Understanding how to fly a holding pattern

[luvflyin]

I just looked it up and it doesn't look like it was a problem with entry procedures, it looked like they didn't even hold and went past their clearance limit. Plus I saw something in there about inoperative nav equipment and an inoperative VOR. Not 100% because I just skimmed it and I couldn't find a CAB investigation on it or anything.

My recollection of that accident is it was the United plane that exceeded his holding pattern. Exceeding the speed limit was a big factor. TWA was the plane he hit. That incident lead to the New York Common IFR Room (now New York Tracon) Before that La Guardia and Idylwild approach control were separate facilities. They were each going to the other airport. Maybe one was Newark. There was another United incident years later over the Rockies where exceeding the holding pattern speed limit was a big factor. They hit the rocks that time. They were having some problem that needed trouble shooting and asked for holding, got it and flew it way to fast and hit a mountain. Moral of the story is speed limits in holding patterns are pretty important. Holding pattern protected airspace gets real big when you get real high because the radius of turn gets big because the ground speed gets fast because the TAS gets fast.

 

[dtuuri]

I just looked it up and it doesn't look like it was a problem with entry procedures, it looked like they didn't even hold and went past their clearance limit. Plus I saw something in there about inoperative nav equipment and an inoperative VOR. Not 100% because I just skimmed it and I couldn't find a CAB investigation on it or anything.

I wasn't trying to imply that entry procedures caused the accident--United didn't realize they were beyond the holding fix. I merely wanted to show that mountains aren't the only things you can hit when you stray beyond the protected airspace.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

My recollection of that accident is it was the United plane that exceeded his holding pattern.

Yes.

Exceeding the speed limit was a big factor.

Speed, yes, limit, no. This was before any limit. http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&LLID=58&LLTypeID=0

There was another United incident years later over the Rockies where exceeding the holding pattern speed limit was a big factor. They hit the rocks that time. They were having some problem that needed trouble shooting and asked for holding, got it and flew it way to fast and hit a mountain.

Not if you're referring to the DC-8 at Salt Lake City. Holding on the 360° radial when told to hold "northwest" was the issue. There wasn't an airway or published pattern for the 360° radial. ATC meant the airway coming in to the VOR from the northwest.

Moral of the story is speed limits in holding patterns are pretty important. Holding pattern protected airspace gets real big when you get real high because the radius of turn gets big because the ground speed gets fast because the TAS gets fast.

And the wind is usually gale force. But maybe today's instrument students won't ever fly up there, so it's ok to give 'em a pass?

dtuuri

 

[luvflyin]

I wasn't trying to imply that entry procedures caused the accident--United didn't realize they were beyond the holding fix. I merely wanted to show that mountains aren't the only things you can hit when you stray beyond the protected airspace.

dtuuri

I wasn't implying that either, just continuing the holding discussion. Did they have an instrument problem, or did they just get busy and fly through it?

 

[luvflyin]

Not if you're referring to the DC-8 at Salt Lake City. Holding on the 360° radial when told to hold "north" was the issue. There wasn't an airway or published pattern for the 360° radial. ATC meant the airway coming in to the VOR from the northwest.

dtuuri

Yeah, Salt Lake City, that's the one. DC8 was carrying cargo if I remember right. The Controller got pinged for that one for not issuing correct holding instructions. I read the whole NTSB report on that one when it came out. The entire detailed flight path was there from recorded data, both aircraft and RADAR data. The way I remember it, it was clear the aircraft was attempting to hold on the correct course but he was wandering around a bit and flying way to fast and picked off the mountain on the outbound end.

 

[luvflyin]

I found it. NTSB-AAR-78-8

 

[aterpster]

My recollection of that accident is it was the United plane that exceeded his holding pattern. Exceeding the speed limit was a big factor. TWA was the plane he hit. That incident lead to the New York Common IFR Room (now New York Tracon) Before that La Guardia and Idylwild approach control were separate facilities. They were each going to the other airport. Maybe one was Newark. There was another United incident years later over the Rockies where exceeding the holding pattern speed limit was a big factor. They hit the rocks that time. They were having some problem that needed trouble shooting and asked for holding, got it and flew it way to fast and hit a mountain. Moral of the story is speed limits in holding patterns are pretty important. Holding pattern protected airspace gets real big when you get real high because the radius of turn gets big because the ground speed gets fast because the TAS gets fast.

The United DC-8 was going into Idlewild (JFK). There was no speed limit at the time except within the old airport traffic area. United was instructed to hold at intersection (PRESTON?) west of New York. He blew through the intersection because one VOR was inop and they apparently didn't know how to hold with only one VOR. The TWA Connie had departed LGA. Although the approach controls were separate they did coordinate traffic. UAL was held because of TWA.

That mid-air resulted in two new rules: 250 KIAS max below 10,000 when within 30 miles of the destination and the requirement to advise ATC of inoperative nav equipment. Just over six years later a TWA DC-9 going very fast below 10,000 more than 30 miles from his destination climbed up the rear of a Baron. That mid-air resulted in a max of 250 KIAS below 10,000 everywhere with limited operational exceptions.

 

[aterpster]

Yeah, Salt Lake City, that's the one. DC8 was carrying cargo if I remember right. The Controller got pinged for that one for not issuing correct holding instructions. I read the whole NTSB report on that one when it came out. The entire detailed flight path was there from recorded data, both aircraft and RADAR data. The way I remember it, it was clear the aircraft was attempting to hold on the correct course but he was wandering around a bit and flying way to fast and picked off the mountain on the outbound end.

At the time I didn't understand why the crew didn't request vectors out over the lake while they worked their problem. And, with two VHFs, one pilot should have remained with ATC while the other talked to company.

It could have just as easily been a passenger flight.

 

[Larry in TN]

Would be interesting to see that diagram drawn with ALL of the turns as standard-rate turns instead of just the black lines...

 

[eetrojan]

How would you enter the hold assuming these circumstances?:

1) ATC’s instructions are, “Bugmaster AB123, Hold W of the ABC VOR on the 270 radial, make right turns”; and

2) your heading to the ABC VOR is 025

 

[luvflyin]

The United DC-8 was going into Idlewild (JFK). There was no speed limit at the time except within the old airport traffic area. United was instructed to hold at intersection (PRESTON?) west of New York. He blew through the intersection because one VOR was inop and they apparently didn't know how to hold with only one VOR. The TWA Connie had departed LGA. Although the approach controls were separate they did coordinate traffic. UAL was held because of TWA.

That mid-air resulted in two new rules: 250 KIAS max below 10,000 when within 30 miles of the destination and the requirement to advise ATC of inoperative nav equipment. Just over six years later a TWA DC-9 going very fast below 10,000 more than 30 miles from his destination climbed up the rear of a Baron. That mid-air resulted in a max of 250 KIAS below 10,000 everywhere with limited operational exceptions.

I wonder if he had ever held at an intersection using one VOR before. That was part of my training. Only did it once or twice. That was before FLIP/FLOP radios.

 

[Kritchlow]

How would you enter the hold assuming these circumstances?:

1) ATC’s instructions are, “Bugmaster AB123, Hold W of the ABC VOR on the 270 radial, make right turns”; and

2) your heading to the ABC VOR is 025

Without visual aid (other than in my mind) I would say right turn direct.

I came to that within a second or so, so I may be wrong.

 

[aterpster]

I wonder if he had ever held at an intersection using one VOR before. That was part of my training. Only did it once or twice. That was before FLIP/FLOP radios.

I did too. But, in a Piper Tri-Pacer with a Narco Mark II Omnigator, not a DC-8.

 

[dtuuri]

How would you enter the hold assuming these circumstances?:

1) ATC’s instructions are, “Bugmaster AB123, Hold W of the ABC VOR on the 270 radial, make right turns”; and

2) your heading to the ABC VOR is 025

Direct, by 5°:

dtuuri

 

[Cooter]

Direct, by 5°:

dtuuri

I think your overlay is off by 20 degrees, if I'm looking at that right.

 

[Blueangel]

Well at least when I quiz CFII about holds and DME arcs, I can tell if they actually know how to teach! Several were clueless and that saved me frustration wasting time paying them to learn how to get my rating.

 

[dtuuri]

I think your overlay is off by 20 degrees, if I'm looking at that right.

If you turn to the right, doesn't the point on your left wingtip move toward the tail? Here, I removed some clutter and added some more:

dtuuri

 

[Kritchlow]

If you turn to the right, doesn't the point on your left wingtip move toward the tail? Here, I removed some clutter and added some more:

dtuuri

I thought his point was your heading is not 025°

 

[hindsight2020]

I thought his point was your heading is not 025°

It's mechanical DG, so that checks actually LOL.

 

[eetrojan]

Direct, by 5°:

dtuuri

I thought it was parallel by 5°, but maybe I goofed. Can you double check?

Assuming that I'm right, I'm curious if those who say that they always do teardrops entries would still fly a teardrop in this scenario.

 

[coloradobluesky]

How would you enter the hold assuming these circumstances?:

1) ATC’s instructions are, “Bugmaster AB123, Hold W of the ABC VOR on the 270 radial, make right turns”; and

2) your heading to the ABC VOR is 025

Click on drawing

 

[dtuuri]

I thought it was parallel by 5°, but maybe I goofed. Can you double check?

Doing a parallel would be acceptable according to the AIM (+/- 5°). Look at the edits I made to the image in post #178. The outbound heading (270°) lies very close to the parallel sector. The (red) line of demarcation is twenty degrees down from the left wingtip when doing right turns because the teardrop (pie-shaped) sector then falls to the right of the nose. You would flip the pie left of the nose for left turns--in that case this would be a solid direct entry.

EDIT: Btw, you can see that, compared to the freehand sketch above, using the DG has brain surgery accuracy.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

If you did wait until station passage, were flying a pretty fast airplane and didn't exceed 30 degrees of bank that green line would look a whole lot different

You mean the red would not? If you stop the turn when you get to parallel you are OK and if you go 30° past past parallel you are not? While keeping the airplane within holding pattern speed limits?

Really? You'll have to show me that one.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well, I'm having a hard time convincing a CFII to have his students "draw" the holding pattern on the DG and simply look for the outbound heading. He needs paper and pencil already. If you want him to also find the "teardrop" heading, why he'll need a drawing board, protractor and T-square for sure!

dtuuri

And that, in a nutshell is the problem with the way holds (and so many other techniques in flying) are taught.

You scoff at a CFII trying to find a way for his student - an individual human being who processes information in a certain way - to understand holds and choose the appropriate entry only because he is unwilling to follow the gospel according to dtuuri.

You probably didn't catch on that I both understand and can explain your technique (and yes, it is only a technique). The difference is that it is one of a number I understand and use with a student, even if I personally dislike it, depending on which makes it click and simplifies it for the student.

I have a very short list of the very very worst things a CFI can do"

1. Force a student to change a technique that works for the student just because the CFI likes one better (or more typically, believes it is the One True Way)
2. There is no #2.

 

[dtuuri]

You scoff at a CFII trying to find a way for his student - an individual human being who processes information in a certain way - to understand holds and choose the appropriate entry only because he is unwilling to follow the gospel according to dtuuri.

No, I scoff because you make me laugh.

You probably didn't catch on that I both understand and can explain your technique (and yes, it is only a technique).

Gee, I wonder how I missed that after borrowing your diagram in my posts. Tell you what, you look at figure 2 in the original order where these entries were worked out and explain why the experts were wrong when they concluded your way was "undesireable". If it makes sense maybe I'll stop laughing and we can persuade the Aeronautical Charting Forum to take up the matter.

dtuuri

 

[coloradobluesky]

There are a lot of pilots that claimed to rely on some form of DG method, but when you give them the ATC hold instructions, and ask them to draw the hold, they are unable to correctly draw WHERE THE HOLD IS LOCATED! (and they try and balk their way out of it by saying, "well I use the thumb method and we dont have an airplane here, I'd get it right in the airplane", or some such)

Then there are some pilots that were taught RIGHT. They know the ATC instruction sequence. They know what a radial is. They know where the inbound leg of the hold is based on ATC instructions. They know how to draw the hold on a 4 direction compass rose.

When the pilot goes to an airline interview and the interviewer asks him to draw a hold, there will be no DG, just a pencil and paper. The interviewer is going to want to see a drawing with the FAA recommended entry. If the applicant can't do that "next applicant please!"

Based on what ATC observes, a LOT of pilots screw up holds frequently. Not enough to crash into something, but they dont enter them right nor do they fly them right. In a fast jet it can be life or death.

My take is, if you can't draw where the hold is on a notepad or chart, you're not going to be able to do it right in the air. It's a lot harder in the air, we all know that.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No, I scoff because you make me laugh.


Gee, I wonder how I missed that after borrowing your diagram in my posts. Tell you what, you look at figure 2 in the original order where these entries were worked out and explain why the experts were wrong when they concluded your way was "undesireable". If it makes sense maybe I'll stop laughing and we can persuade the Aeronautical Charting Forum to take up the matter.

dtuuri

As I said, we won't agree on teaching gospel vs teaching practical reality.

 

[dtuuri]

There are a lot of pilots that claimed to rely on some form of DG method, but when you give them the ATC hold instructions, and ask them to draw the hold, they are unable to correctly draw WHERE THE HOLD IS LOCATED! (and they try and balk their way out of it by saying, "well I use the thumb method and we dont have an airplane here, I'd get it right in the airplane", or some such)

Then there are some pilots that were taught RIGHT. They know the ATC instruction sequence. They know what a radial is. They know where the inbound leg of the hold is based on ATC instructions. They know how to draw the hold on a 4 direction compass rose.

When the pilot goes to an airline interview and the interviewer asks him to draw a hold, there will be no DG, just a pencil and paper. The interviewer is going to want to see a drawing with the FAA recommended entry. If the applicant can't do that "next applicant please!"

Based on what ATC observes, a LOT of pilots screw up holds frequently. Not enough to crash into something, but they dont enter them right nor do they fly them right. In a fast jet it can be life or death.

My take is, if you can't draw where the hold is on a notepad or chart, you're not going to be able to do it right in the air. It's a lot harder in the air, we all know that.

With all due respect, this is pure malarky. The DG is your drawing pad. You don't need to take your eyes off the panel or your hands off the controls to fumble with paper and pen. You haven't been paying attention.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

I have a very short list of the very very worst things a CFI can do"

1. Force a student to change a technique that works for the student just because the CFI likes one better (or more typically, believes it is the One True Way)
2. There is no #2.

Yup...

 

[Blueangel]

Personally I like the DG method better and for the check ride oral will learn to draw the hold on paper with pencil and ATC clearance. In the plane flying a hold is much harder if you have to sketch it on a chart and then correlate to the DG while flying and holding heading and altitude.

 

[dtuuri]

Personally I like the DG method better and for the check ride oral will learn to draw the hold on paper with pencil and ATC clearance.

Yup. Just pretend the chart is your DG.

dtuuri

 

[eetrojan]

Doing a parallel would be acceptable according to the AIM (+/- 5°). Look at the edits I made to the image in post #178. The outbound heading (270°) lies very close to the parallel sector. The (red) line of demarcation is twenty degrees down from the left wingtip when doing right turns because the teardrop (pie-shaped) sector then falls to the right of the nose. You would flip the pie left of the nose for left turns--in that case this would be a solid direct entry.

EDIT: Btw, you can see that, compared to the freehand sketch above, using the DG has brain surgery accuracy.

dtuuri

Thanks. Let's modify the heading to 015 instead of 025, like this:

1) ATC’s instructions are, “Bugmaster AB123, Hold W of the ABC VOR on the 270 radial, make right turns”; and

2) your heading to the ABC VOR is 015 (instead of 025)

That way - I think - we're more clearly in the parallel entry world.

Winds calm, and given a Cessna 172 doing 90 kts, would the actual flight path for the entry and the hold look something like this?

 

[dtuuri]

Thanks. Let's modify the heading to 015 instead of 025, like this:

1) ATC’s instructions are, “Bugmaster AB123, Hold W of the ABC VOR on the 270 radial, make right turns”; and

2) your heading to the ABC VOR is 015 (instead of 025)

That way - I think - we're more clearly in the parallel entry world.

Winds calm, and given a Cessna 172 doing 90 kts, would the actual flight path for the entry and the hold look something like this?

Seems reasonable. What are you using for sketching? I want that.

dtuuri

 

[eetrojan]

Seems reasonable. What are you using for sketching? I want that.

dtuuri

Thanks.

I use Adobe Illustrator all the time for work. It's a terrific program.

 

[Blueangel]

Wow that's friggin' awesome! Quite lovely art for a holding pattern.

 

[eetrojan]

Wow that's friggin' awesome! Quite lovely art for a holding pattern.

Most quick and dirty diagrams show you flying the "parallel" entry right next to or even on top of the inbound leg, but given a standard rate turn that starts at the fix, that never made much sense to me.

I wanted to really see where the parallel entry leg is to get a sense of how far away it is from the actual holding pattern.

It looks surprisingly far to me, about 3/4 of a mile away it seems.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Personally I like the DG method better and for the check ride oral will learn to draw the hold on paper with pencil and ATC clearance. In the plane flying a hold is much harder if you have to sketch it on a chart and then correlate to the DG while flying and holding heading and altitude.

And, of course, that is what you should use. If drawing the hold adds to your workload and lessens your situational awareness than another method, you don't use it.

I know folks who draw/visualize on the DG based on the location of the radial.
I know folks who use the draw/visualize on the DG based on the location of the inbound course*.
I know folks who draw the hold.
I know folks who process holding instructions mentally and just see it with no tips, tricks, drawings or anything.
I know folks who simply turn outbound the shortest way and work from there.
I know folks who never use a parallel entry.
I know folks who never use a teardrop entry.

Except to some, it's not religion with a One True Way.

[*Yes. There are indeed two versions of the draw on the DG method, one using the radial and one using the inbound course. If you are curious about my own fanaticism on the subject, the reason is in there. My CFII taught it one way. Two years later during an IPC, a different CFI told me my CFII was crazy, did it all wrong, and insisted I do it his way. Made both methods completely unsuable for me until I began to work on my own CFII. I felt it was important for me to learn one of them for the benefit of students who needed it.]

 

[midlifeflyer]

Most quick and dirty diagrams show you flying the "parallel" entry right next to or even on top of the inbound leg, but given a standard rate turn that starts at the fix, that never made much sense to me.

I wanted to really see where the parallel entry leg is to get a sense of how far away it is from the actual holding pattern.

It looks surprisingly far to me, about 3/4 of a mile away it seems.

It is. The holding templates account for that at max holding airspeed and a significant crosswind blowing you even further on the nonholding side.

[Sarcasm Alert]
And ***warning warning warning*** Don't dare get any closer to holding airspace or try to correct for the wind or, heaven forbid, intercept and track that outbound radial! After all, the gospel tells you

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 ...​

No wind correction or tracking permitted or you will be struck down. Or at least prove to some that you are still in holding airspace.
[/Sarcasm Alert]

Kind makes insisting on 5° and not one degree more seem a bit silly, doesn't it?

 

[Palmpilot]

Thanks. Let's modify the heading to 015 instead of 025, like this:

1) ATC’s instructions are, “Bugmaster AB123, Hold W of the ABC VOR on the 270 radial, make right turns”; and

2) your heading to the ABC VOR is 015 (instead of 025)

That way - I think - we're more clearly in the parallel entry world.

Winds calm, and given a Cessna 172 doing 90 kts, would the actual flight path for the entry and the hold look something like this?

My plotter shows that as about 027, not 015.

 

[coloradobluesky]

How does ATC figure out where to put an airplane in a hold an and develop the correct holding instructions?