Why is a standard hold right turns?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
Seems rather weak to me. If the weather is good enough for pattern work
there wouldn't seem to be much need to hold.

Good enough is in the eye of the beholder. Not too long ago, I shot
the NDB into GTU. The bases were right at minimums - I was in and out
of cloud at MDA. Once I finally got the airport in sight (less than 2
miles out - and I've shot that approach several times so I know the
area) and started my descent to the runway, someone asked on the radio
what the bases were.

I gave an honest answer - "Right at mins, in fact I wasn't sure until
30 seconds ago whether I would get in or not."

As I fueled, I watched a plane take off and do pattern work...

Michael

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
Seems rather weak to me. If the weather is good enough for pattern work
there wouldn't seem to be much need to hold.

A backup of traffic?

I remember not too long ago spending about 20 minutes in a holding pattern
(not as PIC) due to a traffic jam.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message =
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
Seems rather weak to me. If the weather is good enough for pattern =
work
there wouldn't seem to be much need to hold.
=20
A backup of traffic?
=20
I remember not too long ago spending about 20 minutes in a holding =
pattern
(not as PIC) due to a traffic jam.
=20
=20
Ouch. Even Oshkosh AirVenture isn't usually that bad.
---JRC---

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?

"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.

"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

"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.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"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.

True, but it was awhile before air traffic was concentrated enough to
require standard patterns. If the holding pattern did get formalized first,
perhaps right-hand turns were chosen simply because clockwise is a more
standard direction than counterclockwise, and the choice was otherwise
arbitrary. For the traffic pattern, though, pilot-side visibility makes a
counterclockwise pattern much more sensible, as you noted.

Anyway, I'm just throwing in another wild guess.

--Gary

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

My guess would be the traffic pattern. People were landing airplanes
long before they were holding them.


Yes, but not necessarily from a landing pattern as we know it today. The
Air Commerce Regulations of 1928 say nothing about any kind of landing
pattern.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

My guess would be the traffic pattern. People were landing airplanes
long before they were holding them.


Yes, but not necessarily from a landing pattern as we know it today.
The Air Commerce Regulations of 1928 say nothing about any kind of
landing pattern.

Maybe that's because many "fields" were used to land airships. They were
circular so wind direction didn't matter. It's hard to define a "pattern"
for a circular field. Lakehurst NJ is still circular and is easily seen
from airliners heading to the JFK VOR from the south.