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
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
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) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
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! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
Matt Whiting wrote:
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. Besides, what's the point of flying in circles faster than you have to. As Scotty would say, at Warp 10, we're going nowhere mighty fast. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
Blanche wrote:
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. They never will. They put you in the hold to keep you from going anywhere. Why would they possibly want you to fly in place faster? -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
I'll never forget getting dinged on my IFR checkride for not reducing
power in the hold. DE said it was to save gas and "very important". I thought it was BS but agreed with him mightily. This was in a Skyhawk similar plane (actually my Husky). But saving gas could be an issue as you never really know how long you will be in the hold. I am reminded of the ATC joke when informed that it cost $2000 to take the Boeing around once in a hold an the ATC guy said "well, give me 6 grands worth". ... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
A hold can begin when you are told to "expect" a hold ahead.
Slow down, lean it out and be sure to tell ATC you are now slower than your filed speed. By the time you get there, there may not be a hold required. But when you get into some airplanes there is a minimum holding speed in icing conditions. So the speed should be as slow as reasonable considering limitations, such as autopilot limitations and fast enough to keep any ice on the protected surfaces. "Doug" wrote in message ups.com... | I'll never forget getting dinged on my IFR checkride for not reducing | power in the hold. DE said it was to save gas and "very important". I | thought it was BS but agreed with him mightily. This was in a Skyhawk | similar plane (actually my Husky). But saving gas could be an issue as | you never really know how long you will be in the hold. I am reminded | of the ATC joke when informed that it cost $2000 to take the Boeing | around once in a hold an the ATC guy said "well, give me 6 grands | worth". ... | |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hold direct entry and speed in Skyhawk
On Oct 16, 5:03 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Matt, you are correct about the one minute holds. However, ATC may reqequest you do a distance hold such as 5 mile legs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Skyhawk vs. Mooney | Grant[_2_] | Owning | 50 | May 21st 07 05:32 AM |
Direct dial FSS phone numbers being suggested as work-around to long hold times | Peter R. | Piloting | 3 | May 15th 07 01:16 PM |
A4-B Skyhawk | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 0 | March 2nd 07 01:04 AM |
Photos of 1:48 TA-4K Skyhawk | [email protected] | Restoration | 12 | February 17th 05 03:39 PM |
Skyhawk A4-K Weapons fit? | Ian | Military Aviation | 0 | February 18th 04 02:44 AM |