Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk

Blanche wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Terence Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen

On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:
I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
with their timings, etc.

I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
efficient). Obviously I need more practice.
The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
with that.

The other advantage of going a bit slower (for the time being) is having
more time to pay attention to what's going on, not being rushed when
ATC calls, etc. On the other hand, if ATC states "keep your speed up",
then that's another matter entirely.


You fly holds generally by time not distance, so how does flying slower
make things happen slower? A one minute leg takes one minute no matter
how fast you are flying. :-)

Matt

"Keep your speed up" in a hold?

For what purpose would ATC ever ask that you "keep your speed up" in a
hold?


On 16 Oct 2007 16:29:19 GMT, Blanche wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:
Terence Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:01:40 -0700, Mark Hansen

On 10/12/07 07:39, Terence Wilson wrote:

I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
with their timings, etc.


I was using 100, but had a little trouble maintaining a co-ordinated
standard rate turn, 80 makes it a lot easier (and more fuel
efficient). Obviously I need more practice.

The slower speed means more crab to handle the wind also. I'd fly at
least 90 in a hold in a Hawk, but if you comfortable at 80 nothing wrong
with that.

The other advantage of going a bit slower (for the time being) is having
more time to pay attention to what's going on, not being rushed when
ATC calls, etc. On the other hand, if ATC states "keep your speed up",
then that's another matter entirely.

Terence,

What Mark said. As for speed, I use 90 in a comparable plane, 80 seems
a little slow to me, but it is a matter of taste. The controller would
probably appreciate a heads-up about the speed change (here in Europe
you must inform them). Also, should you actually get a hold in earnest,
I would ask for slower immediately on the way to the hold, since the
whole purpose of the excercise is to delay me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mark Hansen wrote:
I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
with their timings, etc.


Why would they care? They want you to drill holes in a little chunk of sky to
kill time. They don't want you flying out of the protected chunk of sky
assigned to you but what you do within it really doesn't matter. You shouldn't
be competing with other aircraft within the circle... ATC will stack traffic
vertically instead of within the circle itself.

Remember, the prime reason to hold is to kill time... plain and simple. The
reason to slow down is only to save fuel since you're not going anywhere. You
could fly around at full speed if you've got the fuel to waste.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Remember, the prime reason to hold is to kill time... plain and simple. The
reason to slow down is only to save fuel since you're not going anywhere. You
could fly around at full speed if you've got the fuel to waste.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Agreed. No reason to go blasting around the racetrack. You aren't
going 'anywhere'. g

On 10/12/07 14:17, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
I use 90. I don't know of any reason you can't use 80 if you like, other
than perhaps going slower than the controllers are expecting, and messing
with their timings, etc.


Why would they care? They want you to drill holes in a little chunk of sky to
kill time. They don't want you flying out of the protected chunk of sky
assigned to you but what you do within it really doesn't matter. You shouldn't
be competing with other aircraft within the circle... ATC will stack traffic
vertically instead of within the circle itself.

Remember, the prime reason to hold is to kill time... plain and simple. The
reason to slow down is only to save fuel since you're not going anywhere. You
could fly around at full speed if you've got the fuel to waste.

Sorry about the confusion. I use the same speed for holds that I do for other
flight around the approach area (for example, while on "base" getting vectored
to the FAC), and I was thinking of these other phases.

Still, you can go as slow as you want, and I didn't mean to imply that there
was any requirement to the contrary.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

I used 80K while in Oklahoma where you don't fly in the clouds in summer or
winter very often. When I moved to Seattle I switched to 90K because the 172
likes to make carb ice at 1700 rpm more than at 1900 (90K) and we flew in
visible moisture a lot up there. I didn't like flying holds with the carb
heat turned on. I'd rather use it when necessary at lower power settings.

I had an instrument student that came to me after several hours of work with
other instructors. He was adamant about flying the holds at 75K so I let him
(for a while). During one lesson where we were holding over Kitsap at some
intersection for a while, he had to keep adding power to maintain airspeed
and altitude. He finally figured out that he was picking up carb ice and
applied it full on all at once. I'm sure there weren't more than 10 or 12
revolutions of the engine while it tried to burn water, but that was the
longest "stumble" he'd ever experienced and was an object lesson in forming
bad habits.

You really should be able to fly the holds at various speeds ranging from
best endurance, to low-cruise because sometimes you need the higher speed to
avoid ridiculous wind correction angles. I really think you should plan your
hold speeds based on conditions at the time of the hold. Flight is a dynamic
thing after all.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:36:03 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote:

I used 80K while in Oklahoma where you don't fly in the clouds in summer or
winter very often. When I moved to Seattle I switched to 90K because the 172
likes to make carb ice at 1700 rpm more than at 1900 (90K) and we flew in
visible moisture a lot up there. I didn't like flying holds with the carb
heat turned on. I'd rather use it when necessary at lower power settings.

I had an instrument student that came to me after several hours of work with
other instructors. He was adamant about flying the holds at 75K so I let him
(for a while). During one lesson where we were holding over Kitsap at some
intersection for a while, he had to keep adding power to maintain airspeed
and altitude. He finally figured out that he was picking up carb ice and
applied it full on all at once. I'm sure there weren't more than 10 or 12
revolutions of the engine while it tried to burn water, but that was the
longest "stumble" he'd ever experienced and was an object lesson in forming
bad habits.

You really should be able to fly the holds at various speeds ranging from
best endurance, to low-cruise because sometimes you need the higher speed to
avoid ridiculous wind correction angles. I really think you should plan your
hold speeds based on conditions at the time of the hold. Flight is a dynamic
thing after all.


Great post Jim. Thanks!