Does ATC care how you enter a hold?

G

gbanker

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 15, 2018
Messages
6
Display Name
Display name:
gbanker
For example , if you enter a hold via a teardrop when you were supposed to do a parallel entry will you get yelled at?
 
For what it's worth, I really *hate* parallel entries.. they look ugly on your FF and if there are multiple clowns going around the race track and you cruise into it at the same altitude parallel then you're basically swimming upstream, and you're not really on the protected side.. at least the slow rate at which many people do the turn, twist, time, throttle, talk thing by the time they're flying outbound they're way on the wrong side. Frankly, imho they should be either teardrop or direct

Doc Holliday said:
Ever seen a hod entry from a ATC radar position?
Click to expand...
haha no, I was mostly just kidding though, Deelee got it. I have been to a tracon tour twice though and seen the 1960s James Bond looking things.. this is also where I discovered that these guys don't see the exact layer cake bravo boundaries

Awesomely low tech, our ATC guys do a tremendous job with the tools they're given
 
Tantalum said:
For what it's worth, I really *hate* parallel entries.. they look ugly on your FF and if there are multiple clowns going around the race track and you cruise into it at the same altitude parallel then you're basically swimming upstream, and you're not really on the protected side.. at least the slow rate at which many people do the turn, twist, time, throttle, talk thing by the time they're flying outbound they're way on the wrong side. Frankly, imho they should be either teardrop or direct
Click to expand...
If there is someone besides you in the holding pattern at the same altitude, there is something seriously wrong.
 
Palmpilot said:
If there is someone besides you in the holding pattern at the same altitude, there is something seriously wrong.
Click to expand...
I know, it's just a dumb phobia I have. The one here that everybody practices around freaks me out.
 
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...
The standard holding pattern entries are recommendations, not requirements.

The important thing is to remain in the protected airspace. The recommended entry procedures are designed to ensure that you do.

AIM 5-3-8.j.3.(d) 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.​
 
Tantalum said:
For what it's worth, I really *hate* parallel entries.. they look ugly on your FF and if there are multiple clowns going around the race track and you cruise into it at the same altitude parallel then you're basically swimming upstream, and you're not really on the protected side.. at least the slow rate at which many people do the turn, twist, time, throttle, talk thing by the time they're flying outbound they're way on the wrong side. Frankly, imho they should be either teardrop or direct
Click to expand...

Uh...that's not how it works. You should never be in the same hold at the same altitude with another aircraft.
 
The scale of the scopes I have seen when visiting ATC facilities back in the day was such that a holding pattern (if displayed) would take up about an inch, so unless your entry method is wildly wrong the controller would probably not see it. "Where are you going?" is the unofficial controller phraseology when this happens. My guess is that as soon as you read back the holding instructions the controller pretty much forgets about you until it is time for a further clearance, based on the assumption that you know what you are doing.
Bob Gardner
 
The controller only cares when you exit the hold for the approach.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Most controllers are unaware of holding entries.
Click to expand...

I don’t even remember entries being taught in Navy / Marine ATCS. Not sure about FAA academy syllabus but just asked a friend and he said had no training other than personal studies. Same goes for protected airspace. It can be put on radar video maps (ours didn’t) for “outer fixes” but not required. I didn’t have a clue about protected area criteria until I attended a TERPS class in the Army.

So no, I’d say most controllers don’t care about the entry, nor do they have the entries memorized.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
For what it's worth, I really *hate* parallel entries.. they look ugly on your FF and if there are multiple clowns going around the race track and you cruise into it at the same altitude parallel then you're basically swimming upstream, and you're not really on the protected side.. at least the slow rate at which many people do the turn, twist, time, throttle, talk thing by the time they're flying outbound they're way on the wrong side. Frankly, imho they should be either teardrop or direct./QUOTE]
Click to expand...

If you only used teardrop or direct, how would you fly this standard departure to the hold at Reno?

FMG8.jpg

If you did a teardrop, you'd end up on the non-protected side of the hold once you passed the VOR and if you did a direct entry, you'd have to turn to 41° before you got to the VOR.
 
DesertNomad said:
how would you fly this
Click to expand...
It's just a desire, like the abandonment of stop signs and red lights and just have "yield" everywhere

But, to to answer the question, it wouldn't be impossible to tear-drop this
upload_2020-5-28_19-48-0.png

**PS - to the replies about the same altitude thing, etc. You are all right. And the AIM, etc., was written (largely) to help us be safer, better pilots. Doesn't mean I have to love parallel entries..
 
Tantalum said:
For what it's worth, I really *hate* parallel entries.... and you're not really on the protected side...
Click to expand...
The “unprotected” side is actually protected about 2/3 as far from the course line as the protected side....even the FAA isn’t dumb enough to recommend flying into unprotected airspace.

But FWIW, I don’t do parallel entries unless the automation is doing it for me. To me it’s two entries in one, and more disorienting for the passengers.
 
That would be a pretty big turn. I guess I have flown this particular one so many times that I am just used to it. I fly parallel on 41° and then basically do your teardrop turn after 45 seconds or so depending on the wind (always windy here).

MauleSkinner said:
But FWIW, I don’t do parallel entries unless the automation is doing it for me. To me it’s two entries in one, and more disorienting for the passengers.
Click to expand...

So would you do it like the blue line in the post above? I have never heard of anyone doing that here.
 
Deelee said:
No as long as you stay on the protected side.
Click to expand...
THere's no protected "side." Both sides of the holding course have protection, just one is bigger than the other.
 
Years ago there was an argument amongst the flight instructors at our school about whether a certain procedure turn was required or not. The next time I shot the approach, I asked the controller what they expected us to do. She responded, “I never know what to expect from you pilots”. :)
 
Deelee said:
protected side.
Click to expand...

Tantalum said:
protected side..
Click to expand...

DesertNomad said:
non-protected side
Click to expand...

Common misunderstanding - there is no “unprotected side” of a holding pattern. The protected airspace on the opposite side from the holding direction has slightly less area, but still way more than you will ever need in a typical light GA airplane. Even the smallest holding pattern size has 3.5 nm of protection on the non-holding side, measured perpendicular to the holding course.

In a typical light GA airplane, you could actually fly the complete holding pattern backwards (left turns instead of right for example) and STILL have plenty of obstacle protection.

Remember, these holding pattern areas are designed for holding at the maximum authorized airspeed (200/230/265 kias depending on altitude), with an extremely adverse wind direction and lousy pilot technique. There’s a LOT of protection.
 
RussR said:
Common misunderstanding - there is no “unprotected side” of a holding pattern. The protected airspace on the opposite side from the holding direction has slightly less area, but still way more than you will ever need in a typical light GA airplane. Even the smallest holding pattern size has 3.5 nm of protection on the non-holding side, measured perpendicular to the holding course.

In a typical light GA airplane, you could actually fly the complete holding pattern backwards (left turns instead of right for example) and STILL have plenty of obstacle protection.

Remember, these holding pattern areas are designed for holding at the maximum authorized airspeed (200/230/265 kias depending on altitude), with an extremely adverse wind direction and lousy pilot technique. There’s a LOT of protection.
Click to expand...
For visual learners, here's my treatise on the matter: https://www.avclicks.com/presentations/No Holds Barred/
 
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...
They don't have a clue and likely aren't watching you enter the hold in any case.
 
RussR said:
Remember, these holding pattern areas are designed for holding at the maximum authorized airspeed (200/230/265 kias depending on altitude), with an extremely adverse wind direction and lousy pilot technique. There’s a LOT of protection.
Click to expand...
I agree, except for the lousy pilot technique part. That is open ended.
 
I just learned about this in my IR course. In the Sporty's course, they specifically say that pattern entry method is not a requirement, only that you hold as instructed or charted (which is that the inbound leg is to the point defining the hold and that the hold is on the side you're told). They even go so far as to describe how military training typically simplifies holds to either direct or parallel and gets rid of teardrop completely (or maybe they get rid of parallel and keep teardrop, point is it doesn't matter).

The course also shows how the protected area is determined (based on holding speeds at various altitudes) and shows that although most of the protected area is indeed on the holding side, the non-holding side is also protected as mentioned above. I think it was that 2/3 of the protected area is on the holding side and the other 1/3 is on the non-holding side.

Bottom line, holds are not precision maneuvers. Understand the purpose and understand where you're expected to be and for how long and of course do your best to make your holds look pretty on the flight track. Oh, and nail it exactly how you're "supposed to" for the test.
 
AU_James said:
I just learned about this in my IR course. In the Sporty's course, they specifically say that pattern entry method is not a requirement, only that you hold as instructed or charted (which is that the inbound leg is to the point defining the hold and that the hold is on the side you're told). They even go so far as to describe how military training typically simplifies holds to either direct or parallel and gets rid of teardrop completely (or maybe they get rid of parallel and keep teardrop, point is it doesn't matter).
Click to expand...
For my entire airline career we were required to enter a hold on every sim PC. We had to do the correct entry of the three, with a +/- 5 degree tolerance. These were early jets, such as the 707 or 727, which worked best holding at max permitted holding speed.
 
smv said:
Not sure where lies the fault, but here are a few screenshots of your presentation as displayed on a Samsung Galaxy S4 running Firefox in landscape mode...
Click to expand...
Sheesh! Good to know, thank you. I recently updated all the slides to run on the latest tablets and smart phones. I'll see what I can find out.
 
Tantalum said:
It's just a desire, like the abandonment of stop signs and red lights and just have "yield" everywhere

But, to to answer the question, it wouldn't be impossible to tear-drop this
View attachment 86224

**PS - to the replies about the same altitude thing, etc. You are all right. And the AIM, etc., was written (largely) to help us be safer, better pilots. Doesn't mean I have to love parallel entries..
Click to expand...

That's what I would do, for what it's worth.
 
smv said:
Not sure where lies the fault, but here are a few screenshots of your presentation as displayed on a Samsung Galaxy S4 running Firefox in landscape mode...
Click to expand...
I found out this:
​
For mobile devices, for Android users need to use Google Chrome, for iOS - Safari. iOS 9.х or higher (for iPad and iPhone) and Android 4.4 or higher.​
 
DesertNomad said:
That would be a pretty big turn
Click to expand...
It's smoother and less likely to mess up orientation. Make one 90 degree turn to the right, then after one minute (or whatever) turn back to the left on the inbound heading, and bang, you're basically in the hold.. also, outside of that initial turn to the right, you're always turning in the same direction (left), in that example. If you parallel that you make a slightly shallower turn at first (sure), but then crank in a u-turn one direction, and then quickly after another u-turn to the other direction.. I see lots of goofs when entering the OCN VOR-A hold here as a parallel, people undershoot, overshoot, etc., it's a mess. Parallels have a lot of manuevering before you're actually in the turn.
 
The FMS in the transport category aircraft I fly at work rarely does the "proper" hold entry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top