KHEF ARSENAL FIVE question

[dtuuri]

...he was trying to figure out the answer to an incredibly simple instrument knowledge test question asking for the correct AIM entry. Of course, it's not his fault. It's the incredibly over-complicated way holding tends to be taught. And, in case no one noticed, he got it backwards.

Considering he was drawing something on a map instead of visualizing it on a DG/HSI, no wonder he got confused. Actually, he drew it correctly, if we don't mind standing on our heads to read it, but he labeled it wrong (should be 54°/234°). According to the AIM, holding pattern design allows a 5 degree tolerance. You can't get that accuracy freehand drawing on paper, IMO. Besides, by the time you arrive at the fix your drawing is old news. The correct entry is determined by the latest heading as you cross the fix, so you need eyes on the DG/HSI and a simple visualization to achieve the recommended entry at the last instant. A visualization you love to disparage, btw, for no good reason other than you once couldn't do it.

 

[Flying Keys]

Considering he was drawing something on a map instead of visualizing it on a DG/HSI, no wonder he got confused. Actually, he drew it correctly, if we don't mind standing on our heads to read it, but he labeled it wrong (should be 54°/234°). According to the AIM, holding pattern design allows a 5 degree tolerance. You can't get that accuracy freehand drawing on paper, IMO. Besides, by the time you arrive at the fix your drawing is old news. The correct entry is determined by the latest heading as you cross the fix, so you need eyes on the DG/HSI and a simple visualization to achieve the recommended entry at the last instant. A visualization you love to disparage, btw, for no good reason other than you once couldn't do it.

I’m trying to follow - you’re saying just rotate the drawing 180° and it will be fine or that the headings are mislabeled? I’m going to offer that it’s more messed up than that as the entry sectors are wayyy off. The correct answer would be to superimpose the attached, very crude drawing.

The only thing that would make the original drawing correct (besides relabeling the E/W line 054/234) is if the contextual holding instructions were “hold NORTH of FOSOV, 164° inbound course, left turns” instead of the charted “hold south, 344° inbound, right turns.”

 

[dtuuri]

I’m trying to follow - you’re saying just rotate the drawing 180° and it will be fine or that the headings are mislabeled? I’m going to offer that it’s more messed up than that as the entry sectors are wayyy off. The correct answer would be to superimpose the attached, very crude drawing.

The only thing that would make the original drawing correct (besides relabeling the E/W line 054/234) is if the contextual holding instructions were “hold NORTH of FOSOV, 164° inbound course, left turns” instead of the charted “hold south, 344° inbound, right turns.”

Your drawing is for a non-standard pattern, this is for a standard one where the visualized overlay on the DG should have the small pie-shaped sector to the right. I.e., right turns = small pie to the right. Then look for the outbound heading and enter according to the sector. Of course, I'm picturing it on a DG not the map, which is how your drawing looks to me. If your drawing is supposed to be over the ground that could explain our differences. See my slide #19 and beyond for my dissertation on how this is done. It's actually simple as pie if you just do it and don't care why it works: You Can Expect to Hold (avclicks.com)

 

[Flying Keys]

Your drawing is for a non-standard pattern where the visualized overlay on the DG should have the small pie-shaped sector to the right. I.e., right turns = small pie to the right. Then look for the outbound heading and enter according to the sector.

My drawing, as stated, is north-up, so rotate as you wish. But I don’t think that clarifies that the original drawing, as superimposed on the chart (also north-up) had many more errors. I’m still not following the “pie to the right” as it depends on which direction you’re looking at the hold (north-up as charted, or south-up as you’d see as you approach in this case). I think we have to agree on which perspective we’re taking to standardize our understanding.

edit: my drawing was for the particular hold on the chart, nothing non-standard.

 

[dtuuri]

I’m still not following the “pie to the right”

Please review my tutorial I linked to in my edit.

 

[Flying Keys]

Please review my tutorial I linked to in my edit.

dturri, the way I drew the hold (with the hold drawn in green south of the fix - as charted, right turns, 344 inbound), regardless of compass orientation, cannot be interpreted with a flipped P/T sector. If we rotate it so south is up (as you’d expect to see on the DG), we may be on the same page, but I think the drawn hold is the key to the interpretation of my drawing.

 

[Flying Keys]

To clarify, I drew it that way because the OP for that side-topic drew it over the chart in the same manner albeit incorrectly, so my instruction in my first post was to superimpose my drawing over the chart.

 

[dtuuri]

dturri, the way I drew the hold (with the hold drawn in green south of the fix - as charted, right turns, 344 inbound), regardless of compass orientation, cannot be interpreted with a flipped P/T sector. If we rotate it so south is up (as you’d expect to see on the DG), we may be on the same page, but I think the drawn hold is the key to the interpretation of my drawing.

I saw this as an attempt to use the visualization overlay on a DG. In that respect, it's correct except for the labels on the tilted line. If the arrival heading read, say, 150° instead of 164° then the outbound heading would be 14° to the right indicating a teardrop entry.

 

[Flying Keys]

I saw this as an attempt to use the visualization overlay on a DG. In that respect, it's correct except for the labels on the tilted line. If the arrival heading read, say, 150° instead of 164° then the outbound heading would be 14° to the right indicating a teardrop entry.
View attachment 108771

My original intent in posting was to say that it’s not just a matter of mis-labeling the headings on the lines, but that the entry sectors are completely wrong on the original drawing and cannot be rectified by simply rotating the heading card or relabeling - it requires a flip and a flop. I attached what the drawing should look like as viewed when approaching the hold from the north, with a south-up perspective. I hope that makes sense.

 

[dtuuri]

I hope that makes sense.

What makes sense is your perspective is a ground track overhead view and mine is a cockpit-oriented view using the DG. One of aviation's greatest mysteries is how the two systems are mirror images — if you don't recognize that, you'll be wrong half the time! See my tutorial for demystification. Sort of the same as a bathroom mirror switching left to right, but not top to bottom.

 

[aterpster]

With practice, it is simply not that complicated.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Interesting. CFII instilled that all turns need to be constant rate.

Wait. You are doing a full approach with a HILPT. The FAC is 360. You are making the turn to intercept the final approach course. As you approach a heading of 320 you notice the needle is still pegged left. Do you
(a) stop turning, wait for the needle to start coming in, and then resume the turn
(b) continue to turn to 360 even though you will end up paralleling the course and never intercept it
?
We're dealing with a similar issue here, you begin the turn and everything tells you it will not intercept the desired radial. So you stop and create a viable intercept.

 

[luvflyin]

Wait. You are doing a full approach with a HILPT. The FAC is 360. You are making the turn to intercept the final approach course. As you approach a heading of 320 you notice the needle is still pegged left. Do you
(a) stop turning, wait for the needle to start coming in, and then resume the turn
(b) continue to turn to 360 even though you will end up paralleling the course and never intercept it
?
We're dealing with a similar issue here, you begin the turn and everything tells you it will not intercept the desired radial. So you stop and create a viable intercept.

Good analogy and would apply to plain ol’ PT

 

[midlifeflyer]

Good analogy and would apply to plain ol’ PT

Thanks. To me it just makes sense that when the idea is to intercept a course, you fly a heading to...well...intercept the course.