A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why is a standard hold right turns?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 28th 04, 06:24 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Greg Esres wrote:

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.


You're right; there is no 2,000' floor. It's policy to have controlled
airspace at least 300 feet below the MHA. That is normally accomplished with
Class E 700 AGL airspace. That means, in theory, the MHA could be as low as
1,000 AGL, except no one would design to that assumption. But, 1,200 AGL is
certainly possible because 200 feet is the assumed adverse obstacle height
where no higher obstacles are recorded in the digital obstacle file.


  #22  
Old June 28th 04, 11:34 AM
Ryan Ferguson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nathan Young wrote in message . ..

1. Holds are pretty uncommon. Holds when VFR conditions exist at the
surface (to allow pattern work) seem even less likely.


They're probably far more common in VFR conditions, because more
aircraft are flying and therefore more flight training is being
conducted. Holds are the domain of instrument-rating applicants.
  #23  
Old June 28th 04, 01:49 PM
Nathan Young
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:41:58 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
wrote:


"Nathan Young" wrote in message ...
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.


How about: "3. Right-Hand Holds predated Radar by decades!"


Excellent point!
  #24  
Old June 28th 04, 02:01 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #25  
Old June 28th 04, 03:17 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #26  
Old June 28th 04, 04:09 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #27  
Old June 28th 04, 06:33 PM
John R. Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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---

  #28  
Old June 29th 04, 04:45 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:t4GDc.125921$0y.63326@attbi_s03...

Is there any indication as to which was standardized first--the
holding-pattern direction or the traffic pattern direction?


None of the material in my possession provides even a hint which was first.


  #29  
Old June 29th 04, 04:49 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #30  
Old June 29th 04, 03:38 PM
William W. Plummer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:19 PM
Random Hold Generator... Tina Marie Instrument Flight Rules 0 November 5th 03 05:21 PM
Need Hold Harmless Waver for Ultralight or Experimental Sale Larry Smith Home Built 9 August 19th 03 02:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.