If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
You can still get in...just 2 weeks back someone took a training twin in
from 06C at 11pm for a T&G Iain Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote: It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns. But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard? The Wright Bros flipped a coin? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
You sure that wasn't just an RJ? Probability is pretty high ducking.
"Iain Wilson" wrote in message news | You can still get in...just 2 weeks back someone took a training twin in | from 06C at 11pm for a T&G | | | Iain | | | Is it really none now? 15-20 years or so ago you could get a few | touch-and-goes in the wee hours, say 3 AM or so. | | | | |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns. But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard? I've wondered that myself. I've got a pretty good collection of old training and procedures manuals that go back to the thirties but I've never found a definite answer. The only thing fairly close was an explanation for the shape of the holding pattern. Gyro instruments needed time to settle down after a turn, so the one minute straight leg was established to allow them to do that. A holding pattern of a continuous turn would cause excessive precession. That explanation seemed rather weak to me. A circular pattern would seem rather dizzying and make maintaining one's position more difficult, which I think would be more than enough reason to have the level segment. But it does bring up the issue of excessive precession. I'm certainly no expert on the mechanics of gyros, but it seems reasonable that a turn in one direction could cause more precession than a turn in the opposite direction. Assuming gyros turned in a standard direction, perhaps right turns were made standard because they caused less precession. Well, that's my best guess. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net... "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns. But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard? I've wondered that myself. I've got a pretty good collection of old training and procedures manuals that go back to the thirties but I've never found a definite answer. Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction? --Gary |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction? My guess would be the traffic pattern. People were landing airplanes long before they were holding them. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I don't have any idea.
One idea I'll throw out is that if a pilot already in a right turn sees a conflicting aircraft ahead of him, he'll already be deviating to the right since he's in a right turn pattern. If he was in a left pattern he would have to switch to a right turn to avoid the oncoming aircraft if they were approaching head on, since both aircraft are supposed to turn right to avoid a head on conflict per the FAR's. JPH Roy Smith wrote: It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns. But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:35:03 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of the cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns. But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way or the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard? As an IFR student, I was told that it is so controllers can easily pick out planes in a hold vs planes in the pattern. It sounded good at the time, but in retrospect, I question the statement: 1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely. 2. Is a controller really going to use relative motion to pick targets? It seems to me it would be easier to just look at their squawk code or altitude. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:43:15 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote: Minimum holding altitude is 2000 agl, according to FAAO 7130.3...hard to conflict with traffic in the pattern at that altitude. My copy says "MHA's are determined by the National Flight Procedures Office." It also says 2-11. ALTITUDE LEVELS. ....Holding at 2,000' and below requires use of the appropriate pattern for 2,000'.... Anyway, a local approach has a hold at 2,000 MSL, which is about 1,500 AGL. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Nathan Young" wrote in message = ... On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:35:03 -0400, Roy Smith wrote: =20 It has always struck me odd that a standard landing pattern is left=20 turns and a standard hold is right turns. Having a left patterns for = landing makes a bit of sense, since the pilot is on the left side of = the=20 cockpit and has a better view of the runway making left turns. But, for IFR holds, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to one way = or=20 the other. Why did they pick right turns to be standard? =20 As an IFR student, I was told that it is so controllers can easily pick out planes in a hold vs planes in the pattern. It sounded good at the time, but in retrospect, I question the statement: =20 1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely. =20 2. Is a controller really going to use relative motion to pick targets? It seems to me it would be easier to just look at their squawk code or altitude. How about: "3. Right-Hand Holds predated Radar by decades!" ---JRC--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR hold short line at uncontrolled airports? | Peter R. | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | June 9th 04 04:47 AM |
Hold at VOR for 2v2 | Doug | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | May 27th 04 11:42 PM |
Hold "as published"? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 83 | November 13th 03 03:19 PM |
Random Hold Generator... | Tina Marie | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | November 5th 03 04:21 PM |
Need Hold Harmless Waver for Ultralight or Experimental Sale | Larry Smith | Home Built | 9 | August 19th 03 02:47 AM |