, since this is a GPS approach, I wouldn't especially worry about either. When you ran it in the sim, did it change the teardrop entry to follow a "normal" direct entry outbound once it intercepted it?
Click to expand...

Garmin is required to adhere to an RTCA specification for holding (as are all RNAV avionics vendors). The spec is not flawed as to entry, but on flying the outbound leg. This flaw is not an issue until holding in a jet at flight levels.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
“Explain and use an entry procedure that ensures the airplane remains within the holding pattern airspace for a standard, nonstandard, published, or non-published holding pattern” is all that is required by the ACS.


The Nav page shows how far you are from the inbound leg in a numeric representation.
Click to expand...
But the ACS doesn't ask how far from the center, it wants explained/ensured you're within the lateral boundaries. How should an applicant answer that?
 
What about all those older GPS panel units with only a text display? They use the OBS, just like a VOR/LOC.
Click to expand...
Not legal anyhow since you can't get the database updates for these newer approaches (I assume you're talking about relics like the Garmin 155 or the Northstar M3, whcih were the exceptions I mentioned). None of the even moderately archaic ones (Garmin 430, King KLN 89/90, CNX80) lack a moving map.
 
dtuuri said:
I don't think this is accurate, Mark. Can you post the "hey guys, we mean it!" update? The current ACS requires:

The applicant demonstrates the ability to:
IR.III.B.S1 Explain and use an entry procedure that ensures the air plane
remains within the holding pattern airspace for a standard, nonstandard, published, or non-published holding pattern.​

It doesn't say they can simply make up any old entry without explaining how it ensures the airplane remains within holding airspace. The easiest way would be to just utilize the FAA recommended entry. Are you saying examiners aren't required to follow the ACS?

Also, do moving maps even show the boundaries of holding airspace?
Click to expand...
I used to have copies of both editions. They are both pretty old. And no, it's not "make up any old, unstable, you don't have to know what you are doing" authorization. If I'm recalling correctly, it was about failing someone for not strictly adhering to, for example, the 70 degree line. IOW using an inconsequential teardrop vs a parallel in a situation similar to the one @eman1200 posted or choosing to limit the options to two entries.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
I used to have copies of both editions. They are both pretty old. And no, it's not "make up any old, unstable, you don't have to know what you are doing" authorization. If I'm recalling correctly, it was about failing someone for not strictly adhering to, for example, the 70 degree line. IOW using an inconsequential teardrop vs a parallel in a situation similar to the one @eman1200 posted or choosing to limit the options to two entries.
Click to expand...
If I was bound and determined to not use the entries recommended by the FAA, i.e., the entry tracks that the protected areas were scribed around, I would use one of the simplified entries made for military pilots. While it might not be as perfect as the FAA's, at least it's been given some critical thought (probably has to do with cost effectiveness, but I digress).

The current AIM standard (Chap 5) is:

"Determine entry turn from aircraft heading upon arrival at the holding fix;
+ / − 5 degrees in heading is considered to be within allowable good operating limits for determining entry. When using RNAV lateral guidance for holding, it is permissible to allow the system to compute the holding entry."​

In eman's example, either parallel or teardrop meets the standard. Any technique accurate enough for determining within plus or minus five degrees is acceptable, then. Any different entry track needs an explanation according to the ACS, IMO.

Speaking to the peanut gallery now—

I noticed in another thread how all pilots yearn for higher performance. The law of primacy ought to settle how to learn holding pattern entries, since what works for low performance airplanes doesn't apply to high performance airplanes and instrument ratings aren't categorized by speed limitations. You could get your wish some day and default to an inappropriate method.

The smallest holding pattern airspace used for instrument approaches is even smaller than five mile procedure turn airspace. Whereas the PT is for helicopters and the slowest of airplanes only, the holding pattern entry can be flown at 200 KIAS. If you wouldn't do that on a five mile PT, does it make sense to enter a hold that fast in an even tighter area? Yet you could, safely, if you just follow the FAA recommended entries. Here, I drew it out for you. Luckily, there's a quick, simple and accurate technique to visualize the pattern and correct entry on a DG, within the 5 degree tolerance. If alternative techniques aren't as fast, simple and accurate, I'd change techniques before I'd change entry procedures.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
If I was bound and determined to not use the entries recommended by the FAA, i.e., the entry tracks that the protected areas were scribed around, I would use one of the simplified entries made for military pilots. While it might not be as perfect as the FAA's, at least it's been given some critical thought (probably has to do with cost effectiveness, but I digress).

The current AIM standard (Chap 5) is:

"Determine entry turn from aircraft heading upon arrival at the holding fix;
+ / − 5 degrees in heading is considered to be within allowable good operating limits for determining entry. When using RNAV lateral guidance for holding, it is permissible to allow the system to compute the holding entry."​

In eman's example, either parallel or teardrop meets the standard. Any technique accurate enough for determining within plus or minus five degrees is acceptable, then. Any different entry track needs an explanation according to the ACS, IMO.

Speaking to the peanut gallery now—

I noticed in another thread how all pilots yearn for higher performance. The law of primacy ought to settle how to learn holding pattern entries, since what works for low performance airplanes doesn't apply to high performance airplanes and instrument ratings aren't categorized by speed limitations. You could get your wish some day and default to an inappropriate method.

The smallest holding pattern airspace used for instrument approaches is even smaller than five mile procedure turn airspace. Whereas the PT is for helicopters and the slowest of airplanes only, the holding pattern entry can be flown at 200 KIAS. If you wouldn't do that on a five mile PT, does it make sense to enter a hold that fast in an even tighter area? Yet you could, safely, if you just follow the FAA recommended entries. Here, I drew it out for you. Luckily, there's a quick, simple and accurate technique to visualize the pattern and correct entry on a DG, within the 5 degree tolerance. If alternative techniques aren't as fast, simple and accurate, I'd change techniques before I'd change entry procedures.
Click to expand...
They must have been talking about you in the articles :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
They must have been talking about you in the articles :D
Click to expand...
I never had anybody do a home-grown entry (pre-1992). FWIW, I have seen Designee Update articles generic in nature admonishing examiners about testing on tasks not in the PTS, but that wasn't specifically about instrument tests or holding pattern entries. Flight instructors probably make up most of the examiner population and we all know they each have pet maneuvers. Including those off-the-wall tasks on a flight test is a no-no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top