Parallel Entry (Sector 1) Question
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Club 151
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parallel Entry (Sector 1) Question
Gooday all.
Call me anal, but I am just trying to clear up a little technical point I have been pondering regarding Parallel sector entries.
AIP/JEPP states that for entry from sector one;
"on reaching the holding fix, the aircraft is turned onto an outbound heading for an appropriate amount of time, then turned onto the holding side to intercept the inbound track"
Im not quite sure how everybody does this, but I concieve two ways.
1. Passing over the fix turn onto the exact reciprocal of the inbound for the time required, then back inbound (this would take the aircraft through the desired inbound track).
2. Passing over the fix, fly a heading for a certain amount of time (not necessarily the recpirocal of the inbound) which gives an appropriate amount of spacing such that when the turn back inbound is made, the aircraft is more or less positioned on the inbound track.
Can anyone comment on how you would fly this?
Cheers
Call me anal, but I am just trying to clear up a little technical point I have been pondering regarding Parallel sector entries.
AIP/JEPP states that for entry from sector one;
"on reaching the holding fix, the aircraft is turned onto an outbound heading for an appropriate amount of time, then turned onto the holding side to intercept the inbound track"
Im not quite sure how everybody does this, but I concieve two ways.
1. Passing over the fix turn onto the exact reciprocal of the inbound for the time required, then back inbound (this would take the aircraft through the desired inbound track).
2. Passing over the fix, fly a heading for a certain amount of time (not necessarily the recpirocal of the inbound) which gives an appropriate amount of spacing such that when the turn back inbound is made, the aircraft is more or less positioned on the inbound track.
Can anyone comment on how you would fly this?
Cheers
Generally I fly the outbound (reciprocal corrected for wind) as soon as I pass over the fix. I believe that the diagram on the DAPS actually shows that the aircraft may pass through the inbound before reestablishing on the actual inbound bearing/radial. I'm quite sure that there are people who do it the other way.
Not too big a deal as long as (for a sector one) you don't deviate TOO far off the reciprocal to the inbound...if you did, it'd be like doing a sector 2 on the opposite side.
My 2 cents worth.
HP
Not too big a deal as long as (for a sector one) you don't deviate TOO far off the reciprocal to the inbound...if you did, it'd be like doing a sector 2 on the opposite side.
My 2 cents worth.
HP
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It is called a Parallel entry, because you do exactly that, it is sometimes called the 'offset entry'.
The technique requires that you parallel your inbound track, before turning inbound within the confines of the protected race track pattern.
The technique requires that you parallel your inbound track, before turning inbound within the confines of the protected race track pattern.
Private,
You must do (1). That keeps the aircraft track near the holding pattern. Your (2) is the same as the "teardrop" entry (is that a sector 2?!). You can extend laterally on a teardrop as you are in the middle of the holding pattern. I don't think you should extend "away" from the pattern to build in enough offset to rollout on the inbound if in a parallel sector.
You must do (1). That keeps the aircraft track near the holding pattern. Your (2) is the same as the "teardrop" entry (is that a sector 2?!). You can extend laterally on a teardrop as you are in the middle of the holding pattern. I don't think you should extend "away" from the pattern to build in enough offset to rollout on the inbound if in a parallel sector.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Club 151
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Guys
After an hour or so it dawned on me that to do option 1 would be an offset! Hardly affords you of the airspace protection of the holding pattern.
Cheers guys.
After an hour or so it dawned on me that to do option 1 would be an offset! Hardly affords you of the airspace protection of the holding pattern.
Cheers guys.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ooops!
Just goes to show you don't need to know the names to be able to do them!
Just goes to show you don't need to know the names to be able to do them!
Hardly affords you of the airspace protection of the holding pattern.
Sector 1 - Parallel entry, plan to intercept the inbound by turning through the track.
Sector 2 - Offset - A base turn...nowhere in Jepps is it called teardrop
Sector 3 - Direct
P - O - D
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no requirement for you to intercept the inbound track of the hold from a sector 1 (and hasn't been for a few years). You only have to turn to the holding side and track back to the aid.
However, from a CIR "learning" (and common sense) point of view, it's a good idea to intercept the inbound track as it gives you an opportunity to suss out the drift angle that you might need to allow for during the approach, or subsequent holding if necessary.
However, from a CIR "learning" (and common sense) point of view, it's a good idea to intercept the inbound track as it gives you an opportunity to suss out the drift angle that you might need to allow for during the approach, or subsequent holding if necessary.
When you live....
Intercepting inbound track on parallel entry
Huge,
I used to slavishly try and intercept inbound track for sector 1 entries for the reasons you describe until one day an instructor pointed out to me that by flying over the aid AND then turning to parallel (and sure, you're taking a stab at the wind effect) and so getting deliberately 'outside' the racetrack makes it easier to turn inbound an intercept the inbound track.
Sure enough, the frantic chaos I used to go through trying to make a 225+ degree turn and reintecept the inbound track after flying outbound on it suddenly became far easier as the inbound is intercepted much earlier, allowing you to actualy assess the real inbound drift in the 45-odd seconds you've got left until reaching the aid.
This is what the diagrams infer is allowed/required and it made life much easier.
Private,
The holding pattern, per-se, offers no 'protection' of any form - unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) - all holding patterns will have a 'min alt' that corresponds to the MSA requirements of the area - that's where your protection comes from. Prescribing sector entry patterns, apart from making it easier for you, merely ensures you'll be in the expected piece of airspace overhead the aid when holding - more important in CTA I guess!
Hope this helps,
UTR
I used to slavishly try and intercept inbound track for sector 1 entries for the reasons you describe until one day an instructor pointed out to me that by flying over the aid AND then turning to parallel (and sure, you're taking a stab at the wind effect) and so getting deliberately 'outside' the racetrack makes it easier to turn inbound an intercept the inbound track.
Sure enough, the frantic chaos I used to go through trying to make a 225+ degree turn and reintecept the inbound track after flying outbound on it suddenly became far easier as the inbound is intercepted much earlier, allowing you to actualy assess the real inbound drift in the 45-odd seconds you've got left until reaching the aid.
This is what the diagrams infer is allowed/required and it made life much easier.
Private,
The holding pattern, per-se, offers no 'protection' of any form - unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) - all holding patterns will have a 'min alt' that corresponds to the MSA requirements of the area - that's where your protection comes from. Prescribing sector entry patterns, apart from making it easier for you, merely ensures you'll be in the expected piece of airspace overhead the aid when holding - more important in CTA I guess!
Hope this helps,
UTR
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was tought to maitain your heading past the aid for about 5 to 10 sec.
then turn parallel (correct for wind) for 1min for a 1 min pattern (1.5mins for a 2min pattern) then come back on the inboud track.
But I only just passed my CIR initial so my two cents isnt worth as much as some of the others.
then turn parallel (correct for wind) for 1min for a 1 min pattern (1.5mins for a 2min pattern) then come back on the inboud track.
But I only just passed my CIR initial so my two cents isnt worth as much as some of the others.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was tought to maitain your heading past the aid for about 5 to 10 sec
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The holding pattern, per-se, offers no 'protection' of any form - unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) - all holding patterns will have a 'min alt' that corresponds to the MSA requirements of the area - that's where your protection comes from. Prescribing sector entry patterns, apart from making it easier for you, merely ensures you'll be in the expected piece of airspace overhead the aid when holding - more important in CTA I guess!"
Sorry mate, but you are mistaken.
Have a look at the Albury RWY 25 NDB or VOR plate - the holding is below the MSA.
The holding pattern, like every other approach or departure "pattern" gives obstacle protection as long as the pilot flies the procedure, and associated sector entries, as set out in AIP.
If the holding pattern does not overly the MSA obstacle then you should be allowed to hold at a lower level.
If an airfield was 15nm or so, south of Mt Everest, and the holding pattern was to the south of the aid, would you want to hold 1000ft above Everest?
Sorry mate, but you are mistaken.
Have a look at the Albury RWY 25 NDB or VOR plate - the holding is below the MSA.
The holding pattern, like every other approach or departure "pattern" gives obstacle protection as long as the pilot flies the procedure, and associated sector entries, as set out in AIP.
If the holding pattern does not overly the MSA obstacle then you should be allowed to hold at a lower level.
If an airfield was 15nm or so, south of Mt Everest, and the holding pattern was to the south of the aid, would you want to hold 1000ft above Everest?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Club 151
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou all for you thoughts. Always much appreciated.
With respect to protection, It seems I have used the word in the wrong context. I had meant to use the term in regards to airspace protection which I saw was in Pans Ops while I was trying to research the procedure myself. (Not meaning to use the word in reference to terrain!)
Who would have thought parallel entries could have provoked such conversation!
Cheers again to all.
With respect to protection, It seems I have used the word in the wrong context. I had meant to use the term in regards to airspace protection which I saw was in Pans Ops while I was trying to research the procedure myself. (Not meaning to use the word in reference to terrain!)
Who would have thought parallel entries could have provoked such conversation!
Cheers again to all.
When you live....
RR
Thanks - I knew someone would prove me wrong!
I'll modify my statement from 'MSA requirements' to 'local obstacle requirements' which of course then changes the whole jist of my answer (and improves my understanding!)
So I wonder if this means that when doing a parallel entry, you can't descend to min holding alt until established inbound again? I suppose it does.
I was curious about Albany 32 NDB where the minimum holding altitude is higher than the 10nm MSA - I guess by the time you add tolerances then maybe you are at risk of getting outside 10nm.
UTR
I'll modify my statement from 'MSA requirements' to 'local obstacle requirements' which of course then changes the whole jist of my answer (and improves my understanding!)
So I wonder if this means that when doing a parallel entry, you can't descend to min holding alt until established inbound again? I suppose it does.
I was curious about Albany 32 NDB where the minimum holding altitude is higher than the 10nm MSA - I guess by the time you add tolerances then maybe you are at risk of getting outside 10nm.
UTR
The holding pattern can be below the MSA, but that doesn't include the sector entry. the sector entry as i understand it needs to be done at the MSA, then once established in the hold, descent to holding altitude is allowed...
"Who would have thought parallel entries could have provoked such conversation!"
I would!
This is the forum with:
a 4 or 5 page discussion on how to start a PA28 !!! .... and,
a 7 page discussion on how to land a C182 !!!
etc, etc, etc
Dr
I would!
This is the forum with:
a 4 or 5 page discussion on how to start a PA28 !!! .... and,
a 7 page discussion on how to land a C182 !!!
etc, etc, etc
Dr
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: the rat race
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having not done any IFR since my CIR test a while back, I'm a bit rusty, but how is it that you can do a sector entry into a holding pattern at the holding altitude if it is below MSA as DirectAnywhere suggests?
If this is the case, when do you descend from MSA to the holding altitude without flying over the aid first?
just curious.
If this is the case, when do you descend from MSA to the holding altitude without flying over the aid first?
just curious.
Grandpa Aerotart
If track LSA is not low enough then you would need to be at MORA/25nm MSA until reaching the fix (DME dist/radial, radial/radial or GPS/IRS derived waypoint) the holding pattern is predicated on and then descend to the minimum holding altitude during the sector entry or once established in the hold. That minimum holding altitude is based on the highest obstacle within a protected area around the holding pattern...or it may be predicated on lower limit CTA, 500' above LL CTA rings a bell...as a result if you conform to the tracking requirements and speed limits of the procedure you're protected at the minimum holding altitude.
The sector 1 entry is displayed as it is for a very simple reason...you track past the fix and then turn onto a heading to make good a track reciprocal to the inbound track...basic physics suggests you will be parralleling the inbound track offset some distance depending on TAS...after the prescribed time interval you turn left/right to intercept the inbound track from inside the holding pattern. Rather like the sector 2 (teardrop) entry where you are inside the pattern throughout.
Why try to turn a sector 1 into, effectively, a sector 2 on the wrong side of the pattern?
The sector 1 entry is displayed as it is for a very simple reason...you track past the fix and then turn onto a heading to make good a track reciprocal to the inbound track...basic physics suggests you will be parralleling the inbound track offset some distance depending on TAS...after the prescribed time interval you turn left/right to intercept the inbound track from inside the holding pattern. Rather like the sector 2 (teardrop) entry where you are inside the pattern throughout.
Why try to turn a sector 1 into, effectively, a sector 2 on the wrong side of the pattern?