Required hold?

In article ,
"Stan Prevost" wrote:

This could be clearer, terminology wise. It is not worth the interminable
confusion it causes.

But if everything the FAA did was clear terminology wise, we'd have
nothing left to talk about on the net. That wouldn't be much fun, would
it?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stan Prevost" wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tyler wrote:

Similar to a procedure turn?

Not only is it similar to a procedure turn, it IS a procedure turn.


This depends on how much you want to play with words.

My intent wasn't to play with words. In real life, I'm just a software
geek. I'm thinking that the "hold in lieu of procedure turn" is a
subclass of "procedure turn", therefore it IS a procedure turn (or
written more conventionally in computer-science-geeky terms, is-a PT).


heh-heh, I think it would be:

CourseReversal
subclass ProcedureTurn
subclass HoldEntry

Or maybe, "ProcedureTurn and HoldEntry both implement the CourseReversal
interface"



Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Generally, a holding pattern is used when there is no requirement for
an extended distance or altitude change during course reversal.

If the IAF is an on-airport VOR, for instance, a hold wouyld not work
as a course reversal.

Likewise, if there is significant altitude to lose during the
procedure turn, a hold would not work either.






On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:34:57 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
"Stan Prevost" wrote:

This could be clearer, terminology wise. It is not worth the interminable
confusion it causes.

But if everything the FAA did was clear terminology wise, we'd have
nothing left to talk about on the net. That wouldn't be much fun, would
it?