View Single Post
  #13  
Old July 9th 03, 11:19 PM
Ryan Ferguson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dan Luke wrote:

Not necessarily. Why do you think holds are depicted for some course
reversals? Why not a PT every time?


Usually because the approach has to be designed that way, whether it's because
of obstructions, airspace, the missed approach procedure, or other issues. I
can assure you that when the weather's low and everyone's trying to get in, no
one will appreciate your extra lap if it wasn't necessary.


And as for applied thinking, may I respectfully suggest that you might do
little more of it on this subject. Draw a series of entries with the
orthodox method and then overlay them with drawings of the method I suggest.
I think you'll see there's not enough difference to matter.


Most of the time, you're right. There's very little perceivable difference
between the brain-mush method and the actual prescribed hold entries. The
difference occurs when:

1) You need to hold, winds are blowing perpendicular to the inbound and outbound
course, and you don't want to blown to the wrong side of the hold. (Yes, I
realize that you're actually protected well into what we think of as
'unprotected' airspace, but that's simply sloppy flying - and we GA pilots have
a cushion because our airplanes are slow.)

2) You need to fly a course reversal (hold-in-lieu) and stabilize the approach
early (when it ideally should be stabilized.) A 172 is easy to stabilize on
damn near any segment of any approach. A Twin Comanche is not.

3) When taking a flight test.

4) When instructing students who need to pass flight tests.

5) To satisfactorily pass an ATP flight test.

6) In many cases, to 'pass' a job interview, for the career-minded among us.

Regardless of the way you decide to fly, Dan, you just can't throw this out!

Best regards,

-Ryan
CFI-ASE-AME, CFI-RH, CP-ASMEL-IA, CP-RH, AGI