What counts as a "Hold" for IFR currency?

[unreal]

I do believe it's when you pass the fix the second time, and you're established in the hold.... with your minute inbound leg...

I always report right after crossing the fix the first time during the entry. I suppose if ATC asks you to "report established" in the hold, it's a bit different. I've always been asked to "report entering" a hold.

My big problem now is figuring out HP entries..... Anybody with good mental tips to remember which headings give you which pattern entries?

Sure. Let's say that you were told to hold north on the XYZ 360-degree radial.

Direct: Simply look at the outbound course of the radial you'll be holding on, and turn to that heading. In this case, your outbound turn after reaching the fix the first time will be to heading 360, since you're holding on the 360 degree radial. Note that once you complete your turn to heading 360, you're established on the outbound leg of the hold.

Teardrop: I've always used the "LARS" acronym for this. You know that you'll be turning 30 degrees in some direction once reaching the holding fix, but LARS clears it up. LARS stands for "Left Add, Right Subtract." If you're setup for a teardrop entry and you'll be holding with left turns, simply add 30 degrees to whatever your outbound course is. If you're holding with right turns, subtract 30 degrees from your outbound.

For our example: Let's say that you're approaching XYZ from the southeast on the 150 degree radial. We know that since we'll be holding with right-hand turns, we have to subtract 30 degrees from the outbound course. Our outbound course in the example is 360, so the initial turn will be to heading 330.

Parallel: Just like a direct entry, your initial turn after crossing the fix will be to the outbound course. Much unlike the direct entry though, you won't be established on the outbound leg. You'll be paralleling the inbound leg on the non-protected side. Still using the XYZ R-360 example, let's say that you're approaching XYZ from the west on the 270 degree radial. Once you cross XYZ, you'll make a left-hand turn to heading 360 and count out your 60 seconds when appropriate. Now, you typically have two options:

1. You can make a long left-hand turn to heading 140-150 in order to set up for a 30-40 degree intercept for the inbound course from the protected side. This is my preferred method. Just to reiterate, after your 60 seconds on the outbound course is up, you'll be turning towards the protected side. Watch out that you don't turn the wrong way.

2. You could do a "90-270" turn, which just entails a 90 degree left-hand turn to heading 270 (again, towards the protected side), then after getting wings-level, a long 270 degree right-hand turn to heading 180. Timed properly, you'll roll wings-level on heading 180 on your inbound course.

Either method works, but as I said, I like #1. I wish I could draw these out for you (I hope that I'm making sense), but I suppose that's what your instructor is for.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Seriously, you all are making way too much out of what counts as a hold. If you think you did a hold then log it. If ATC says turn right to 270 degrees for a delay vector and then back around again and you want to count that then log it. If you think it should count just log it as a hold. It really the honor system, just like the 6 approaches. Count them if you think it should count.

 

[DJRobbioRobbio]

I always report right after crossing the fix the first time during the entry. I suppose if ATC asks you to "report established" in the hold, it's a bit different. I've always been asked to "report entering" a hold.



Sure. Let's say that you were told to hold north on the XYZ 360-degree radial.

Direct: Simply look at the outbound course of the radial you'll be holding on, and turn to that heading. In this case, your outbound turn after reaching the fix the first time will be to heading 360, since you're holding on the 360 degree radial. Note that once you complete your turn to heading 360, you're established on the outbound leg of the hold.

Teardrop: I've always used the "LARS" acronym for this. You know that you'll be turning 30 degrees in some direction once reaching the holding fix, but LARS clears it up. LARS stands for "Left Add, Right Subtract." If you're setup for a teardrop entry and you'll be holding with left turns, simply add 30 degrees to whatever your outbound course is. If you're holding with right turns, subtract 30 degrees from your outbound.

For our example: Let's say that you're approaching XYZ from the southeast on the 150 degree radial. We know that since we'll be holding with right-hand turns, we have to subtract 30 degrees from the outbound course. Our outbound course in the example is 360, so the initial turn will be to heading 330.

Parallel: Just like a direct entry, your initial turn after crossing the fix will be to the outbound course. Much unlike the direct entry though, you won't be established on the outbound leg. You'll be paralleling the inbound leg on the non-protected side. Still using the XYZ R-360 example, let's say that you're approaching XYZ from the west on the 270 degree radial. Once you cross XYZ, you'll make a left-hand turn to heading 360 and count out your 60 seconds when appropriate. Now, you typically have two options:

1. You can make a long left-hand turn to heading 140-150 in order to set up for a 30-40 degree intercept for the inbound course from the protected side. This is my preferred method. Just to reiterate, after your 60 seconds on the outbound course is up, you'll be turning towards the protected side. Watch out that you don't turn the wrong way.

2. You could do a "90-270" turn, which just entails a 90 degree left-hand turn to heading 270 (again, towards the protected side), then after getting wings-level, a long 270 degree right-hand turn to heading 180. Timed properly, you'll roll wings-level on heading 180 on your inbound course.

Either method works, but as I said, I like #1. I wish I could draw these out for you (I hope that I'm making sense), but I suppose that's what your instructor is for.

Let me rephrase the question...

I already know about the types of entries, but let's just say we were told to... "Hold North of the XYZ VOR, 360 Radial, Right Turns, Expect Further Clearance 1845Z" And we were flying inbound to the fix, on a heading of let's say 230 (ok, I know this on is a direct entry, but bear with me here...), what I'm getting at is, what is an easy way to deduce which is the best way to enter a hold, given a certain heading to a fix.

 

[unreal]

Ah, sorry. I misread your question. I thought by "headings," you meant headings after the fix. I didn't mean to try to tell you something you already knew.

Personally, the way that I figure out which entry to use (and what I've taught to people with good results) is to simply look at your DG. Pretend that the center of the DG is the fix you're going to hold on. Now, in your head draw a line between the center of the DG and the outbound heading marked on the gauge. Here's a diagram of what I'm talking about so far, using the example of holding NW of XYZ on R-320. (I'm studying up for a CFI interview coming up, so let me practice on you if you don't mind ):

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j31/dasleben/b3040fd9.jpg

Anyway, from there I simply think about what the hold looks like with the turns included. Just for fun, we'll say left turns. By the way, I wanted to use your example of holding on R-360, but MS paint sucks:

Now, you can really do one of two things. Personally, I can eyeball this very quickly and see that it's going to require a parallel entry. I'm sure you can too. The real tricky part is when it's a close call between two options. At that point you could just use the tried-and-true 110-70 rule to figure it out:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j31/dasleben/dg3.jpg

Anyhoo, I probably haven't done anything more than prove to you guys that I have way too much free time on my hands, but I hope you get the jist (and I answered your question). The nice thing about this method is that it doesn't require you to use crutches like drawing on a sheet of paper to figure out. Simply look at your DG.

 

[Doozer]

People make this IFR currency thing way too difficult

The requirement in 61.57(c)(1)(ii) actually just states "Holding procedures."

I substitute holding patterns for my procedure turns on some of my approaches. After all, the method of course reversal is your choice (unless it's actually depicted as a holding pattern entry) and the entry and first orbit are the relatively difficult parts; the rest is pretty much droning around in ovals.

Finally, if someone can make me understand exactly how intercepting the holding course inbound is not "Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems" I'd be most grateful.

I submit that you're killing two birds with one stone on each approach conducted in this manner.

Repeat 5 times, and you're current for IFR.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Finally, if someone can make me understand exactly how intercepting the holding course inbound is not "Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems" I'd be most grateful.

My opinion is that the whole part about holding procedures is a joke unless the FAA defines holds better in the regulation.

And the point that Doozer makes about "intercepting and tracking courses" is an even bigger joke. Why did the FAA ever add such a requirement to the IFR currency requirements? Writing it was a waste of ink on the page. After all, if a pilot flies the 6 approaches (or even one) or even intercepts an airway one time isn't this "intercepting and tracking coures?"

 

[Holding Short]

Let me rephrase the question...

I already know about the types of entries, but let's just say we were told to... "Hold North of the XYZ VOR, 360 Radial, Right Turns, Expect Further Clearance 1845Z" And we were flying inbound to the fix, on a heading of let's say 230 (ok, I know this on is a direct entry, but bear with me here...), what I'm getting at is, what is an easy way to deduce which is the best way to enter a hold, given a certain heading to a fix.

I'll give it a shot.

Note the outbound heading of the the holding pattern. Now, assuming you are heading directly to the fix, note where that outbound heading falls on the face of the DG(heading indicator). If it falls any where between directly ahead(12 o'clock) and 70 degrees to the right, it will be a tear drop entry.

If that heading you figured out earlier falls between directly ahead and 110 degrees to the left on the face of the DG, it will be a parallell entry.

If that heading falls anywhere else on the DG , other than 70 right or 110 left it will be direct entry. This is all for a right hand pattern.

Flip it around for left patterns.... 110 right of DG face ; 70 left. The teardrop section(70 left) will now be on the left side of the DG and the parallel(110 right) will be on the right.


Example

"Hold North of the XYZ VOR, 360 Radial, Right Turns, Expect Further Clearance 1845Z" And we were flying inbound to the fix, on a heading of let's say 230


Outbound heading is 360. Your inbound on 230 heading. 360 does not fall anywhere on the 70 right or 110 left of the DG face , so it would be direct.
Try it out.

HS

 

[Flyerjosh]

Personally I think that if ATC tells you to make a right 360, it's a hold. I don't bother to log holds in my logbook. But then again we go back to the sim every 6 months anyway, so it doesn't really matter... we cover holding during recurrent.

 

[nosehair]

I submit that you're killing two birds with one stone on each approach conducted in this manner.

And I submit that you are short-cutting it.

Again, I say it is up to the pilot for himself and up to the instructor when doing training, but when I do something like you are saying, ie., "substitute" a procedure turn for a holding pattern, it is a short-cut and you are making a decision that you don't need actual "holding procedures" practice.
There is more to holding than making the dreaded entry. (You flew past your EFC! What? What EFC? Hey! What the- my radio's dead! What the f* do I do now?)

Like calling a "traffic pattern" a "rectangular course", or a high go-around from a simulated forced landing, calling that a "go-around" from a botched approach or landing. Each maneuver/procedure has it's own specific elements of training. Combining maneuvers is risky. Is the student getting every element that the maneuver is designed to teach?

It's short-cutting, and some level of training is being skipped. I'm not saying *every* hold, or approach, or other maneuver you practice must always have every element of the maneuver or procedure, but you should do enough often enough to remain competent and proficient. That is your call and is left up to your integrity.

It only becomes a problem when "short-cutting" becomes a habit, a lifestyle, and proficiency declines, and worse, the bragging becomes the goal of the new pilot.

 

[Doozer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doozer
I submit that you're killing two birds with one stone on each approach conducted in this manner.

"And I submit that you are short-cutting it. "

And you would be absolutely right.

Having said that, you'll never see me argue that proficiency isn't more important than currency; however, the original topic was what counts, not what should count. It was about legality; not proficiency. If we want to debate proficiency vs. currency, that's best left for another thread (or over several beers).

As an FAA instructor and as a military instructor/evaluator, I can and could tell when someone adequately mastered a maneuver, a concept or some other training requirement.

You mentioned personal integrity. Well, as an instructor, I'm in the customer service business, and I happen to believe that part of personal integrity while instructing is giving someone the most bang for his buck -- not milking him for more training dollars. When someone has obviously grasped or exceeded the requirements I tell him and -- unless he wants more practice -- we move on. Conversely, when someone hasn't grasped the requirements, I tell him why, I reiterate how he needs to demonstrate mastery and we don't move on until he has.

I can't monitor everyone's integrity -- and I won't try. I like living, so I'm not about to overestimate my proficiency; anyone I endorse has also demonstrated a similarly mature attitude.

There are exceptions, but the FAA's legal counsel consistently rules in favor of the letter of the regulations -- even when common sense screams otherwise. Perhaps the FAA will exercise some common sense in this subpart during the next iteration of 14 CFR. Until then, the rules are the rules.

It's up to each of us to decide if we will continue to strive for proficiency or merely strive for legality. Maybe I can buy you a beer at the wake of one of the latter.