Teardrop Entry - Doesn't Make Sense?

VWGhiaBob

VWGhiaBob

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
884
Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
Direct Entry - Doesn't Make Sense?

OK...all you 90% plus and CFI'ers out there...please help a guy who's studying hard for the IFR exam.

On a teardrop entry to a holding pattern, I get that I draw a line at a 70 degree angle from my inbound course in the direction of the holding pattern and use that to determine my pattern entry method (teardrop, parallel, direct).

I find that understanding the "why" of things helps me understand them better. So...here's my question. At its extreme, a direct entry requires just under a 110 degree turn AT THE FIX, followed by a quick standard rate 180 degree turn to join the outbound leg.

Why do we not draw the line at 90 degrees so that at the extreme, we never have to make this sharp succession of turns? Isn't it hard to do a direct entry when you have to turn sharp and fast >90 degrees to join the inbound?

I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question. I'm just getting started with all this complex stuff. There sure is a lot to learn for IFR!
 
Last edited:
Sure, but I have to go to work now. Just occurred to me, I mis-titled this thread, so I renamed it "Direct Entry - Doesn't Make Sense." If no one answers, I will upload a diagram later today.
 
ok. I'm sure you will see the light. I found holding patterns a pain to understand as well when studying for my IR test. It will make sense. :)
 
For starters all turns under IFR are to be standard rate turns. For a direct entry you make a continuous standard rate turn to the outbound heading once you have crossed the fix. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by a quick 110*° followed by a 180° one..
 
FWIW, don't worry about WHY, learn the pattern entries for the test. In real life, is whatever makes sense, considering things like wind and grounspeed, that keeps you inside the protected area of the hold.
 
Perhaps my choice of "quick" was not appropriate, since as Gru.man points out, turns are to be at standard rate. That said, it still doesn't make sense to me to turn 110 degrees to enter, and then immediately commence a 180 to join the outbound leg. Why not just fly across the fix, and join the outbound?
 
Re: Direct Entry - Doesn't Make Sense?

VWGhiaBob said:
I find that understanding the "why" of things helps me understand them better. So...here's my question. At its extreme, a direct entry requires just under a 110 degree turn AT THE FIX, followed by a quick standard rate 180 degree turn to join the outbound leg.
Click to expand...

I'm just a student, so my home-grown drawing below may have gross errors, but assuming it doesn't, it may help focus the question (shared by me). Click for a bigger version.

Assuming you're approaching the fix on the radial that is just right of the blue/red boundary, I think Bob is wondering "why" it would be better to do a "direct" entry by making a 110 degree turn to the left in the vicinity of the fix, rather making a less than 110 degree turn to the right to perform a teardrop entry within the interior of the holding pattern.

 
VWGhiaBob said:
Perhaps my choice of "quick" was not appropriate, since as Gru.man points out, turns are to be at standard rate. That said, it still doesn't make sense to me to turn 110 degrees to enter, and then immediately commence a 180 to join the outbound leg. Why not just fly across the fix, and join the outbound?
Click to expand...

The only real way you can "join the outbound" is by doing a standard rate turn at the fix. Otherwise, in your example, your turn outbound would be a quite a bit quicker. So when you complete the outbound leg and turn inbound, your standard rate turn would likely put you on the wrong (ie. non-protected) side of the hold. Make sense?
 
I find it helps to look at where the hold is before you start worrying about entries.

Say it is " right hand hold NE of FIX on the 45 degree radial"

Draw a VOR
Draw a 45 degree radial (from of course, ATC only speaks in FROM radials)
Draw FIX on the radial, leaving room to draw holds on both sides (other side later)
Now draw the INBOUND LEG of the hold, put an arrow toward FIX
Now draw the rest of the hold
and another arrow on the outbound leg
Now label the hold with NE and RT (for right)

Now make a little paper airplane that will fit in the hold and fly into the hold from all the different directions you can.

One thing someone told me that helped. "If you get to a hold and don't know which way to turn, turn to the cardinal direction that defines the hold"

If I get a hold on a checkride, I draw in on the enroute chart before entering it.
 
On a teardrop once you cross the fix you turn and fly outbound for 1 min before turning to intercept the inbound leg. So it's not an immediate cross the fix, turn to intercept the inbound leg, cross the fix again and then turn 180 degrees to the outbound leg.
 
Brad Z said:
FWIW, don't worry about WHY, learn the pattern entries for the test. In real life, is whatever makes sense, considering things like wind and grounspeed, that keeps you inside the protected area of the hold.
Click to expand...
Yes. As long as you're on the protected side, the FAA doesn't really care what entry method you use.
 
Re: Direct Entry - Doesn't Make Sense?

register@teamandras.com said:
I'm just a student, so my home-grown drawing below may have gross errors, but assuming it doesn't, it may help focus the question (shared by me). Click for a bigger version.

Assuming you're approaching the fix on the radial that is just right of the blue/red boundary, I think Bob is wondering "why" it would be better to do a "direct" entry by making a 110 degree turn to the left in the vicinity of the fix, rather making a less than 110 degree turn to the right to perform a teardrop entry within the interior of the holding pattern.

Click to expand...

This is a great question (and is much easier to discuss with that image, so thanks for sharing it). If I understand it correctly they'd like to limit turns to be a max of 90 degrees (less is better, but I guess 90 degrees is acceptable). If you reach the fix just to the right of the blue/red boundary you can make a 90 degree turn to the left and then start your right turn. (Look at the red dashed line inside of the circle... that looks to be about 90 degrees off of the blue/red boundary. So imagine turning left to the extension of that line and you could imagine where a left 90 would put you.) I know it looks like you'd turn even further than 90 degrees left, but imagine you're doing your second lap through this particular hold. You begin your right turn AT the fix... you don't continue flying west and turn at some point later. So if you arrive on the red side of the blue/red boundary you'll make a turn of 90 degrees or less once at the fix and then can start your right turn to the outbound leg.
 
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
 
Still IR student here, but I do Direct when the turn at the fix would be a total of ~250* or less at the fix. ie. worst case is coming from the NE area for a standard hold (right turns) on the 090 radial. If you cross the fix on a heading of 215 and then turn right to an out bound of 090 that's a heading change of 235*.
For other entries NIT- Nose Inside the hold pattern Teardrop and NOP - Nose Outside the hold pattern Parallel.

I also found flying them a few times really helped get the picture and make the written questions/diagrams easier.

Have fun.....

Dan
'79 Dakota
 
Also, as others have said... memorize this stuff for the written test. Then, ideally get it right on the checkride (but most examiners don't seem to care, as long as you remain on the protected side of the hold). After that, if you ever do get a hold, I'm told it'll almost certainly be a direct entry. If it's not, I'm told controllers don't care what entry you use as long as you stay on the protected side of the hold. It's good stuff to know (especially for the test), but how you get established in a hold in real life probably doesn't matter nearly as much as staying to the correct side of it while you're getting established.
 
I am not promoting Apps here but I tried some during my IR training and this is one of the few that DID help me get the entries aced and comfortable for the written.

It was from Pilots Cafe and its called Holding Pattern trainer. I put it on my Ipad, but I think there is an android version available. I dont rember what it costs but it was worth it.

And I did buy the ASA entry pattern calculator for grins to get started and it helped, but the app was something I could click on when I had a free moment and had my Ipad with me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Direct Entry - Doesn't Make Sense?

VWGhiaBob said:
Why do we not draw the line at 90 degrees so that at the extreme, we never have to make this sharp succession of turns? Isn't it hard to do a direct entry when you have to turn sharp and fast >90 degrees to join the inbound?
Click to expand...
It's all about turn radius, worst case wind, and the difference in the amount of protected airspace on the holding vs nonholding sides of the holding course. You'd need a copy of the holding pattern construction standards as well as drafting tools to see this, but that's how they came up with the 70-degree angle.

Of course, the difference between 70 and 90 degrees isn't going to let you slide out of the protected airspace for a holding pattern unless your speed is up near the holding speed limit (200 KIAS up to 6000, 230 KIAS up to 14000, and 265 KIAS above that) and the wind is near the worst-case limit (i.e., really howling across the pattern). So, if you're flying a 172 or something like that, it won't matter if you do a direct rather than parallel from 80 degrees off on the holding side, or a teardrop rather than direct from 100 degrees off on the nonholding side. For IR PTS purposes, the only requirement is that you have a method to your madness and you keep it inside the protected airspace. If it's easier for you to use a perpendicular line than the 70-degree line to select your entry, go right ahead.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
This is harder to explain in words than it is with the instruments.

You're heading outbound, and turning to intercept it inbound. But you make the initial turn to the intercept heading in the direction of the holding courseline. For example, let's say the holding course is 270, and you're arriving from the NW. You cross the fix headed SE. The shortest direction to the 090 outbound heading is left, so you turn left 090. Now twist to the 270 inbound heading, and motor outbound for one minute. At the end of the minute, you look at the CDI. If the needle is displaced to the N side of the CDI, you turn towards the North (i.e., left) and continue the turn all the way around to achieve an intercept heading. If the needle is displaced to the S side of the of the CDI, you turn towards the South (i.e., right) and continue the turn all the way around to achieve an intercept heading.

Got it?

This works to keep a "slow" plane inside the holding airspace in pretty much any wind and without thinking real hard about which entry to use. Sometimes you get a teardrop, sometimes you get a parallel, and half the time it's the "wrong" one, but either way, at 120 knots, it keeps you close enough. Works pretty much the same for an arrival from the "direct" side of the fix, too. And like I said, it's an emergency entry for when you get slammed into the hold and don't have enough time to work it out properly.
 
Why do we teach all of these exact angles when the entry isn't prescriptive? Seems counter to just drawing a box of airspace and saying, stay inside it on entry, how would you do that without excessive bank angles?
 
Alexb2000 said:
Why do we teach all of these exact angles when the entry isn't prescriptive? Seems counter to just drawing a box of airspace and saying, stay inside it on entry, how would you do that without excessive bank angles?
Click to expand...
The reason is that if you don't have a method for choosing and executing an entry that will keep you inside that "box" (which isn't really a box and isn't the same size in all cases), how are you going to accomplish that when you get a holding clearance for an unpublished hold a few minutes from the fix? You have neither the time nor the mental attention free to develop an entry maneuver at that point in the flight.

Sure, you can come up with your own methodology to replace the AIM-standard entries, but you need to have it planned before you get in the plane so you don't have to work it all out in that limited time along with figuring out what the hold itself looks like. The nice thing about the "standard" entries is you have assurance that they work, so that saves you a big step in the real-time process, and you don't have to re-invent the wheel.

Finally, once you've done this a few dozen times, choosing between the three "standard" entries becomes pretty much automatic without much thought. It's only getting over that initial hump which takes some work. The way to do that is to take the time on the ground and have the instructor read one holding clearance after another so the trainee can a) draw the pattern, b) figure which entry for each of several arrival courses, and c) talk through each entry. You do this over and over until the trainee has it wired, and then do it again tomorrow to be sure. Yes, it's tedious. Yes, it's boring. Yes, it doesn't count towards your 15/40 instrument hours for the rating. But it pays off in the air.
 
Ron Levy said:
This is harder to explain in words than it is with the instruments.

You're heading outbound, and turning to intercept it inbound. But you make the initial turn to the intercept heading in the direction of the holding courseline. For example, let's say the holding course is 270, and you're arriving from the NW. You cross the fix headed SE. The shortest direction to the 090 outbound heading is left, so you turn left 090. Now twist to the 270 inbound heading, and motor outbound for one minute. At the end of the minute, you look at the CDI. If the needle is displaced to the N side of the CDI, you turn towards the North (i.e., left) and continue the turn all the way around to achieve an intercept heading. If the needle is displaced to the S side of the of the CDI, you turn towards the South (i.e., right) and continue the turn all the way around to achieve an intercept heading.

Got it?

This works to keep a "slow" plane inside the holding airspace in pretty much any wind and without thinking real hard about which entry to use. Sometimes you get a teardrop, sometimes you get a parallel, and half the time it's the "wrong" one, but either way, at 120 knots, it keeps you close enough. Works pretty much the same for an arrival from the "direct" side of the fix, too. And like I said, it's an emergency entry for when you get slammed into the hold and don't have enough time to work it out properly.
Click to expand...

Fine. Works for you. If I were to be approaching the fix from the NW I would turn left to 060 and do a teardrop...right turn back to intercept 270 inbound. Different strokes for different folks.

Bob
 
bobmrg said:
Fine. Works for you. If I were to be approaching the fix from the NW I would turn left to 060 and do a teardrop...right turn back to intercept 270 inbound. Different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...
As I said, that's EdFred's Emergency Holding Entry for when you get to the holding fix without knowing which entry to use. I still teach "by the book" entries as primary, and this thing as only a last-resort method since it works pretty well without any mental calculation or drawing of patterns -- "just grip it and rip it", as Tin Cup would say.

And if I was arriving from the NW and told to hold east of the fix on the 090 radial, I'd turn left to 090 for a parallel entry, not 060 for a teardrop. ;)
 
Last edited:
I think I get what you are saying on the 110 degree direct turn. I'd just make it a teardrop entry. Sure it may not fall exactly within the teardrop piece of the pie, but holding entries are RECOMMENDATIONS anyways and not MANDATORY.
 
For the checkride, learn the FAA entries. And they work fine for real world too.

But for real world, I stick with two kinds of entries, straight in and parallel. That way I only have to dial one radial on the VOR head, and just keep it there. Of course GPS makes it easier as well, since you know how far away you are from the radial.

I have to draw the hold, usually on the enroute chart and draw a little airplane going my way approaching it. Then the entry is easy, even if I don't do it perfectly.
 
mjburian said:
Also, as others have said... memorize this stuff for the written test. Then, ideally get it right on the checkride (but most examiners don't seem to care, as long as you remain on the protected side of the hold). After that, if you ever do get a hold, I'm told it'll almost certainly be a direct entry. If it's not, I'm told controllers don't care what entry you use as long as you stay on the protected side of the hold. It's good stuff to know (especially for the test), but how you get established in a hold in real life probably doesn't matter nearly as much as staying to the correct side of it while you're getting established.
Click to expand...

I quite often get a teardrop entry for a hold on the approach at my home field
 
dtuuri said:
I don't see how making a parallel when coming from a teadrop quadrant is saving you work.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
I've seen that theory also. Doesn't save time or physical work but does save the thought process of choosing an entry type. Reach the fix, turn outbound. Period. No need to visualize, stick pencils or thumbs on a DG or figure out when a teardrop simple makes more sense.

BTW, I don't teach it (in fact I personally prefer teardrop over parallel when close) but I understand it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've seen that theory also. Doesn't save time or physical work but does save the thought process of choosing an entry type. Reach the fix, turn outbound. Period. No need to visualize, stick pencils or thumbs on a DG or figure out when a teardrop simple makes more sense.

BTW, I don't teach it (in fact I personally prefer teardrop over parallel when close) but I understand it.
Click to expand...

Will it work at 265 KIAS? What about 200? 150? Where do you draw the line? Why bother learning something that only works if you haven't got any airspeed and no tailwind? (Rhetorical, no need to answer).

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
The methods for various entry types were designed to utilize the minimum airspace for the fastest speed permitted with the most adverse wind conditions assumed. For a slow airplane, they are over kill, but once mastered are easy to apply to any airplane.
 
What you have to do, if you want to not be bothered about entry methods, is to learn the limits of the airspace you are given to "hold" in. Once you understand the airspace you have maneuver in, you won't be concerned about the entry method, other than your own personal method of staying in that protected airspace.
There is no other way. If you are still trying to fly by some memorized tricks you may have learned or heard of for a "checkride", then you are still not being a pilot. You are still being a student pilot.
Get off of it. :D
 
nosehair said:
What you have to do, if you want to not be bothered about entry methods, is to learn the limits of the airspace you are given to "hold" in. Once you understand the airspace you have maneuver in, you won't be concerned about the entry method, other than your own personal method of staying in that protected airspace.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can do that in your head on the fly based on arrival course, wind, altitude, distance from navaid, and airspeed, but I can't. And that's why I stick with the "book" entries -- keeps the thinking to a minimum, freeing my brain to think more about strategic issues, like fuel and weather.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe you can do that in your head on the fly based on arrival course, wind, altitude, distance from navaid, and airspeed, but I can't. And that's why I stick with the "book" entries -- keeps the thinking to a minimum, freeing my brain to think more about strategic issues, like fuel and weather.
Click to expand...
He never said that. Actually, your post agrees completely with what nosehair said.
 
dtuuri said:
Will it work at 265 KIAS? What about 200? 150? Where do you draw the line? Why bother learning something that only works if you haven't got any airspeed and no tailwind? (Rhetorical, no need to answer).

dtuuri
Click to expand...
So, mathematically speaking, at what ground speed will it push you outside if protected airspace?

Political comment: how can we ever get past the current climate when even in innocuous discussions of technique, it's "my way us the only right one and everyone else is an evil idiot,"

Feh.

As I said. I don't like the technique. I don't use it and would not teach it. Understanding does not equal approval.
 
midlifeflyer said:
He never said that. Actually, your post agrees completely with what nosehair said.
Click to expand...
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.
...learn the limits of the airspace you are given to "hold" in. Once you understand the airspace you have maneuver in, you won't be concerned about the entry method, other than your own personal method of staying in that protected airspace...
Click to expand...
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.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So, mathematically speaking, at what ground speed will it push you outside if protected airspace?
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top