Teardrop Entry - Doesn't Make Sense?

Ron Levy said:
I don't think so. I think he suggested learning all the rules on protected airspace and developing your own personal method which stays in that airspace.
That would require factoring in a lot of variables, including wind, distance from fix, altitude, and airspeed. I find that too difficult and complicated, and prefer using the AIM-recommended entries which have all that factored in already for a "canned" solution.
Click to expand...
I guess I have a reading comprehension problem since I understand the word "if"

What you have to do, if you want to not be bothered about entry methods
Click to expand...
 
dtuuri said:
At the maximum authorized holding speed plus 50 kts of tailwind (incrementally increased per each thousand feet) and according to the holding template used in Order 7130.3A, but it only matters if you want to enter the pattern in some other way than recommended in the AIM. Use AIM entries and you're covered no matter what kind of airplane you fly. If you don't use them, you should be able to prove your technique will remain in protected airspace, which would be a lot of calculating after you get your hands on an FAA Form 8260-2 for the specific fix in question, which you probably can't anyway.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

And in a Cirrus SR22 turbo not slowing for a hold that would mean for the worst-case scenario heading outbound instead of within 30° of outbound...?
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
:dunno: Draw it out and show me that it fits.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Don't have to. You're the one saying it won't work at all and is horrible. I've already said I wouldn't use it or teach it but am otherwise neutral about it.
 
How many GA pilots get a hold a year? Of those that do how many are unpublished? If we're talking larger airports with holds published on the arrivals then they are all direct entry anyway. Is this really an issue for anyone?
 
Alexb2000 said:
How many GA pilots get a hold a year? Of those that do how many are unpublished? If we're talking larger airports with holds published on the arrivals then they are all direct entry anyway. Is this really an issue for anyone?
Click to expand...
I guarantee that anyone taking an IR practical test will get at least one, and have to go around enough times to show they can correct outbound heading and timing for wind. Beyond that, I get maybe half a dozen a year where it's a real hold (usually coming back to Salisbury with other planes ahead), maybe one or two unpublished, plus a dozen or more that are HPILPT's (entry and done) as part of SIAP's.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Don't have to. You're the one saying it won't work at all and is horrible. I've already said I wouldn't use it or teach it but am otherwise neutral about it.
Click to expand...

:confused: When did I say it's "horrible" and "it won't work"? IIRC, I said standard entries are covered by the AIM, i.e, it's a "safe harbor". Non-standard entries place the burden of proof on the perpetrator (trying my best to sound like a lawyer here :)).

dtuuri
 
You can turn any teardrop entry into a parallel entry by intercepting the radial a mile or two before getting to the fix. Now turn to the parallel heading and presto, you are on a parallel entry.

I dial in the FROM radial (ATC speaks only in from radials, so I dial in the radial they gave me in the holding instructions), and fly it. I leave the dial alone and just fly with reverse sensing, when it's doing that ie, I dont twist dials once set. BTW, it's easy to get turned around up there and forget which way the airport is. Going round and round in holds can be a bit hypnotising. Pilot beware.
 
dtuuri said:
:confused: When did I say it's "horrible" and "it won't work"? IIRC, I said standard entries are covered by the AIM, i.e, it's a "safe harbor". Non-standard entries place the burden of proof on the perpetrator (trying my best to sound like a lawyer here :)).

dtuuri
Click to expand...
So I misunderstood. It's OK that some IFR training program teaches it then.

I still wouldn't use it or teach it.
 
You can do the same thing with a straight in. Just interecept the incoming radial that defines the hold a mile or two before getting to the fix. Then fly the radial to the fix and it's easy.
 
coloradobluesky said:
ATC speaks only in from radials
Click to expand...
Not applicable to most holding, which occurs at intersections. The "from" radial they mention may well be "to" the fix and thinking as you say will cause confusion. Intercepting like you suggest assumes more navigation precision than may be available, possibly resulting in a gross undershoot.

dtuuri
 
midlifeflyer said:
So I misunderstood. It's OK that some IFR training program teaches it then.
Click to expand...
Not really. Again, what's the purpose for teaching something non-standard when the standard procedure is a piece of cake to begin with? (I get it that you don't teach it, I'm speaking past you.)

dtuuri
 
coloradobluesky said:
You can do the same thing with a straight in. Just interecept the incoming radial that defines the hold a mile or two before getting to the fix. Then fly the radial to the fix and it's easy.
Click to expand...

By "straight in", I take it you mean "direct" if the fix is (lucky for you) a VOR. No, you can't.

dtuuri
 
By straight in, I'm referring to entering the hold from the holding side of the fix. Why can't you intercept the radial that defines the fix, turn to that direction, and fly to the fix 1 or 2 miles before you get to the fix? I don't see ANY problem with that in the real world. Maybe some DE would object on a checkride (some would be ok with it, this is a widely known and used technique, not just me). So if you are saying its not the entry in the AIM, ok, I agree. It's not. But it's a technique that will get you into the hold, on the holding side of the fix. ATC will be fine with it.
 
This will explain everything.

holding_pattern_teardrop_angle.png
 
You can go straight in to a DME fix, or a GPS (usually 5 letter name) fix.
 
Ive never heard of ATC EVER giving an instruction in "TO" radials to a VOR. "TO" radials are for pilots. ALL ATC insructions will be on a From radial. The "From" is left out because thats all there is. Now they do use the cardinal directions to indicate which SIDE of the fix to hold on. I dial in the From radial because I think its easier. I don't have to figure the "To" Radial and use it. I just read the dial right and left reversed as necessary when I am "wiggling in" because I am flying TO on a FROM. No twisting every time I turn around that way. It's all mental. I might forget to twist. Whatever. If I hold at a VOR, I dial the from radial and fly it. Some might want to dial the TO radial if holding at a VOR. Fine with me. I have done it that way. I like to put my ATC instructions on my dials. Remember, you only have 1/2 a brain to do this with. For me that's not much :D

There are of course TO radials on approach charts. Also, it makes sense to use the TO radial if you are holding at a VOR and the approach is on the other side of the VOR with the same heading (the From radial on the other side will be the same as the To on the holding side). I've seen several VOR approaches that are set up this way.

At an intersection there are 4 possible holds on any one (from) radial.
At a VOR there are 2 possible holds on any one (from) radial.
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
You can turn any teardrop entry into a parallel entry by intercepting the radial a mile or two before getting to the fix. Now turn to the parallel heading and presto, you are on a parallel entry.
Click to expand...
This isn't something I've seen recommended by the FAA, the military, or anyone else in the instrument training business. First, if you are cleared direct to a fix, you are not authorized to deviate from that direct line to intercept the holding radial a couple of miles from the fix. Further, trying to intercept a radial only two miles or less from the fix can be very tricky and lead you to a lot of flailing about, or missing the fix entirely.
 
coloradobluesky said:
You can do the same thing with a straight in. Just interecept the incoming radial that defines the hold a mile or two before getting to the fix. Then fly the radial to the fix and it's easy.
Click to expand...
Again, this isn't as easy as it sounds, and it's a deviation from your clearance. I recommend sticking with the methods recommended by the FAA, the military, and everyone else in the instrument training business, starting with proceeding direct to the fix and then executing the entry from overhead the fix.
 
coloradobluesky said:
By straight in, I'm referring to entering the hold from the holding side of the fix. Why can't you intercept the radial that defines the fix, turn to that direction, and fly to the fix 1 or 2 miles before you get to the fix?
Click to expand...
First, it's not what you were cleared to do. Second, it's hard to aim precisely so you end up 1-2 miles out and not 3-5 miles out. Third, it's hard to pick a point to start the intercept turn to join the radial that close to the fix.

I don't see ANY problem with that in the real world. Maybe some DE would object on a checkride (some would be ok with it, this is a widely known and used technique, not just me). So if you are saying its not the entry in the AIM, ok, I agree. It's not. But it's a technique that will get you into the hold, on the holding side of the fix. ATC will be fine with it.
Click to expand...
Problem is, I don't think you can do that accurately and reliably across a wide range of arrival courses while staying within your assigned airspace, and especially meeting the PTS requirements to track accurately to the fix before starting the holding entry maneuver.

For example, let's say you're starting on the 320 radial at 10 miles from a VOR, and you've been told to hold east on the 090 radial, right turns. What heading do you fly, and when do you start your right turn to intercept the 090 radial inbound to the VOR? And how will you know you're tracking to the correct roll-in point?
 
Re: Direct Entry - Doesn't Make Sense?

VWGhiaBob said:
Why do we not draw the line at 90 degrees so that at the extreme,
Click to expand...

I actually do teach IFR students to use a 90 degree line instead of the 70 degree line, mainly because it's easier to remember and visualize. The only caveat is that the questions on the written test do assume the 70 degree line.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Ive never heard of ATC EVER giving an instruction in "TO" radials to a VOR. "TO" radials are for pilots. ALL ATC insructions will be on a From radial. The "From" is left out because thats all there is. Now they do use the cardinal directions to indicate which SIDE of the fix to hold on. I dial in the From radial because I think its easier. I don't have to figure the "To" Radial and use it. I just read the dial right and left reversed as necessary when I am "wiggling in" because I am flying TO on a FROM.
Click to expand...
I'm completely lost. So tell me -- you're on the ABC VOR 320/10 proceeding direct to ABC VOR when the controller clears you direct to ABC VOR, hold east of the ABC VOR on the 090 radial, right turns, 1 minute legs. Please tell us the process you will use (headings, OBS settings, CDI indications, etc, and when you'll make each turn) from the time of receipt of that clearance until you cross that fix on the correct inbound course in that hold.

Note that my process would be to continue tracking the 320 radial inbound with 140 course set until the flag flips, then execute a "by the book" parallel entry as follows:

  • Upon T/F flag flip:
    • Turn left 090
    • Time - start the timer at wings level,
    • Twist the CDI to 270
    • Throttle back to holding speed
    • Talk - report in holding.
  • Upon expiration of 1 minute
    • Turn (probably*) left to an intercept heading based on the CDI needle
    • Time - start the clock at wings level
    • Twist - check that 270 is set and the needle is coming in
    • Throttle - nothing to do
    • Talk - nothing to say
  • Upon T/F flag flip:
    • Turn right to 090 outbound
    • Time - start the clock at wings level
    • Twist - check that 270 is set and the needle is coming in
    • Throttle - nothing to do
    • Talk - nothing to say
* If at the end of the parallel leg, the needle was deflected south rather than north as would be normal for a parallel, the wind has blown me north of the radial, so I'd turn right for the intercept as an unintentional teardrop rather than left further north and possibly out of the protected space.

And unless the wind is really, really howling, this will keep me on my ATC-expected track and inside the protected airspace.
 
It seems that I may have misappropriated my expertise on this subject. I will be re-evaluating and extricating the misappropriation to reappropriate at a later date.
 
coloradobluesky said:
It seems that I may have misappropriated my expertise on this subject. I will be re-evaluating and extricating the misappropriation to reappropriate at a later date.
Click to expand...
Have you been talking to a lawyer? :eek:
 
No, a politician.

To Capn Ron. Is this something that I'm going to have to write down?
 
Actually, I'd do that one the same as you described. What I was referring to was turning a teardrop entry into a straight in like in the same hold but coming in on the 240 degree radial. Coming in on the 240 degree radial would be a teardrop entry right? So before you get to the fix, turn left and intercept the 270 radial going eastbound and cross the fix. You are now in a parallel entry. It works with my IFR GPS just fine. (Sorry about not doing the 5T's thing, I always miss those (usually because I think one of them means tits))...

But I really don't want to get into an argument with you, (primarily because Im afraid I'd lose)

The thing I like about my method, just two kinds of entries.
But, your way is better and by the book. Mine's more of a freight dog method.
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
Actually, I'd do that one the same as you described. What I was referring to was turning a teardrop entry into a straight in like in the same hold but coming in on the 240 degree radial. Coming in on the 240 degree radial would be a teardrop entry right? So before you get to the fix, turn left and intercept the 270 radial going eastbound and cross the fix. You are now in a parallel entry.
Click to expand...
Why in the world would you do that? And if you did, how would you know when to start the left turn to intercept, not to mention that you'd be deviating from your clearance?

It works with my IFR GPS just fine.
Click to expand...
I don't teach folks holding with the GPS until they can do it with nothing but a single VOR. That way, they really learn how to do it rather than just flying a little model airplane around a magenta racetrack.

The thing I like about my method, just two kinds of entries.
But, your way is better and by the book. Mine's more of a freight dog method.
Click to expand...
I've flown freight at night, and while it was a very long time ago, we never did anything like what you suggest. Of course, GPS didn't exist them, either.

I just don't see the point of trying to turn all your holding pattern entries when arriving from the fix end into parallels. Frankly, I much prefer teardrops because then you're doing the inbound course intercept a lot farther from the fix, and that's always a lot easier to do. With a bad wind, a parallel can pretty easily result in getting back to the fix without having intercepted, and then it's a real scramble to put the hold back together.

BTW, after 40+ years and many thousands of IFR flight hours, I still use the 5 T's when I fly instrument procedures myself. It really does help keep me organized and prioritized, especially when I get slammed into a procedure. I strongly recommend you reconsider your choice not to use this system (or one like it -- PIC's 5T's aren't the only choice) on a routine basis.
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
I can't imagine what kind of maneuver you are describing. Doesn't sound like anything I have experienced or taught. You are not required to intercept the holding course when outbound...not in the PTS requirements. Just stay within the protected airspace to do your course reversal and you will be just fine. I recommend the "when all else fails, do a teardrop" method because it keeps you inside the holding airspace (not applicable to direct entries, of course).

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

I'd like to add that executing a teardrop will give you more time on the inbound segment as opposed to performing a parallel entry, which will likely get you on the inbound course closer to the fix. This extra time will come in handy to get your house in order.
 
The only time any of this is gonna matter is on the written or the checkride.

fly to the hold point - fly outbound appropriately and stay on the protected side - set up the hold and fly into it. That's all you have to do. Ask for longer legs if that's gonna be easier for you. No one CARES what you actually fly so long as you hit the hold point, fly outbound appropriately and enter the hold and stay on the protected side.

If you want to fly a teardrop instead of a parallel entry - who cares - just stay on the protected side.

Once you realize this - it all becomes a lot easier.
 
comanchepilot said:
The only time any of this is gonna matter is on the written or the checkride.

fly to the hold point - fly outbound appropriately and stay on the protected side - set up the hold and fly into it. That's all you have to do. Ask for longer legs if that's gonna be easier for you. No one CARES what you actually fly so long as you hit the hold point, fly outbound appropriately and enter the hold and stay on the protected side.

If you want to fly a teardrop instead of a parallel entry - who cares - just stay on the protected side.

Once you realize this - it all becomes a lot easier.
Click to expand...

You are 100%. A friend of mine is a controller and I discussed holds with him while I was going through my IR training. He said he could care less how you enter the hold as long as you stay on the projected side and hold your altitude.
 
the400kid said:
You are 100%. A friend of mine is a controller and I discussed holds with him while I was going through my IR training. He said he could care less how you enter the hold as long as you stay on the projected side and hold your altitude.
Click to expand...
You do not have to stay on the "protected" side (more properly called the holding side), but if you're on the "unprotected" (non-holding) side, you have to stay closer to the holding courseline than on the holding side. That's why parallel entries are safe even though you're on the non-holding side for much of the entry. IOW, there are a few miles of protected space on the non-holding side, just not as many as on the holding side.
 
brcase said:
Ok What is confusing you is the possible left 110 degree followed by a right 180 degree turn. In practice this is not how you do a direct entry, The slight over simplified version is you just make a right 60 degree turn to the outbound leg. In practice you would wait a few seconds after passing the Holding fix before turning right.

So by Direct entry they simply mean you start turning to your Outbound leg heading when you cross the fix.

Brian
Click to expand...

This.

This is how you actually fly it. Remember you are inside the protected area of the hold oval at that point, no need to jog left 110 then right 180. Just cross the fix and turn to the outbound.
 
brcase said:
Ok What is confusing you is the possible left 110 degree followed by a right 180 degree turn. In practice this is not how you do a direct entry, The slight over simplified version is you just make a right 60 degree turn to the outbound leg. In practice you would wait a few seconds after passing the Holding fix before turning right.

So by Direct entry they simply mean you start turning to your Outbound leg heading when you cross the fix.

Brian
Click to expand...

I was confused as well and this explanation cleared it up for me; reanimating this necrothread for the current batch of IR students.
 
Probably been said, I haven't read the thread yet. The 70 degree thing is what results in the least amount of airspace to be protected when radius of turns are considered. Not a good idea to not comply with the recommended entry procedures if you are flying close to the max holding air speeds. I fly slow airplanes that don't get anywhere close to that and cheat the "recommended" entry procedures if it results in an easier entry. I don't do parallels very often.
 
newhold.png
Take a look at this one. It sometimes throws pilots a curve because the radial is SE of the VOR but the hold is NW of the holding point. No biggie once you understand it.

I find that once pilots draw where the hold is, entries are easy.
Take your time making the drawing. ATC is supposed to give a pilot 3 minutes before he gets to the hold. Takes some time to get it right. Go easy, don't get in a hurry. Patience youngfellamelad....
 
Last edited:
Took me a while to realize this was a necro thread. Just push the "hold" button on the MFD and let the Cirrus figure it out and fly it for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top