midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 17,191
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly
These two articles were specifically on hold entries.
HILPT teardrop angle
- Thread starter jssmith.lh
- Start date
dtuuri
Final Approach
I'm not believing an obsolete newsletter preempts the current ACS.
midwestpa24
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,984
- Display Name
Display name:
midwestpa24
Think of the teardrop course reversal as being a version of a procedure turn. In a procedure turn your turn is outbound away from the IAF and final approach course, which will lead to you intercepting the final approach course before the IAF. If you did a parallel entry, depending on wind and timing, you might intercept the final approach course inside of the IAF. Same reason you never do a procedure turn towards the IAF.
As with a procedure turn, the whole point is to provide a course reversal, to intercept the final approach course. I honestly never understood why they decided to use HILPT instead of a PT for GPS approaches, but two paths to the same goal.
As with a procedure turn, the whole point is to provide a course reversal, to intercept the final approach course. I honestly never understood why they decided to use HILPT instead of a PT for GPS approaches, but two paths to the same goal.
A teardrop course reversal IS a procedure turn. It's a very specific one and you fly it as charted.
There's no "never" with regard to turning toward the IAF either. As far as the FAA is concerned you can turn either way. While it might be advisable to plan your turns so that you won't be blown past the IAF, it's usually NOT a concern. It's exactly this kind of "personal preference' the FAA is trying to remove from being considered right or wrong. As long as you don't start your PT too early on the outbound leg, you're unlikely to have a problem. There's nothing magic about the IAF anyhow. Once you commence the approach at an IAF, you need not worry about it. Now it might coincidentally be another fix on the approach, but in the case of the regular (barbed) PT, it usually isn't
The hold-in-loo is there I suspect because it is pretty much assumed you'd normally do the TAA to one of the IAFs that doesn't require a course reversal at all (well it's inherent in the 90 degree turn to the the arm of the T and the another 90 to the final). If you NEED a more elaborate course reversal, the Hold-in-loo gives you the option to go around the track multiple times (after being cleared to do so).
There's no "never" with regard to turning toward the IAF either. As far as the FAA is concerned you can turn either way. While it might be advisable to plan your turns so that you won't be blown past the IAF, it's usually NOT a concern. It's exactly this kind of "personal preference' the FAA is trying to remove from being considered right or wrong. As long as you don't start your PT too early on the outbound leg, you're unlikely to have a problem. There's nothing magic about the IAF anyhow. Once you commence the approach at an IAF, you need not worry about it. Now it might coincidentally be another fix on the approach, but in the case of the regular (barbed) PT, it usually isn't
The hold-in-loo is there I suspect because it is pretty much assumed you'd normally do the TAA to one of the IAFs that doesn't require a course reversal at all (well it's inherent in the 90 degree turn to the the arm of the T and the another 90 to the final). If you NEED a more elaborate course reversal, the Hold-in-loo gives you the option to go around the track multiple times (after being cleared to do so).
midwestpa24
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,984
- Display Name
Display name:
midwestpa24
I guess I was always taught to turn out from the IAF on a PT. I may be wrong, but are you not required to be established on the final approach course prior to crossing the IAF. If your turn inbound, due to wind or poor timing, put you intercepting inside of the IAF, I was under the impression that wouldn't work. Just starting to work on my CFII, so would be interested in clarifying.
There is no such requirement. Again, the IAF has NO MEANING after you cross it to enter the Initial Approach Segment. In the case of a HILO, the holding fix is an IF (which might or might not be the same as the IAF). You obviously (as with any hold) need to be on the inbound course prior to crossing it.
The Intermediate segment begins either at the IF (if depicted) or when my are reestablished on the final approach course Inbound.
As a CFI, you should sit down and reread the Instrument Procedures Handbook. You're inserting notions that don't exist. In fact, you often don't ever cross the IAF again on an approach. In that case basing your decisions on where the IAF is again is pointless. What you want to be doing is making sure you've headed inbound on the intermediate segment well ahead of the FAF.
The Intermediate segment begins either at the IF (if depicted) or when my are reestablished on the final approach course Inbound.
As a CFI, you should sit down and reread the Instrument Procedures Handbook. You're inserting notions that don't exist. In fact, you often don't ever cross the IAF again on an approach. In that case basing your decisions on where the IAF is again is pointless. What you want to be doing is making sure you've headed inbound on the intermediate segment well ahead of the FAF.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Yes for good reason, which you seem to understand.
You're mixing terms here, I think. In the OP's RNAV approach the center IAF becomes an IF after the PT/HILPT. On an approach with no FAF (facility on the field), the initial approach segment ends with interception of the final approach course. Then there's the type of approach where the facility is off the field and doubles as both an IAF before the PT and FAF after it. In that case, the intercept is with the intermediate segment, IIRC. Check it out and let me know if I need to review too.
Again, I disagree. The IAF is not necessarily an IF even when not on-field. Unless the IAF is also an IF it has no navigational significance one the approach commences.
Most approaches, lack published IFs. The intermediate segment is defined as the time you are established inbound.
While there is OFTEN a good reason to turn outbound on a standard PT, there's NO REQUIREMENT TO DO SO. The ONLY requirement is the turn be made within the distance specified and on the correct side of the course as indicated by the barb. You want to be established on the intermediate segment early enough, and turning outbound will generally help with this, although you need to be careful. Not exceeding the "remain with 10" is just as important and with the winds blowing you away from the airport, turning away may be problematic as well.
Most approaches, lack published IFs. The intermediate segment is defined as the time you are established inbound.
While there is OFTEN a good reason to turn outbound on a standard PT, there's NO REQUIREMENT TO DO SO. The ONLY requirement is the turn be made within the distance specified and on the correct side of the course as indicated by the barb. You want to be established on the intermediate segment early enough, and turning outbound will generally help with this, although you need to be careful. Not exceeding the "remain with 10" is just as important and with the winds blowing you away from the airport, turning away may be problematic as well.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I think I disagree with that statement.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Takes up less airspace, which makes terrain avoidance for the designer easier. There are some ILS approaches with HILPTs instead of procedure turns.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Policy was changed quite a few years ago to designate IF when the beginning of the intermediate segment is a fix (which is always the case with RNAV).
Rgbeard
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
- Messages
- 4,255
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
- Display Name
Display name:
rgbeard
I disagree.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I agree. As long as you don't exceed two minutes before commencing the turn and as long as your ground speed is under 180 kts, you shouldn't worry about exceeding the 10 mile limit. Besides, there's a six mile buffer beyond the 10 mile limit. I can't think of a good reason to turn back toward the airport rather than away from it.
For Cat "A" PTs, a maximum ground speed of 120 kts and no more than just one minute outbound before turning should remain within the limit. There, you would have another five miles or so buffer. Here's my reasoning, YMMV.
I don't see where we disagree on anything.
I think that the thing I was disagreeing with was that an IAF doesn't always turn into an IF. It does in the case of a HILO where the IAF happens to be the hold point, but that's kind of a special case (albeit the one we were discussing).
dtuuri
Final Approach
Right, sorry if I implied that. Sometimes it turns into a FAF the second time you cross it (or maybe even the missed approach fix).
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
You shouldn't be flying outbound 8 miles during entry. That's for when you are established in holding which wouldn't be an issue if ATC didn't put you in holding but you are just using the pattern for course reversal. You should only be flying outbound for 1 minute. Read AIM 5-3-8. It's long, you can start at 5-3-8 J. It's a few pages long to.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
You do realize it's a violation of POA TOS to actually provide supporting documentation, right?
'Cause it's easy. Just one turn 30 degrees to the left, hold course for a minute. Then a standard turn to the right back in on the approach course to the FAF.
eman1200
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,835
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
I mean, if that's your preference, or most people's, fine...if it's the recommended entry, fine. but it doesn't seem one ounce easier than a parallel entry to me.
dtuuri
Final Approach
It depends on the wind. You choose which way will give you the easiest intercept of the inbound course. No wind? Teardrop.
I won't quibble if that is your experience. But have you flown a parallel? (I only ask because I don't recall where you are in your training. I don't mean that question to be disparaging.) I just happen to personally find in my experience the teardrop easier to get back on the inbound course. If you find the parallel just as easy, then that's ok. I am not in anyway suggesting you should do the teardrop over the parallel if your experience is different. I urge you to do what you find is the easiest based on your experience, rather than what the AIM says is the recommended.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you have a 45 knot crosswind from the inbound the teardrop is not the best in my opinion, at least tracking the inbound outward on the parallel you can compensate for wind and figure out your correction.
Edited to make clearer.
Last edited:
eman1200
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,835
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
oh I definitely don't have the experience to say for sure. I def don't know wtf I'm talking about, hence the question. I've only done a few of each entry type, but based on that, so far, I haven't found one to be 'easier' than the other. when I encountered this scenario (the 650 painting a teardrop instead of my expectation of a parallel) I thought about it for a while then decided to do the teardrop for the reason you mentioned, to get back on the inbound course quicker.
"wind" makes a lot more sense to me than "it's easier", although I can understand the meanings may overlap.
Also, my experience is flying ILS/LOC approaches. I have not flown IFR with a fancy certified GPS. So, that could definitely affect your experience, and could make one seem just as simple as the other for you. That's just my limited experience.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you have a 45-knot crosswind from any direction, you should have a good idea of the correction required long before you get to the IAF.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Woulda coulda shoulda..… just giving my opinion, your mileage may vary.
SbestCFII
Line Up and Wait
Garmin units seem to have a "preference" for teardrops. However, you can fly what works best as long as you're going in the right direction and staying in the protected area, ATC really could care less.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
What your going to do after the entry might change how you decide to enter. If you’re just doing the entry for course reversal and then the Approach, getting established inbound a minute before you have to do the ‘time turn twist throttle talk’ boogie has it’s advantages. If your going into holding, then a ‘not a true parallel’ but a parallel where you actually join the holding radial outbound let’s you get your wind correction earlier. You aren’t really supposed to do this per FAA recommendation, you are supposed to cross the fix and ‘parallel’ when doing a parallel. AIM 5-3-8 J. 3. Some RNAV Navigators make it very easy to lead the turn and ‘fly-by’ the fix instead of crossing it and join the holding course outbound. Read AIM 5-3-8 J. 7. especially a. (2). You may want to have a chat with the DE about this before taking off on a checkride and find out how he feels about things.