Regarding holding pattern entry procedures

[failoperational]

Greetings guys,

So i have something that has bothered me for awhile :confused:, let's assume we have a right holding pattern with an inbound course of 270. In the event you are cleared to a VOR on a radial which separates the Direct and Parallel entry sectors, in this case radial 020, what entry shall we perform to enter the hold ?

i would also like to know the same when you have a choice between Direct-Offset(coming from radial200) entries and Parallel-Offset entries(radial270).

cheers.

[Empty Cruise]

When you are holding on a VOR/DME fix, you can (according to doc 8168)either:

1) Intercept the radial on a reciprocal track to the holding track prior to the fix - in that case you must perform an offset entry, irrespective of heading

2) Intercept the radial on the inbound track - in that case, obviously, a direct entry is mandated. Again, heading plays no part.

3) Intercept the DME arc to the holding fix on the non-holding-side - surprise, surprise, you win a direct entry

4) Intercept the arc from the holding side, and fly a parallel entry.

VOR/DME fix holdings are the only ICAO holding pattern where heading plays no part in selecting the entry procedure.

If you are talking about a VOR/DME-fix holding, but you navigate to it using your FMS, you are, however, back to headings. Beware, sometimes your FMS will NOT select the best entry, believe me ;)

[barrow]

This fascination with hold entries astounds me sometimes.
It's a parking lot! go over there and wait, do a lazy 8 to enter for all ATC cares.

[captjns]

paragraph 5-3-7 if the Airmans Information Manual give a dandy explanation relating to holding patterns.

Aeronautical Information Manual (http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/)

Entries to holding patterns are not mandatory. However, the entry you choose should keep you as close as possible to protected side of the holding pattern..

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<do a lazy 8 to enter for all ATC cares>>

NOT a good idea!! Holding areas and separation between them and adjacent holds and routes are based upon everyone following correct procedures. I've seen serious incidents caused by people failing to enter a hold correctly.

[barrow]

NOT a good idea!! Holding areas and separation between them and adjacent holds and routes are based upon everyone following correct procedures. I've seen serious incidents caused by people failing to enter a hold correctly.
No, they are based on the aircraft remaining in the confines of the airspace defined by the hold template, the entry used is neither here nor there!
Stay on the protected side and nobody gets hurt.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Both Heathow Director and Barrow are Correct, but I have to qualify my statement


the recommended procedure will almost guarentee that you stay within the templated area.

though, sometimes we all get a little confused and 'aviating' is more important than accuracte pissy navigating: is to fly to the NAVAID then turn the shortest distance inbound to the 'non holding side' that's quick and dirty and should also keep you within protected airspace.


And, when it comes to a decision between 'teardrop' and 'parallel'

well ,...what's a few degrees of Track Error amongst friends;)

PA

[bfisk]

As far as I can remember, within 5 degrees of the division lines, either way would be acceptable; consider wind effects and personal preference.

[Bruce Waddington]

HD,

Excellent point !

In Canada the AIM states that pilots are "expected" to enter a hold by one of three procedures (direct, parallel or offset). The reason given is "Pilots are expected to adhere to the aircraft entry and holding manoeuvers as described in RAC 10.5, since ATC provides lateral separation in the form of airspace to be protected in relation to the holding procedure."

So, do all the aerobatic manoeuvers you want, but make sure you are following the correct entry procedure while entering the hold :-))

Our AIM gives recognizes a zone of flexibility of five degrees on either side of the sector boundaries for hold entries.

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

[406pilot]

hola people'

while we are on that subject i would like some clarification on the terminology used my our controllers "NO DELAY"...have seen some pilots alter headings and manufacture a flight path so as once they leave the beacon they can commence the approach...words will probably not be able to explain wht im trying to stipulate here, but may be this will help...

a/c coming from a direction where it is determined tht a teardrop/offset entry is the right way to join, the guy offsets his heading accordingly but istead of coming back to the beacon,he joins the outbound and continues with the approach...is this the right way?

personally i think it is not because i know the controller knows that the entry will take abt 3 mins after the eta and makes provisions...

keep it up there fellows,

no more 406pilot

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Lots of interesting opinions, HD makes a good point as does Barrow, whichever entry is decided upon even the correct one if its done at 250knts you're going to end up in the next hold along in the LTMA.

180 knts and into the safe area and you wont get any complaints

[Rainboe]

406, the controller is hinting there is nobody ahead to hold you up, so he's leaving it down to you to expedite your approach as you see fit. If you are on an instrument rating, you do the full caboodle. But if you are not, and you are tracking on, I would suggest it is not unreasonable to 'tweak' your track inbound to allow you to satisfactorily track outbound in the approach. Similarly for failoperational if you are tracking in on the boundary between 2 sector entries, it is absolutely reasonable to tweak your track inbound so you are in the most convenient sector of the two. In practice, despite your best efforts to track staight in, the needles will bias one way or the other. All you would be doing would be 'helping' them to go the right way!

[Torque2]

Seems to be a distinct difference of opinions between FAA contributors and JAR/EU ops contributors here.

Are we aware of the differences allowed by the FAA when joining the hold as compared to JAR? The FAA have a great many more methods available/allowable including the lazy 8 type manoevre. :ok:

[sapperkenno]

I'm a newly trained FAA CFII here, and I only know of 3 options to enter a hold... And they are the exact same (ICAO standards) I was taught in the UK.

It's an ICAO hold, it should be the same (or very similar) worldwide.

So we have 3 options; Direct, Parallel & Teardrop (aka, "Offset" in Blighty)

If you care to enlighten me as to the "extra" FAA methods, then I'd love to hear...
...Maybe it's something you picked up in Florida?!:confused:

[galaxy flyer]

There really shouldn't be all that great a difference between FAA and ICAO holding entry. Yes, to tell the truth, it is a parking lot, do 360s, if you want and can stay in the airspace. But, practically, the three ways are pretty much it. If you are in a jet, at or near, maximum holding speed, the correct method will ensure staying in the hold. But, in a small plane, probably anything will work, as you are not eating airspace quickly. OTOH, being real picky, to the degree on the course approaching the hold, whether it is track or heading, etc. it will not a make a :mad: difference if you use parallel and I grab the teardrop (offset) course.

Now, about those course reversals for non-radar approaches, WORLD's of difference between the two.

GF

[Torque2]

Sapper, from your profile you have a great advantage in that you have just completed your course. I have only renewed my IR from that area 4 times in the last 4 years and each time have had to be reminded that there are not just 3 entries ,as per UK, to the hold over there. And thats in an Airbus. FYI I'm 56 with 16000 hrs.

[sapperkenno]

Will the airbus FMGS enable it to plonk itself in the hold, and fly it's own entry?? If so, how would it enter? Would it do one of the 3 standard entries, or just do it's own thing??

Wanting to avoid willy-waving and the whole "I've got more hours" etc thing...
The aim does say; (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.

I can't comment on JAR, as I'm not up to speed on their way of doing things, but if they stipulate that there are ONLY 3 ways of entering a hold, then yes, it's different here and your point is valid. Apologies if you think I was trying to make you look stupid! I'll admit that I was unaware of this (until before posting), so thanks for enlightening me! :ok: Now I feel stupid! :\ If anyone can quote the JAR hold entry speel verbatim (or show me where to find it), I'd like to see.

I don't know of anybody teaching these "other entries" to Instrument Pilots though, and I wouldn't think that you'd impress a DPE if you flew your own entry on a check-ride! (when it was clearly obvious which one to use) At least you're covered in the event of a hold entry brain-fart, which is nice.

As has been mentioned before, as long as you're maneuvering on the holding side, and keeping things tight (especially in bigger/faster aircraft) to establish on the inbound course, it "should" all be OK.

It would help if I had a picture, but I have been taught that the holding airspace is designed as follows (although there is no mention of this in the FAR/AIM, and I've been wanting to check this for a while now...)
From the Fix; 10NM back along the inbound course, 7NM out to the holding side, and 3NM, both out in front (on extended line through the fix from inbound course) and out to the non-holding side. Sketch it out and you'll get the jist. Mark the distances out from the fix, and draw big rectangle around it with those distances from the fix to the edges. I was told that this is the airspace that ATC will keep clear for holding traffic, but like I said I can't find anything from the FAA to show this. They teach this at my flight school here (both on my IR and CFII) and make a point about it. It would be interesting if anyone (ATC guys/gals) can shed some light on this! I heard "Hold Template" mentioned earlier, perhaps that's what that is?

(The only thing we could come up with, is that at 265kts for 1.5 mins, even with a strong tailwind, you should still be able to stay inside that airspace?!)

[Torque2]

Not trying to make you feel stupid or wave willy's at all, just establishing credentials as an aviator and not MS Flight Sim flyer.

I currently dont have to hand the entry procedures available but when I rejoin body with home I will have a go at digging them out.

The FMS will attempt to join the hold in 1 of the 3 standard ways (but can come up with an alternative to what you think if its within the 5 deg area).
Overall the ICAO joins are usual no matter where you are, my general point is that SOME aviators from FAA areas may not be aware of the ICAO only perspective of other aviation areas. (And vice versa) :ok:

[Pontius's Copilot]

406pilot et al ...

Those of you (us) who operate around or into the UK should be aware of UK AIC 83/2008:
"3.1 'No delay expected' means in these circumstances:
'Do not anticipate being required to remain in a holding pattern longer than 20 minutes before commencing an approach."

No delay does not mean NO DELAY.