Instrument Holds

bc2209

bc2209

Well-Known Member
I've been training for my CFI-I and it's all coming back slowly. However, something new has been brought up that I have never done before. I also can't find it in any book so far.

My instructor is trying to get me to do a Tear drop check and a 60 degree check while in the hold. The whole idea is to evaluate, based on math and numbers to decide if you are on a good path while established in the hold.

Has anyone heard of this?

I'm getting frustrated with it because 1. I don't understand it that well and 2.I can't find it anywhere in a book.

Also, is there a different or easier way to do this? Is it necessary?

Granted i'm still trying to get back into the swing of things and it might be overkill trying to find tune this stuff.
 
While in the hold? I guess I don't quite understand what you are asking. You do have to be able to do a teardrop entry to enter a hold.

Aopa has some decent free courses for instrument work.
 
Yes while established in the hold. Apparently it is a check to make sure you are on the correct course/hold.
 
I have never heard of this. Isn't being established on the correct radial and distance/time enough of a check?
 
Holding is pretty cut and dry. Never heard of a teardrop or 60 degree check? Once you're in the hold, continue to make corrections for wind drift, based on time and if you are on the protected side of the hold or not.
 
Roger Roger said:
I usually just blunder around aimlessly on the protected side of the hold until they tell me I'm cleared for the approach.
Click to expand...
THIS!

Unless ATC has a live flightaware display, they can't even tell what you're doing, nor do they really care I imagine. So long as you're appearing relatively where you should be, that's all that matters. Correct me if I'm wrong though, ATC guys. :)
 
UAL747400 said:
THIS!

Unless ATC has a live flightaware display, they can't even tell what you're doing, nor do they really care I imagine. So long as you're appearing relatively where you should be, that's all that matters. Correct me if I'm wrong though, ATC guys. :)
Click to expand...

As long as you don't go past the fix and start turning I could careless how big it is, I generally am protecting your altitude and a wide range of where you could be turning to, once you are established in the hold I do kind of expect to see similar patterns from then on out, and miss traffic around that. But, if you are stacked with like 5+ planes, yeah I probably can't see what you are doing, you could zig zag, it just looks like a jumbled mess of datablocks/targets.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
Hey Mr. Meerkat can you please share with the class what a 60 degree check is?


Isn't the radial you're holding on a good indicator if you're established? Excess work, if such a thing exists.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it, actually, "they" - the OP talks about a "Tear drop check and a 60 degree check", are supposed to be some way of determining whether your wind correction is sufficient on the outbound. Or maybe to gauge when to start turning to the inbound?

I have heard of twisting the CDI to the 30° offset to track a teardrop entry (maybe that's the teardrop check?) but have no idea what the 60° check would be.

Overall it mostly sounds like one more way we seem to make holding, in reality a fairly simple procedure, far more complicated than it needs to be.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Overall it mostly sounds like one more way we seem to make holding, in reality a fairly simple procedure, far more complicated than it needs to be.
Click to expand...

Lesson #1 about holds, All you are doing is flying around in circles.

It seems that for some reason CFIIs commonly make instrument flying much more complicated than it really is. I find that it is actually easier than VFR x-cty flying (particularly in this age of GPS)
 
USMCmech said:
Lesson #1 about holds, All you are doing is flying around in circles.

It seems that for some reason CFIIs commonly make instrument flying much more complicated than it really is. I find that it is actually easier than VFR x-cty flying (particularly in this age of GPS)
Click to expand...
It's only partially CFIIs. Most simply follow the usual methods of teaching the AIM entries, including the degrees for the separation for the various entry types and then trying to find ways to calculate those in the cockpit. Most of the instrument training texts are just as guilty.

It's kind of a failure to separate theory from practice that goes all the way back to turns around a point in primary training - how many CFIs teach trying to figure out wind correction angles for every point along the circle as opposed to "visualize a circle around that point; now fly the same circle and do what you need with bank".
 
Was your instructor exposed to the UK by any chance? This is standard fare in UK ME-IR instruction - for many years only staff examiners employed by the CAA were used and they expected all sorts of daft stuff on NDB holds (VORs were too easy!) - they expected perfection. The idea is you check at 90/60/30 to inbound QDM to determine if you are wide or tight and correct appropriately to establish inbound.

NDB dip just makes it harder. At 60 to go, the QDM should be ~10° off the inbound, and at 30 to go, the needle should be on the inbound. It's massively overcomplicating it, but that was what we had to do to get past the test. If you didn't pass first time, it was almost impossible to get a job too!
 
Joshwa said:
Was your instructor exposed to the UK by any chance? This is standard fare in UK ME-IR instruction - for many years only staff examiners employed by the CAA were used and they expected all sorts of daft stuff on NDB holds (VORs were too easy!) - they expected perfection. The idea is you check at 90/60/30 to inbound QDM to determine if you are wide or tight and correct appropriately to establish inbound.

NDB dip just makes it harder. At 60 to go, the QDM should be ~10° off the inbound, and at 30 to go, the needle should be on the inbound. It's massively overcomplicating it, but that was what we had to do to get past the test. If you didn't pass first time, it was almost impossible to get a job too!
Click to expand...
Yup this is about what he was trying to do. He did mention something about the Europeans doing it if I recall correctly. And since half of our school is UK that makes sense.

I'm not digging it. Thanks for all the replies. I think i'm going to have a discussion with him about letting it go.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
It's only partially CFIIs. Most simply follow the usual methods of teaching the AIM entries, including the degrees for the separation for the various entry types and then trying to find ways to calculate those in the cockpit. Most of the instrument training texts are just as guilty.

It's kind of a failure to separate theory from practice that goes all the way back to turns around a point in primary training - how many CFIs teach trying to figure out wind correction angles for every point along the circle as opposed to "visualize a circle around that point; now fly the same circle and do what you need with bank".
Click to expand...
I've found that having them find their outbound heading on the DG and holding their pointer finger and a thumb up to create the teardrop area(left hand hold, left hand teardrop and vice versa for a standard hold) helps them visualize the entry the best (basically inside the TD area is a teardrop, below the thumb is a direct and the upper half of the DG not in the TD area is a parallel). I've also had some who did best by drawing it on their kneeboard and figuring out the best entry that way, but most do quite well with the D.G. method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top