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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |