Parallel Entry Question

Trogdor

Trogdor

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
419
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
Trogdor
Is there any reason why on the second turn one should intercept the inbound course versus just flying to the fix and treating it as a direct entry?

I know silly, but I read somewhere (AIM? I forgot) that instead of intercepting the inbound course one could just fly to the fix direct (this is the second turn after flying parallel to on the outbound heading for a minute) during their course reversal and then turn accordingly.

It seems like no CFII teaches it this way but it does seem like an easier maneuver than trying to intercept the inbound course (180+45 etc.).
 
Wouldn’t you be going the wrong way?

Maybe I’m not understanding your question.
 
Here’s what the AIM has to say…
(a) Parallel Procedure. When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in sector (a), the parallel entry procedure would be to turn to a heading to parallel the holding course outbound on the nonholding side for one minute, turn in the direction of the holding pattern through more than 180 degrees, and return to the holding fix or intercept the holding course inbound.
Click to expand...

so according to the FAA, you can do it either way.

why “no CFII” teaches one or the other is probably because many instructors just parrot what they were taught (or thought they were taught), or teach what they can understand/do, rather than studying FAA or other guidance and providing options.
 
Kritchlow said:
Wouldn’t you be going the wrong way?

Maybe I’m not understanding your question.
Click to expand...

You're not. First turn is on the outbound heading. One minute. Then instead of turning to intercept the inbound course (180+~45) just turn toward the fix (the rest is like a direct entry). Both turns will keep you on the protected side.
 
Trogdor said:
Is there any reason why on the second turn one should intercept the inbound course versus just flying to the fix and treating it as a direct entry?
Click to expand...
To get an idea of the wind correction needed, but you have to be quick about it. Not saying you should always do it that way, though.
 
Well, you could only go direct to the fix if you are holding at a VOR or using GPS. For holding at a DME fix or an intersection without using GPS, you can't go direct to the fix.

So if you intercept the inbound course even when you don't have to, you're ready for when you do have to (i.e. having one consistent method).

Also, heading direct to the fix does require an additional twist of the OBS knob to keep track of and not lose situational awareness.

So many of the procedures we fly (not just holding) and the training to do them are based around obsolete or almost-obsolete methods and technologies, because they work, and there isn't any real impetus to change them. I mean, holding on a 4-course range used pretty much the same procedures, if I remember what I've read.
 
Trogdor said:
Is there any reason why on the second turn one should intercept the inbound course versus just flying to the fix and treating it as a direct entry?

I know silly, but I read somewhere (AIM? I forgot) that instead of intercepting the inbound course one could just fly to the fix direct (this is the second turn after flying parallel to on the outbound heading for a minute) during their course reversal and then turn accordingly.

It seems like no CFII teaches it this way but it does seem like an easier maneuver than trying to intercept the inbound course (180+45 etc.).
Click to expand...
I had a CFII that taught going direct is fine for a VOR. Do the outbound parallel, hang a 180, twist to center the needle and go direct. This was before GPS existed. Ain't no rule says you can't do that today. Or go direct to any fix that way if you have the Navigational equipment to do it.
 
Trogdor said:
Is there any reason why on the second turn one should intercept the inbound course versus just flying to the fix and treating it as a direct entry?

I know silly, but I read somewhere (AIM? I forgot) that instead of intercepting the inbound course one could just fly to the fix direct (this is the second turn after flying parallel to on the outbound heading for a minute) during their course reversal and then turn accordingly.

It seems like no CFII teaches it this way but it does seem like an easier maneuver than trying to intercept the inbound course (180+45 etc.).
Click to expand...
You can do it either way. And I think you are incorrect that "no CFI" teaches it that way. (Actually, I was taught to fly direct to the fix on the first inbound after a parallel entry. But I avoid it now.)

Try both and see which way you like better. Many prefer the interception method because it establishes you on the inbound course before reaching the fix. That has some advantages for situational awareness and stability, especially when the next leg is not another turn around the hold but a continuation and perhaps descent inbound on an approach.
 
David Megginson said:
  1. Stay on the protected side.
Click to expand...

This implies that one side is protected while the other is not. The is completely untrue. Both sides are protected, however, the non-holding side has a slightly smaller amount of protected airspace. On either side, it's way more than you need in any IFR training aircraft. In fact, it's way more that you need even holding at the maximum holding airspeed for that altitude AND accounting for most adverse wind and pilot technique. There is a LOT of protected airspace in a holding pattern.
 
RussR said:
This implies that one side is protected while the other is not. The is completely untrue. Both sides are protected, however, the non-holding side has a slightly smaller amount of protected airspace. On either side, it's way more than you need in any IFR training aircraft. In fact, it's way more that you need even holding at the maximum holding airspeed for that altitude AND accounting for most adverse wind and pilot technique. There is a LOT of protected airspace in a holding pattern.
Click to expand...
I actually had an instructor/examiner who was vehemently opposed to parallel entries (not the reason I modified number 3 above) as he thought it would put you in unprotected airspace.

Oddly enough, it was the same examiner who threatened to bust me if I didn’t fly the appropriate entry for my arrival direction at the hold.:rolleyes:
 
midlifeflyer said:
You can do it either way. And I think you are incorrect that "no CFI" teaches it that way. (Actually, I was taught to fly direct to the fix on the first inbound after a parallel entry. But I avoid it now.)

Try both and see which way you like better. Many prefer the interception method because it establishes you on the inbound course before reaching the fix. That has some advantages for situational awareness and stability, especially when the next leg is not another turn around the hold but a continuation and perhaps descent inbound on an approach.
Click to expand...

Your last point is a good one, i.e. when you leave the fix you are probably going to leave it via the inbound course, i.e. HiLPT.

I stand corrected: No CFII I know teaches it that way (nor was able to find too many online posts by CFII that recommended this methodology for parallel entries).
 
RussR said:
Well, you could only go direct to the fix if you are holding at a VOR or using GPS. For holding at a DME fix or an intersection without using GPS, you can't go direct to the fix.
Click to expand...

So this would be the case where the DME fix itself is on some VOR radial (you could identify) but you don't have GPS to either PLUG DIRECT TO or use OBS mode. I assume that is what you mean?

I'm asking Wilbur and Orville and they seem to know what you are talking about!
 
Intercepting helps you determine your wind correction angle, as well as prevents having a turn at the holding fix (which might be a FAF).
 
Trogdor said:
So this would be the case where the DME fix itself is on some VOR radial (you could identify) but you don't have GPS to either PLUG DIRECT TO or use OBS mode. I assume that is what you mean?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I mean.

I'm asking Wilbur and Orville and they seem to know what you are talking about!
Click to expand...

And yes, I'm fully aware of that (hence my last sentence about 4-course ranges). But it seems that all of the holding stuff we teach is STILL rooted in what we did based on the technology of the 30's.

Heck, this same situation shows up ALL THE TIME with approach procedures. Take this one for instance. On the missed approach, with modern avionics, could you go direct to NESIY? Of course. But since you can't do that with VOR, a radial is provided to intercept to take you to it. But unlike the holding pattern scenarios above, in this case, are you allowed to go direct to NESIY even if you could? No, because then you wouldn't be following the procedure. (But you're not going to hit anything either way.)

upload_2021-8-17_13-42-49.png
 
When flying the hold on a VOR before moving map, it was really easy to return to VOR by centering the needle and this popular method carried over today.
 
When I use the parallel entry, if I only fly outbound for one minute, it is really difficult (using standard rate turns) to get back to the inbound course before I get to the VOR. If I go outbound for two minutes, it works a lot better. I usually just go outbound one minute then return to the VOR.
 
somorris said:
When I use the parallel entry, if I only fly outbound for one minute, it is really difficult (using standard rate turns) to get back to the inbound course before I get to the VOR. If I go outbound for two minutes, it works a lot better. I usually just go outbound one minute then return to the VOR.
Click to expand...
Try 1:20
 
RussR said:
Yes, that is what I mean.



And yes, I'm fully aware of that (hence my last sentence about 4-course ranges). But it seems that all of the holding stuff we teach is STILL rooted in what we did based on the technology of the 30's.

Heck, this same situation shows up ALL THE TIME with approach procedures. Take this one for instance. On the missed approach, with modern avionics, could you go direct to NESIY? Of course. But since you can't do that with VOR, a radial is provided to intercept to take you to it. But unlike the holding pattern scenarios above, in this case, are you allowed to go direct to NESIY even if you could? No, because then you wouldn't be following the procedure. (But you're not going to hit anything either way.)

View attachment 99274
Click to expand...

The approach assumes that you don't have the equipment to go direct. If you did, you could be flying the RNAV 17 approach instead, which has the same minimum as the ILS 17.

In this case, there does not appear to be anything wrong with going direct to NESIY. However, its best not to second guess what the designers had in mind.
 
RussR said:
...with modern avionics, could you go direct to NESIY? Of course. But since you can't do that with VOR, a radial is provided to intercept to take you to it.
Click to expand...
That's in Oklahoma, "Where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain." The heading to intercept is going to take you direct to NESIY (or beyond) before you hit the crossing radial.
 
Last edited:
somorris said:
When I use the parallel entry, if I only fly outbound for one minute, it is really difficult (using standard rate turns) to get back to the inbound course before I get to the VOR. If I go outbound for two minutes, it works a lot better. I usually just go outbound one minute then return to the VOR.
Click to expand...
Beware of that 2 Minute thing if your flying pretty fast. Like very close to the Holding Pattern speed limit. You could end up having a close encounter with some rocks.
 
Either way works. My theory on teaching intercepting the course is that it works everytime in every situation. Going direct the fix works 9 times out of 10 in most circumstances, but as others have noted not always. Why teach two different methods to the same end, especially to someone new to the realm of instrument flying. All goes back to primacy.
 
Last edited:
Rgbeard said:
Clearly, you don’t watch enough Bugs Bunny. His planes are always equipped with Air Brakes.
Click to expand...
41EDwIglvtL._RI_.jpg
 
dmspilot said:
Intercepting helps you determine your wind correction angle, as well as prevents having a turn at the holding fix (which might be a FAF).
Click to expand...
That's why I teach it that way. Intercept the inbound course. Another reason is there is less chance of missing the fix due to winds.
 
RussR said:
This implies that one side is protected while the other is not. The is completely untrue. Both sides are protected, however, the non-holding side has a slightly smaller amount of protected airspace. On either side, it's way more than you need in any IFR training aircraft. In fact, it's way more that you need even holding at the maximum holding airspeed for that altitude AND accounting for most adverse wind and pilot technique. There is a LOT of protected airspace in a holding pattern.
Click to expand...
No doubt true for today's RNAV system. But, those criteria were developed in 1963, and had to account for VOR along-course and crossing radial errors. The assumptions remain unchanged to this day.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I actually had an instructor/examiner who was vehemently opposed to parallel entries (not the reason I modified number 3 above) as he thought it would put you in unprotected airspace.

Oddly enough, it was the same examiner who threatened to bust me if I didn’t fly the appropriate entry for my arrival direction at the hold.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Good instructors teach; feeble instructors test you on memorized rules.
 
aterpster said:
No doubt true for today's RNAV system. But, those criteria were developed in 1963, and had to account for VOR along-course and crossing radial errors. The assumptions remain unchanged to this day.
Click to expand...
My GTN 650 (like all contemporary GPS navigators) will fly a hold for me, including choosing the entry. I'm still practicing timed VOR holds, though, because I'm not 100% confident that the pilot examiner won't "fail" the GPS and/or autopilot just before the hold on my next IPC.
 
This is the TERPs for the KSNL ILS 17. The large area is the procedure turn. The smaller oval is the primary and secondaries for the missed approach holding pattern:

OK_KSNL_ILS OR LOC RWY 17_A3_S-6.jpg
 
luvflyin said:
What’s with the $ to identify an obstruction?
Click to expand...

That's just kind of an internal thing. The numbers correspond to the obstacles on the form 8260-9 where each segment is documented. Missed approach holding patterns, however, are not documented on the 8260-9, but on form 8260-2, which does not number the obstacles. So when the maps were made, a random symbol was used to identify those "un-numbered" obstacles. You'll see @, #, $, pretty much any symbol on the keyboard used depending on specialist preference, and it's just to match up the info in the table at the bottom with the info on the map itself.

Maps produced using the latest software will not have obstacle numbers, as the software puts the obstacle info in its own box pointing to the obstacle (so there's no need for a reference number).

Random example:

upload_2021-8-28_16-59-31.png

Way more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.
 
RussR said:
That's just kind of an internal thing. The numbers correspond to the obstacles on the form 8260-9 where each segment is documented. Missed approach holding patterns, however, are not documented on the 8260-9, but on form 8260-2, which does not number the obstacles. So when the maps were made, a random symbol was used to identify those "un-numbered" obstacles. You'll see @, #, $, pretty much any symbol on the keyboard used depending on specialist preference, and it's just to match up the info in the table at the bottom with the info on the map itself.

Maps produced using the latest software will not have obstacle numbers, as the software puts the obstacle info in its own box pointing to the obstacle (so there's no need for a reference number).

Random example:

View attachment 99555

Way more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Nah, I always wanna know more
 
QUOTE="RussR, post: 3135732, member: 8794"]That's just kind of an internal thing. The numbers correspond to the obstacles on the form 8260-9 where each segment is documented. Missed approach holding patterns, however, are not documented on the 8260-9, but on form 8260-2, which does not number the obstacles. So when the maps were made, a random symbol was used to identify those "un-numbered" obstacles. You'll see @, #, $, pretty much any symbol on the keyboard used depending on specialist preference, and it's just to match up the info in the table at the bottom with the info on the map itself.

Maps produced using the latest software will not have obstacle numbers, as the software puts the obstacle info in its own box pointing to the obstacle (so there's no need for a reference number).

Random example:

View attachment 99555

Way more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.

Don't stop there. Explain the digital references to the towers (DOF).:):)
 
Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge. No idea about the digital reference though. I saw the number and would guess height or elevation, but no idea about the “AER,” ETC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top