Understanding how to fly a holding pattern

coloradobluesky said:
How much time does ATC give you between the holding instructions and the plane getting to the hold. That is the amount of time the pilot has to figure out where the hold is and how to enter it.
Click to expand...

Heh. I've had holding instructions reach me after I crossed the fix. Sure, getting a picture of the hold in your mind, or better yet on the DG, ahead of time is good, but it depends on your heading over the fix. The TO/FR flips, so BANG, look at the outbound heading on the DG. Do the entry the pie slice calls for. Simple pimple.

dtuuri
 
luvflyin said:
5 minutes
Click to expand...


From the 7110.65:

6. Pilot Action.
(a) Start speed reduction when 3 minutes or less from the holding fix. Cross the holding fix, initially, at or below the maximum holding airspeed.
(b) Make all turns during entry and while holding at:
(1) 3 degrees per second; or
(2) 30 degree bank angle; or
(3) 25 degree bank provided a flight director system is used.

Bob Gardner
 
dtuuri said:
Zero time, AFAIK. You turn at the fix to either the outbound heading or the teardrop one, depending on your arrival heading at station passage. Why do you want time?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the length of time required to determine the bearing of the 70 degree dividing line, determine which side of that line you're on, and correlate that to the recommended entry diagram is zero?
 
Palmpilot said:
Are you saying that the length of time required to determine the bearing of the 70 degree dividing line, determine which side of that line you're on, and correlate that to the recommended entry diagram is zero?
Click to expand...
Maybe less than half a second?

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Not only did it back then, it's still the standard according to the AIM.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

April 1994 issue of AFS-600 Designee Update Vol. 6, No. 2,

===== Start of Quote ======

HOLDING PATTERNS

There is a continuing debate within the flight instructor community regarding holding pattern entry procedures. A question frequently asked is, "As a flight instructor, am I required to teach the three recommended holding pattern entry procedures defined in the Instrument Flying Handbook and the AIM?" The answer is YES. In the introduction to the Practical Test Standards (PTS), it is the CFI's responsibility to train the student in all tasks listed in the PTS.

Another question frequently asked, "Must the pilot examiner test the applicant using the recommended holding pattern entry, or can the applicant use any desired method? In the past, an applicant would have been required to use one of the three recommended procedures; however, a change has occurred.

The January 6, 1994, issue of the AIM, page 5-3-7, paragraph (d), now states: "While Other entry procedures may enable the aircraft to enter the holding pattern and remain within protected airspace, the parallel, teardrop and direct entries are the procedures for entry and holding recommended by the FAA."

If an applicant elects to use holding pattern entry procedures other than those recommended by the FAA and, in doing so, remains within the holding pattern airspace to be protected, the procedure would be acceptable if accomplished safely.

===== End of Quote ======

And yes, that language is still in the AIM.

So I teach the three recommended procedures but inform students and pilots that they are not gospel and if they prefer to add 30° to an AIM parallel entry because they prefer teardrop, they are welcome to do so.
 
Gucci Pilot said:
The proof is basic math. The standard rate 90 degree turn radius is .5% x KTAS(or GS if you know it). The 1/2 standard rate 90 degree turn radius is 1% x KTAS(GS). For a 180 degree turn it is twice that of the 90 degree turn. Two planes going exactly the same speed arrive at a VOR, one on the holding course, one 90 degrees on the non holding side. Holding course plane makes a standard rate 180 degree turn. 90 degree off airplane makes the same direction turn at half standard rate...They both reach the same point in space on the holding side.
Click to expand...

Don't even have to go that far. Out of curiosity, I've experimented on simulators with 40 KT crosswinds. No problem. It's protected airspace for a jet going 200 KTS at 6,000' and below. Yeah, sure, that 172 going 90 is gonna be out of the area by going parallel rather than teardrop. Heck it can probably turn the wrong way entirely and be in the protected airspace on the wrong side of the holding course (although I wouldn't recommend doing that!).

Besides, if an Examiner is going to bust someone because they are outside protected airspace, it is up to the Examiner to prove they are outside. Good luck with that.

OTOH, for some, I guess it's very important to keep it complicated so everyone can complain about them.
 
midlifeflyer said:
April 1994 issue of AFS-600 Designee Update Vol. 6, No. 2,

===== Start of Quote ======

HOLDING PATTERNS

Etc, etc..
Click to expand...
Yes, I know all that. It doesn't change the fact that 5° is still the acceptable standard in the AIM. Now, if anybody wants to use some other entry how do you propose they prove it stays within the protected airspace of the specific pattern?

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Maybe less than half a second?

dtuuri
Click to expand...
It would take me longer than flying the complete hold. And with my mental math ability, would get it wrong and head in the wrong direction. BTDT. That is, until I simplified it by drawing it an entering the obvious path.

I teach the AIM-recommended holds and I do the drawings so the student can see how it fits. Beyond that, I try to use a method that makes sense to the pilot. If that 70° break click for her, great. If not, we try something else.

Had an instrument student for whom holds were a piece of cake. Complete mental visualization. No drawings, no calculations, no pens, pencils or thumbs and forefingers held up to the DG. He just saw it.

in an effort to mess with him a little early on I tried a DME hold, on the theory they are a bit more difficult to visualize. I screwed up the instruction. Before the EFC time left my lips, he said, "That doesn't work. You can't do that"

Why in heavens name I would ruin that by insisting only my way is right, I don't know.
 
dtuuri said:
Yes, I know all that. It doesn't change the fact that 5° is still the acceptable standard in the AIM. Now, if anybody wants to use some other entry how do you propose they prove it stays within the protected airspace of the specific pattern?

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Nope. The basis for failure is that I am outside protected airspace. I am either in or out. How do you propose the DPE prove I was outside?

You really think there is any way a Cessna 172 doing a parallel rather than teardrop entry (or vice versa) is going to be outside of protected airspace? Really? Do the drawings and forget your personal instance on the math. the math.

We're not talking about ding maneuvers on the wrong side of the holding course.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Besides, if an Examiner is going to bust someone because they are outside protected airspace, it is up to the Examiner to prove they are outside.
Click to expand...
Nah, the recommended entry is certified to be within the protection, the onus is on the contrarian.

midlifeflyer said:
OTOH, for some, I guess it's very important to keep it complicated so everyone can complain about them.
Click to expand...
It's easy and accurate when you do the pie trick. The only ones complaining don't.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Nah, the recommended entry is certified to be within the protection, the onus is on the contrarian.


dtuuri
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. I don't see anything that requires proof. Just performance.

But if you are stuck on the trees and can't see the forest, that's the way it is.
 
I guess the good ole days of dual NDB intersection holding are over...?? :D
 
So can anyone explain why one can't just fly to the fix and turn outbound?

I know it isn't taught that way, but dangit, I just don't see why not.
 
SkyHog said:
So can anyone explain why one can't just fly to the fix and turn outbound?

I know it isn't taught that way, but dangit, I just don't see why not.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting involved in the teaching & checking part, but from a practical standpoint, as long as you stay in protected airspace, you can do figure eights if you like.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Completely disagree. I don't see anything that requires proof. Just performance.
Click to expand...
So, if performance is the measure, how ya gonna measure up to this?
AIM 5-3-8 j.6.(d)
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.​
dtuuri
 
bobmrg said:
DME changes the rules. If the holding fix is a DME distance, you can certainly steer 210 to the fix and be northeast of it. Not true of a navaid or intersection.
Click to expand...

I know you know this, but for new folks reading the thread, the above is also true for a fix that is defined by two VOR radials.
 
dtuuri said:
So, if performance is the measure, how ya gonna measure up to this?
AIM 5-3-8 j.6.(d)
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.​
dtuuri
Click to expand...
Not required by the PTS since at least 1994. One must have a general awareness of the difference between "recommendation" and "requirement."

It really would be a shame to see a DPE with so little situational awareness that he doesn't know whether the airplane is in protected airspace or not unless an AIM entry is being performed within 5 degrees. Even worse would be the one who fails a student, knowing that he is in protected airspace.

Guess I'll have to make sure my student gets someone reasinable as an examiner. Fortunately, that's not too much of a problem.
 
Last edited:
Blueangel said:
Thanks folks for the overwhelming response. I had two CFII who were unable to teach me how to do a hold so that it made sense. One teaches IFR ground school. I did find these videos helpful:

http://klaviation.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xgolLCIDZU

Kings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMBVJ_oEJRg

Sorry about my bad example.

I find the FAA books and other books do a poor job of explaining the concept for holding patterns and make it more difficulty to understand than necessary.
Click to expand...
They do indeed.
 
bobmrg said:
From the 7110.65:

6. Pilot Action.
(a) Start speed reduction when 3 minutes or less from the holding fix. Cross the holding fix, initially, at or below the maximum holding airspeed.
(b) Make all turns during entry and while holding at:
(1) 3 degrees per second; or
(2) 30 degree bank angle; or
(3) 25 degree bank provided a flight director system is used.

Bob Gardner[/QUOTE

That's from the AIM. The controllers rule from 7110.65 is;

4. When delay is expected, issue items in
subparas a and b at least 5 minutes before the aircraft
is estimated to reach the clearance limit. If the traffic
situation requires holding an aircraft that is less than
5 minutes from the holding fix, issue these items
immediately.
NOTE−
1. The AIM indicates that pilots should start speed
reduction when 3 minutes or less from the holding fix. The
additional 2 minutes contained in the 5−minute require-
ment are necessary to compensate for different
pilot/controller ETAS at the holding fix, minor differences
in clock times, and provision for sufficient planning and
reaction times.

a. and b. are clearance limit and holding instructions. I wouldn't count on getting that 5 minutes though.
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
So can anyone explain why one can't just fly to the fix and turn outbound?

I know it isn't taught that way, but dangit, I just don't see why not.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is sometimes taught exactly that way. I have a friend who went through an accelerated program where they dropped the teardrop altogether.

I personally use all three but when relatively close prefer a teardrop to parallel for a number of reasons (I regularly reject the "HOLD PARALLEL" message on a GPS), but having seen him doing it, it works as well as most other techniques.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not required by the PTS since at least 1994. One must have a general awareness of the difference between "recommendation" and "requirement."
Click to expand...
If an organization, the USAF for instance, studies the issue and develops alternate entry methods that comply the same as FAA recommended entries do or an individual has the same proof, ok. Entry methods are still tasks on the test and the examiner needs to know beforehand what method is being evaluated.

midlifeflyer said:
It really would be a shame to see a DPE with so little situational awareness...
Click to expand...
Oh stop it. You know good and well the examiner can't tell where the boundaries are for any holding pattern without a Form 8260-2 and the specific holding template in hand. Even then, a GPS track would be required too. So, you effectively remove the task from the PTS with this ridiculous placement of responsibility. I think a judge would find fault with the USAF if a fighter jet overran a holding pattern, like United overran TWA over New York City killing many, due to entry methods less perfect than the FAA recommends.

midlifeflyer said:
...that he doesn't know whether the airplane is in protected airspace or not unless an AIM entry is being performed within 5 degrees. Even worse would be the one who fails a student, knowing that he is in protected airspace.
Click to expand...
I've only said, if I were DPE, I'd make the applicant show me the methods he or she intends to utilize if non-standard and prove they are equivalent. Then I'd use the 5° tolerance applied to the applicant's own "proven" equivalent.

midlifeflyer said:
Guess I'll have to make sure my student gets someone reasinable as an examiner. Fortunately, that's not too much of a problem.
Click to expand...
You're right there. Flight Standards dumbed down the test requirement without the rest of the FAA's consensus. I doubt that the decision would find favor with the folks who map the airspace and fight the FAA's legal battles. You could write them and ask to have the 5° tolerance removed from the AIM. Then they could remove entry requirements from the PTS. Uh, should airline pilots be exempted too? Do we/you really want that?

dtuuri
 
luvflyin said:
a. and b. are clearance limit and holding instructions. I wouldn't count on getting that 5 minutes though.
Click to expand...
I think the shortest I've received in flight was about 2 minutes and as I would ordinarily do, I immediately slowed down to holding speed (it might avoid a hold altogether).

But if a pilot has a method of figuring out holds that works for them it really does not take very long to figure out the entry. That's the whole point of my side of the silly rant with Dave - the idea that choosing the "correct" recommended entry in exactly the right way is more important than a pilots using a method that works and is best for her situational awareness, is absurd to me.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's the whole point of my side of the silly rant with Dave - the idea that choosing the "correct" recommended entry in exactly the right way is more important than a pilots using a method that works and is best for her situational awareness, is absurd to me.
Click to expand...

That's a false choice, both are the standard. Having standards is not "silly".

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
I

I've only said, if I were DPE, I'd make the applicant show me the methods he or she intends to utilize if non-standard and prove they are equivalent. Then I'd use the 5° tolerance applied to the applicant's own "proven" equivalent.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
How about a specific example.

I am taking a checkride. Let's make it a faster airplane. Say a Mooney and my holding speed is 120 KTS. We are coming from the northeast toward the ABC VOR when the holding clearance comes: "Hold south of the ABC VOR on the 170° radial. Expect further clearance...."

So, I copy the clearance, slow down to my holding speed and, since this is a checkride, say out loud. "Well, this is definitely not a direct entry - it would be to much maneuvering. But, although I see a parallel works well, I prefer a teardrop." As we cross the fix I turn left to a heading of 130°, kicking in an extra 10° (oh no! more than 5°!!!) because the winds are generally from the east. I give it a minute and turn right to intercept the inbound course.

Got a problem with that? Got a counter-scenario to show how horribly dangerous that choice is?

Airline? I'm not a Part 135 or 121 pilot subject to stricter rules and the restrictions in a set of OpSpecs. IfI were I would do what the company asks in the name of operational consistency. I'd even be willing for forego using my personalized checklists.
 
dtuuri said:
That's a false choice, both are the standard. Having standards is not "silly".

dtuuri
Click to expand...
That's out ultimate disagreement that we obviously won't get past.

You see the AIM recommendations as Standards.

I see the Standard as remaining in protected airspace with positive aircraft control and situational awareness and the 3 AIM recommended entries merely as methods to get you there, not standards in themselves.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, Dave.
 
There is a great holding pattern entry quiz available for Android through the app store

Quiz yourself over lunch!
 
The easiest way for me is to use the heading indicator once I'm heading direct to the holding fix.

Direct is always the large, bottom sector.
The horizontal line is offset 20deg from horizontal (only matters if your outbound course falls within 20deg of the left or right wing)
The smaller sector is teardrop sector.
To remember the P vs T sector use "Proper Turns" for standard (right) turns.

Holding%20Pattern%20Entry%20DG%20Visualizer%20Lg.jpg
 
There are dozens of ways to learn holds. I have no idea what the "thumb method" is. I
too experimented with different ways to learn holds.

There is an app for depicting holds if that helps you. I think it will probably just be a crutch and should be saved for after the written since you can't bring it in anyway.

Things to remember:

The acute angle (the 70 deg angle) that precipitates* a teardrop entry is ALWAYS on the non-hold side of the fix. Once you remember that then you won't have to think about right turns vs left turns.

*see what I did there :D
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
...although that's a neat trick for spacing, the second plane is immediately starting to move outbound while the first one spends the same time moving in the opposite direction and finally returns to abeam the starting place at rollout. They might both roll out at the same time, but won't be at the same point in space on the outbound leg.
Click to expand...

Ok they won't be over the exact same point. But the same displacement from the inbound course line. You did exactly what I'm talking about in slide 44 of the slideshow you provided.

SkyHog said:
So can anyone explain why one can't just fly to the fix and turn outbound?

I know it isn't taught that way, but dangit, I just don't see why not.
Click to expand...

You can.

dtuuri said:
If an organization, the USAF for instance, studies the issue and develops alternate entry methods that comply the same as FAA recommended entries do or an individual has the same proof, ok. Entry methods are still tasks on the test and the examiner needs to know beforehand what method is being evaluated.
Click to expand...

We did. The 70 degree method.

Direct if the inbound course is within 70 degrees of the aircrafts heading.
If it isn't, parallel. You can teardrop if you want if you are conveniently aligned with the teardrop course(usually 45 degrees as a guide).

midlifeflyer said:
I see the Standard as remaining in protected airspace with positive aircraft control and situational awareness and the 3 AIM recommended entries merely as methods to get you there, not standards in themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this. On my checkride I got flustered and instead of doing the "recommended" parallel entry I did a 45/180 course reversal. Examiner said I stayed on the protected side and the entry methods were only recommendations so he couldn't fail me on it.
 
If the hold isnt on the chart:
I draw the hold. Then draw the 20 degree line. And whatever quadrant Im in, I fly that approach. I dont quibble about the boundry, whatever it looks like on my drawing. If its close either will work.

If the hold is on the chart i draw my planes inbound direction and do the same as above with that.

My plane has an IFR GPS that I put in OBS mode and get a line on the map for the inbound and I have the holding waypoint on there. I put the holding waypoint in my flight plan and do a Direct TO to it.

The only holds Ive had to fly in IMC or VMC were charted holds. Pretty typical. I got a VFR hold once that was "go around twice right where you are" thing. ATC knows to make it as easy on the pilot as possible. They dont actually issue complicated uncharted holds much. If they give you one of those, INSIST on enough time to figure it out.

Its mostly just a training thing.
 
Don't know why you guys are making it so complicated...it's pretty easy
 
Larry in TN said:
The easiest way for me is to use the heading indicator once I'm heading direct to the holding fix.

Direct is always the large, bottom sector.
The horizontal line is offset 20deg from horizontal (only matters if your outbound course falls within 20deg of the left or right wing)
The smaller sector is teardrop sector.
To remember the P vs T sector use "Proper Turns" for standard (right) turns.

Holding%20Pattern%20Entry%20DG%20Visualizer%20Lg.jpg
Click to expand...

Even with this, it seems to make sense to me to fly direct, even in the upper two "parallel" and "teardrop" entries. A quick right turn, and boom, you're right on the outbound turn, within the protected area.
 
petrolero said:
There are dozens of ways to learn holds. I have no idea what the "thumb method" is.
Click to expand...
Look at the graphic immediately above your post. The thumb method is a variation on the theme, also done with pencils and pens.

In this case, replace the vertical line on the diagram with your thumb and your first finger approximates the angle. Right hand for right turns; left hand for left turns.

It definitely works for many people and I even have taught it but, if you think I was ranting before, I'll just say I absolutely detest this method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top