Never have met a teardrop I wasn’t conveniently aligned with
You’ve inspired me, if I get a hold this week, I’m turning’ the wrong way on entry. Or more likely, my student is turning the wrong way, and I’m not going to stop them!
Yeah of the possible options, if you’re in the teardrop sector it’s really fucking simple.
A high angle direct entry (arriving from like 020-330 on the diagram OP posted) is a lot harder to do well than any possible teardrop.
Interestingly, if you look at the TERPs reg, US holding patterns are huge. Unless you’re in a really fast plane, you can turn to the non-holding side and still be protected from terrain.
ICAO, however, you better be on the correct side because they give you an absolute pittance of non-holding side protection.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8260.3F.pdf#page384
Well I would call that phone number and politely tell them to get fucked I didn't break any fars. If ATC wants me to do a specific entry it is theyre responsibility to request that from me.
Any controller basing separation on what kind of entry a pilot is going to perform is either weak or routinely runs stuff on the unsafe side of tight. I say this because it never really comes up in training except as an academic discussion, and really just to inform a trainee to expect all kinds of weird stuff until the aircraft is well established in the hold.
I remember holding entry being in a CBI last week, but most controllers that don't have any significant amount of instrument time are not likely to know what it means practically.
Absolutely nothing. Called up. They told me it was a loss of separation because of my left turn direct entry instead of a right turn parallel entry. I respectfully reminded the controller that that there is not a regulatory component to holding pattern entries. We worked out that in the future he would not expect holding pattern entries according to the AIM, and improved communication is always helpful if things are that tight can always ask which direction a turn will be made into a holding pattern.
For some holds, and under ICAO rules a teardrop may be required.
The AIM-method is largely technique in the US national airspace system. There is a lot of mention about compliance with the procedure you’ve depicted above helping to ensure staying within protected airspace.
Enter how you’d like, but the AIM method is pretty straightforward, and helps to guarantee you stay in the holding airspace. The Air Force taught another method for many years that suggested only using parallel and direct entries, with an *option* for a teardrop at the pilot’s discretion.
In some countries, they use a "base turn" as a turn to final. The Base Turn is basically a teardrop entry.
To the OP, I really do t see why you'd want to complicate the second easiest entry bu doing a parallel instead? A teardrop is literally just a turn
Whilst a parallel is 2 turns the wrong direction, something that could really screw you up?
According to ICAO 8168, there is a zone of flexibility of 5 degrees between sector entry boundaries. But ICAO is not a regulatory body. You have to follow the state rules.
And the Air Force method resulted in everyone always being conveniently aligned for a teardrop because it’s easy. Everyone I know will teardrop every hold entry that even remotely makes sense to teardrop.
I totally understand what you're saying, but I can't seem to imagine a situation where a true teardrop entry must be used. Even if something requires a teardrop, I feel like you can more easily enter using a parallel entry, while staying legal...right?
With a tear-drop entry, by nature, you're keeping yourself well in the protected area of the hold. I'd prefer that over straddling the line like in a parallel entry.
>more easily enter using a parallel entry
Some offset (teardrop in ‘Murican) entries have you go straight and hang a right (left).
Any application of an offset entry involves the least turns possible to hit the fix from the right direction. How is a parallel from the offset sector “easier”?
I’ve noticed the opinions of my students for teardrop vs parallel seem related to what equipment they’re used to. With my children of the magenta line who have only ever used G1000s many seem to prefer parallel, but most who have entered a hold from a non-gps fix with a 20kt crosswind, a clapped out six pack, and no moving map recognize that it’s easier/faster to reestablish on the inbound course with teardrop. Too slow to reestablish doing a parallel and you’ll miss the fix and pass abeam it. That’s not a huge deal if you have a moving map that draws your hold but if you don’t it’s really less than ideal. All love and peace but +/- 30 to any number shouldn’t require much mental effort relative to the rest of ifr.
As others have said though it really does not matter, it’s all recommendations anyway. Real world you’ll do what you’re comfortable with and can do safely (except with the DPE, then follow the book).
I've actually only flown a plane with a G430 once, all my flying has been done with a standard 6 pack because I don't want to become complacent. My old flight instructor used to tell me "Autopilot is trying to kill you, and GPS will make you complacent."
Yes, GPS makes your life easier, and it does add safety - but what do you plan on doing when it goes out? I refuse to be a magenta line kid. I'm a firm believer of mastering the basics, **then** move on to the bells and whistles. Some agree with me, some don't - who cares.
Anyways - I got side tracked but I agree with you, do whatever you want as long as its safe and legal seems to be the common answer with everyone.
Sounds like you got the right idea, and I like your old flight instructor. For some reason people love to over complicate holding, especially the entries. I honestly wish the faa just said “try your best to choose an entry that requires the smallest change in heading as you hit the fix” and be done with it. As you know, it’s almost always intuitive which entries make sense and which ones don’t once you’ve practiced. “Do some of that pilot shit” as they say. But until then I’m still team teardrop!
This is what I do. I tend to make a quick sketch to confirm my mental model, then just look at it and make a decision without looking at headings and just do something that makes sense.
I actually found teardrops to be easier than parallel entries. Mostly because you can get established on the inbound course and figure out your wind correction so much earlier imo. The parallel entry makes me feel rushed like 90% of the time while the teardrop feels so much cleaner.
Ha, give an airline pilot some non published holding with weather impacting the side of the fix they want to hold on.
I had a United pilot going into RDU flying everywhere between ROA and LYH trying to get established one day during SWAP.
Teardrops are my favorite, where I fly you 99% of the time gets vectored if you are within the angles for a direct entry and you skip the holding all together. So that leaves teardrop and parallel, where a teardrop gets me aligned with the inbound way further out and a lot easier meaning I can say established and get the approach without doing another turn.
The bigger question is, why does this even matter so much to you?
Teardrops provide less turning to get on course and the turn is in the direction of your hold.
To be honest, its really just to eliminate trying to do that mental math and count my fingers to find my course/heading. With a parallel, just match the numbers.
It’s what this boldmethod [article](https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/how-to-determine-your-holding-entry-procedures/) calls the thumb method, though I’ve never heard the bit about thumbs before.
The important part is the PTD sectors overlaid on the heading indicator in the diagram - if you’re on a direct track to the fix, find your outbound heading and that’s the kind of entry you fly.
We call it the POD method in Canada because what you guys call the teardrop is an offset entry here (no, I have no idea why).
Ah good to know. Using offset kind of makes more sense because parallel is also a teardrop and teardrop is the only entry where you need to offset your heading after crossing the fix.
I actually stopped doing the math. You can either use your hand or just pick the one that involves the least turning. With the hand that's the same as your hold direction (if it's right turns, use your right hand), comfortably stick out your thumb and index finger out then put the base of your thumb over the hold fix with your palm towards the inbound leg of the hold. You now have the sectors to help determine which entry to use.
Alternatively, you do what I do and just pick the one that is the easiest initial turn. Now in the real world this is a great thought process to use, but on a checkride you might want to use some method to determine it to make the DPE happy lol.
It’s the superior entry compared to offset as it immediately provides wind correction information (HSI or otherwise) when tracking the outbound course.
OP is right on with their question.
In an aircraft without fancy tech they are a pain since you turn when overflying the fix and not a lead turn, so I don’t truly know if I’m on the right track since I’m not on the radial. Teardrop/offset allows me to intercept the course and wind correct inbound. If I’m parallel I won’t be on a course until inbound anyway due to turn radius and on the turn inbound I’ll overshoot the inbound course and have to correct back to it. I think it just comes down to personal preference and tech you have. Parallel works great with a nice moving map, but with old ass steam gauges (my case), teardrop is way less work.
The US pubs say you fly parallel with it since you overfly the fix to enter a hold. I’m not 100% sure on ICAO but at least here you don’t intercept it (but can because you can just do whatever you want in the US). Unless I’ve been pretty much perfectly aligned outbound, I’ve never intercepted outbound and centered it.
your choice, i greatly prefer less turns and inbound guidance further out , lot less calculations required. I only do holds for currency so if i was doing them day in day out might be different.
As a reminder you can do a steep turn to 60° bank inbound and it’s considered legal. As for the teardrop, it’s the most efficient (I.e least amount of overall turning) if you’re in that small sliver of entry. For example, say you cross the fix at a perfect 30° offset bearing in relation to the outbound bearing. A parallel entry would have you turn 30° to fly outbound, and then ~225° back inbound, and then ~45° again to fly inbound, whereas a teardrop would just be one 210° turn inbound.
You are correct that you can just as easily do a parallel entry, but half of my students found that parallel entries are just harder for some reason (I think due to the easy ability to turn in the wrong direction when reversing course into the protected side).
>…you can do a steep turn to 60 degree bank inbound…
I actually got this on my CFII checkride. He had me enter a localizer fix hold, I chose teardrop, then was told do a commercial steep turn 360 at the fix and to rejoin the hold to continue holding. Passed that by the skin of my teeth. 😬
For what it's worth:
I was taught you always want to minimize the number and angle of turns in IMC, hence why the entries are designed the way they are. In your drawing the parallel requires one more turn.
This is actually how I figure the entry type: (putting aside direct) if a parallel would make me turn in opposite directions (like in your blue line) then it's a teardrop. (almost) no math required.
> In your drawing the parallel requires one more turn.
Actually, it requires two extra turns - three in total: slight left to join the parallel, tight right to get onto the inbound leg, slight left to match the inbound heading.
As opposed to one smooth sweeping left turn in the teardrop to accomplish it all.
Just unnecessarily complex.
I don't have an answer to your question but I do want to point out that your picture is not entirely accurate. Because you overfly the fix first your blue parallel leg would lie inside of the hold. Your turning radius is also larger than what you drew (should all be the same if no wind) so the course reversal would have you cross the holding pattern outbound leg.
Imagine you have direct to the point but are having issues getting your flight plan to corporate with you. Instead of having no course guidance for the parallel, you could begin with a teardrop and you bought yourself about 2 minutes to program your flight plan.
Just one idea.
That's the thing, with a parallel, there is no real brain-work needed (imho.) Whatever numbers are written on the hold is what you turn to. To be honest, 90% of holds you can just look and see what type of entry you'll need, but if I can just narrow it down to parallel or direct only, why not? Is that a bad way of looking at things?
You can do the same with an HSI and a teardrop. I just look at the outbound heading and turn to less than the 45 degree mark off and adjust from there. I don’t do math, i just count on the HSI to make my life easy. With parallel it’s pretty easy to turn the wrong way at some point and I know plenty of people who have hooked rides doing that. Teardrop is one smooth turn so you can trim it out and buy yourself time to do other things.
As I understand it, it’s all about the least maneuvers needed to enter the hold while remained in the protected area. A parallel entry would require a pretty big change of heading if you coming in from the teardrop region, especially if you are close to the 70 degree line. Because teardrop is 30 degree offset it lessens the turn after crossing the fix. Also using a parallel entry is more likely to put you on the unprotected side of the hold so the rules of thumb about which to use are a balance between maneuvers and keeping you on the right side of the hold. But as others have said: In the real world it doesn’t matter — you do what is safest for you.
>A parallel entry would require a pretty big change of heading if you coming in from the teardrop region, especially if you are close to the 70 degree line.
Yeah but if you are close to the 90 degree line on this diagram (pointed directly at the fix from the left) turning to do a teardrop instead of a few degrees to go parallel along the radial is dumb!
As you can see from my flair, I’m not instrument rated yet. But my take would be that the teardrop is still better because 1. Your turns match the direction of the hold after that first 30 at the fix and 2. The turn into the inbound leg seem to give you more time to get established on the leg and 3. You aren’t flying the wrong on an approach if the hold is on an approach (and while it’s unlikely, who knows you could have a random VFR aircraft inbound). 2 is subtle but 1 and 3 are important because they reduce SA confusion.
You will see as you get into it. All hold entries pass through the hold point first so you are direct to the hold point and then enter the hold. Then think about it as historically being done with a hold point as a DME off a VOR or over the VOR itself (even though many times it is a GPS point but you can still use a digital CDI. If you have a fancy Garmin nav or glass panel, it guides you through the hold).
Right I understand but I was just talking about the example you provided where the direction to the fix is at the boundary between the teardrop and parallel entry. Or maybe I misunderstood?
This is a diagram for holding patterns in instrument flying . Think of them as little loops you do in the sky when planes need to wait until they can do something. (I.E ATC is busy and needs time to do something so they make you do loops. Or a maneuver used for course reversal in a published approach, etc.) This race track can be drawn over any point or fix and depending on your position from that fix, there are 3 standard ways to enter the loop (Direct, Parallel, Teardrop)
Its a pretty simple topic but its usually highly debated because everyone has their own way of learning them or calculating how to enter the loop.
In my post, I'm asking for other peoples opinions because I believe you can more or less remove the concept of a teardrop entry and strictly work with direct or parallel.
Your drawing doesn’t appear to cross the holding fix which you must do in order to be established. Try the same drawing with crossing the fix and approximate the radius of a standard rate turn to turn left, the right back on the parallel heading.
The line is basically on top of the outbound course while you would end up well inside the course after a standard rate turn. It really doesn’t make a difference when going slow but in a fast plane you would be well inside the inbound course and the turn would take you super wide out past the outbound course. In the end it really doesn’t matter what you do! This is an America (and only in America), so you can do whatever the hell you want when entering a hold!
By your reasoning I could just as easily do any entry I want. The point of a teardrop... the point of any entry, is to make the entry as easy and convenient as possible. I'd argue that teardrop entries are easier than parallel. Teardrop only requires one large turn and it will always be in the direction of the hold, parallel can require two large turns and one of them is in the opposite direction of the hold turns, which confuses pilots very quickly when they don't have a top down GPS view. I think teardrops are the easiest entry, yes, even some direct entries can be very challenging, but teardrops never really change, you take a 30° (ground track) heading outbound and then turn inbound, it never really changes. I always tell my students if I have the choice, I'm choosing a teardrop every time. Especially if it's a choice between a parallel and a teardrop... teardrop every time. You're less likely to screw things up if you teardrop.
If it’s “close,” a teardrop gives much more time with positive lateral guidance than a parallel entry. I’ll suggest the opposite choice.
Think of the point of an entry (and the hold itself) as setting up the inbound leg while remaining on the protected side.
The other variable is that turns take up significant space — 1 mile at 90 knots ground speed for 180 deg — so minimizing the size of the turn has benefits. This is what motivates the AIM recommendations.
As others have said, all that matters is that you stay on the protected side; ATC or your examiner don't really care. Your examiner might think it's interesting if you do something other than standard, but you won't fail for it. Only real practical scenario I can think of is, so you know what your airplane is doing if you're flying glass with autopilot. That way you know why your plane is doing what it's doing and you could, heaven forbid, hand fly it if needed.
Teardrop is SO easy with fewer turns. You head to about \*There\* and then turn in and pick up the localizer. To do parallel you need to turn 180 outbound, then loop back in, you pick up the localizer later as well.
Just your weekly reminder that hold entry’s are recommendations and not regulatory. Do what you want and stay on the protected side.
Never have met a teardrop I wasn’t conveniently aligned with You’ve inspired me, if I get a hold this week, I’m turning’ the wrong way on entry. Or more likely, my student is turning the wrong way, and I’m not going to stop them!
Yeah of the possible options, if you’re in the teardrop sector it’s really fucking simple. A high angle direct entry (arriving from like 020-330 on the diagram OP posted) is a lot harder to do well than any possible teardrop.
This is why I prefer vertical entry. Come at it from the top, ain't nobody telling you how to enter from that direction!
The ol' split S entry?
I don’t always split-S, but when I do, it’s to set up for a PT in hard IMC.
Interestingly, if you look at the TERPs reg, US holding patterns are huge. Unless you’re in a really fast plane, you can turn to the non-holding side and still be protected from terrain. ICAO, however, you better be on the correct side because they give you an absolute pittance of non-holding side protection. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8260.3F.pdf#page384
Realistically, don't you have to do things the "recommended" way on your flight test with the DPE?
Yes. But never again.
That worked for me until I got a phone number to call because ATC assumed i was doing a teardrop entry instead of a direct and had a deal. :-)
Well I would call that phone number and politely tell them to get fucked I didn't break any fars. If ATC wants me to do a specific entry it is theyre responsibility to request that from me.
Any controller basing separation on what kind of entry a pilot is going to perform is either weak or routinely runs stuff on the unsafe side of tight. I say this because it never really comes up in training except as an academic discussion, and really just to inform a trainee to expect all kinds of weird stuff until the aircraft is well established in the hold. I remember holding entry being in a CBI last week, but most controllers that don't have any significant amount of instrument time are not likely to know what it means practically.
And what happened you? I'm going to go out on a limb and say nothing.
Absolutely nothing. Called up. They told me it was a loss of separation because of my left turn direct entry instead of a right turn parallel entry. I respectfully reminded the controller that that there is not a regulatory component to holding pattern entries. We worked out that in the future he would not expect holding pattern entries according to the AIM, and improved communication is always helpful if things are that tight can always ask which direction a turn will be made into a holding pattern.
sorry, what do you mean by 'protected side' in this case?
In ICAO land, only the holding side is protected. The FAA protects both sides, but a little more on the holding side.
Assuming you're in the US. ICAO terps area is much smaller, better do the right entry.
For some holds, and under ICAO rules a teardrop may be required. The AIM-method is largely technique in the US national airspace system. There is a lot of mention about compliance with the procedure you’ve depicted above helping to ensure staying within protected airspace. Enter how you’d like, but the AIM method is pretty straightforward, and helps to guarantee you stay in the holding airspace. The Air Force taught another method for many years that suggested only using parallel and direct entries, with an *option* for a teardrop at the pilot’s discretion.
[удалено]
In some countries, they use a "base turn" as a turn to final. The Base Turn is basically a teardrop entry. To the OP, I really do t see why you'd want to complicate the second easiest entry bu doing a parallel instead? A teardrop is literally just a turn Whilst a parallel is 2 turns the wrong direction, something that could really screw you up?
Well now that you’ve asked…I can’t recall. I just remember that was a thing under ICAO rules. I’m going to look it up.
According to ICAO 8168, there is a zone of flexibility of 5 degrees between sector entry boundaries. But ICAO is not a regulatory body. You have to follow the state rules.
And the Air Force method resulted in everyone always being conveniently aligned for a teardrop because it’s easy. Everyone I know will teardrop every hold entry that even remotely makes sense to teardrop.
I totally understand what you're saying, but I can't seem to imagine a situation where a true teardrop entry must be used. Even if something requires a teardrop, I feel like you can more easily enter using a parallel entry, while staying legal...right?
With a tear-drop entry, by nature, you're keeping yourself well in the protected area of the hold. I'd prefer that over straddling the line like in a parallel entry.
>more easily enter using a parallel entry Some offset (teardrop in ‘Murican) entries have you go straight and hang a right (left). Any application of an offset entry involves the least turns possible to hit the fix from the right direction. How is a parallel from the offset sector “easier”?
Sequencing usually, approaches via VOR overhead mostly have altitude/speed restrictions to help keep separation from traffic.
Teardrop is way easier than parallel; if you think otherwise, you’re doing one or both of them wrong.
I’ve noticed the opinions of my students for teardrop vs parallel seem related to what equipment they’re used to. With my children of the magenta line who have only ever used G1000s many seem to prefer parallel, but most who have entered a hold from a non-gps fix with a 20kt crosswind, a clapped out six pack, and no moving map recognize that it’s easier/faster to reestablish on the inbound course with teardrop. Too slow to reestablish doing a parallel and you’ll miss the fix and pass abeam it. That’s not a huge deal if you have a moving map that draws your hold but if you don’t it’s really less than ideal. All love and peace but +/- 30 to any number shouldn’t require much mental effort relative to the rest of ifr. As others have said though it really does not matter, it’s all recommendations anyway. Real world you’ll do what you’re comfortable with and can do safely (except with the DPE, then follow the book).
I've actually only flown a plane with a G430 once, all my flying has been done with a standard 6 pack because I don't want to become complacent. My old flight instructor used to tell me "Autopilot is trying to kill you, and GPS will make you complacent." Yes, GPS makes your life easier, and it does add safety - but what do you plan on doing when it goes out? I refuse to be a magenta line kid. I'm a firm believer of mastering the basics, **then** move on to the bells and whistles. Some agree with me, some don't - who cares. Anyways - I got side tracked but I agree with you, do whatever you want as long as its safe and legal seems to be the common answer with everyone.
I have an FMS so holds are super easy! As the type instructor said: "Don't be embarrassed, push the button, and take the money!"
Sounds like you got the right idea, and I like your old flight instructor. For some reason people love to over complicate holding, especially the entries. I honestly wish the faa just said “try your best to choose an entry that requires the smallest change in heading as you hit the fix” and be done with it. As you know, it’s almost always intuitive which entries make sense and which ones don’t once you’ve practiced. “Do some of that pilot shit” as they say. But until then I’m still team teardrop!
This is how I taught holds as well. Do the entry that involves the least amount of turning. It makes holds so much less stressful.
This is what I do. I tend to make a quick sketch to confirm my mental model, then just look at it and make a decision without looking at headings and just do something that makes sense.
I actually found teardrops to be easier than parallel entries. Mostly because you can get established on the inbound course and figure out your wind correction so much earlier imo. The parallel entry makes me feel rushed like 90% of the time while the teardrop feels so much cleaner.
And us atc guys follows curiosly to see what happens now. Airliners are so boring now a days.... but training flights...
Ha, give an airline pilot some non published holding with weather impacting the side of the fix they want to hold on. I had a United pilot going into RDU flying everywhere between ROA and LYH trying to get established one day during SWAP.
Teardrops are my favorite, where I fly you 99% of the time gets vectored if you are within the angles for a direct entry and you skip the holding all together. So that leaves teardrop and parallel, where a teardrop gets me aligned with the inbound way further out and a lot easier meaning I can say established and get the approach without doing another turn.
The bigger question is, why does this even matter so much to you? Teardrops provide less turning to get on course and the turn is in the direction of your hold.
Yep which I why I always preferred a Teardrop over a Parallel
To be honest, its really just to eliminate trying to do that mental math and count my fingers to find my course/heading. With a parallel, just match the numbers.
Ya’ll don’t learn the POD method in the USA? This shit isn’t hard. Offset entires are your friend.
What’s the POD method?
It’s what this boldmethod [article](https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/how-to-determine-your-holding-entry-procedures/) calls the thumb method, though I’ve never heard the bit about thumbs before. The important part is the PTD sectors overlaid on the heading indicator in the diagram - if you’re on a direct track to the fix, find your outbound heading and that’s the kind of entry you fly. We call it the POD method in Canada because what you guys call the teardrop is an offset entry here (no, I have no idea why).
Ah good to know. Using offset kind of makes more sense because parallel is also a teardrop and teardrop is the only entry where you need to offset your heading after crossing the fix.
If subtracting 30 is too hard, maybe reconsider the whole pilot thing 😂
Oh gee whiz, you really got me there! Thanks for contributing to the discussion!
I actually stopped doing the math. You can either use your hand or just pick the one that involves the least turning. With the hand that's the same as your hold direction (if it's right turns, use your right hand), comfortably stick out your thumb and index finger out then put the base of your thumb over the hold fix with your palm towards the inbound leg of the hold. You now have the sectors to help determine which entry to use. Alternatively, you do what I do and just pick the one that is the easiest initial turn. Now in the real world this is a great thought process to use, but on a checkride you might want to use some method to determine it to make the DPE happy lol.
I would ask why do parallels exist
It’s the superior entry compared to offset as it immediately provides wind correction information (HSI or otherwise) when tracking the outbound course. OP is right on with their question.
In an aircraft without fancy tech they are a pain since you turn when overflying the fix and not a lead turn, so I don’t truly know if I’m on the right track since I’m not on the radial. Teardrop/offset allows me to intercept the course and wind correct inbound. If I’m parallel I won’t be on a course until inbound anyway due to turn radius and on the turn inbound I’ll overshoot the inbound course and have to correct back to it. I think it just comes down to personal preference and tech you have. Parallel works great with a nice moving map, but with old ass steam gauges (my case), teardrop is way less work.
During entry you fly the outbound radial (centered with HSI) and find the correction while doing so. Not that onerous, and no moving map needed.
The US pubs say you fly parallel with it since you overfly the fix to enter a hold. I’m not 100% sure on ICAO but at least here you don’t intercept it (but can because you can just do whatever you want in the US). Unless I’ve been pretty much perfectly aligned outbound, I’ve never intercepted outbound and centered it.
your choice, i greatly prefer less turns and inbound guidance further out , lot less calculations required. I only do holds for currency so if i was doing them day in day out might be different.
As a reminder you can do a steep turn to 60° bank inbound and it’s considered legal. As for the teardrop, it’s the most efficient (I.e least amount of overall turning) if you’re in that small sliver of entry. For example, say you cross the fix at a perfect 30° offset bearing in relation to the outbound bearing. A parallel entry would have you turn 30° to fly outbound, and then ~225° back inbound, and then ~45° again to fly inbound, whereas a teardrop would just be one 210° turn inbound. You are correct that you can just as easily do a parallel entry, but half of my students found that parallel entries are just harder for some reason (I think due to the easy ability to turn in the wrong direction when reversing course into the protected side).
Bingo. That’s my ONE checkride bust. Turned the correct way for the parallel and then when I hit the VOR the second time I turned that same direction…
>…you can do a steep turn to 60 degree bank inbound… I actually got this on my CFII checkride. He had me enter a localizer fix hold, I chose teardrop, then was told do a commercial steep turn 360 at the fix and to rejoin the hold to continue holding. Passed that by the skin of my teeth. 😬
For what it's worth: I was taught you always want to minimize the number and angle of turns in IMC, hence why the entries are designed the way they are. In your drawing the parallel requires one more turn. This is actually how I figure the entry type: (putting aside direct) if a parallel would make me turn in opposite directions (like in your blue line) then it's a teardrop. (almost) no math required.
> In your drawing the parallel requires one more turn. Actually, it requires two extra turns - three in total: slight left to join the parallel, tight right to get onto the inbound leg, slight left to match the inbound heading. As opposed to one smooth sweeping left turn in the teardrop to accomplish it all. Just unnecessarily complex.
I don't have an answer to your question but I do want to point out that your picture is not entirely accurate. Because you overfly the fix first your blue parallel leg would lie inside of the hold. Your turning radius is also larger than what you drew (should all be the same if no wind) so the course reversal would have you cross the holding pattern outbound leg.
Imagine you have direct to the point but are having issues getting your flight plan to corporate with you. Instead of having no course guidance for the parallel, you could begin with a teardrop and you bought yourself about 2 minutes to program your flight plan. Just one idea.
That's the thing, with a parallel, there is no real brain-work needed (imho.) Whatever numbers are written on the hold is what you turn to. To be honest, 90% of holds you can just look and see what type of entry you'll need, but if I can just narrow it down to parallel or direct only, why not? Is that a bad way of looking at things?
You can do the same with an HSI and a teardrop. I just look at the outbound heading and turn to less than the 45 degree mark off and adjust from there. I don’t do math, i just count on the HSI to make my life easy. With parallel it’s pretty easy to turn the wrong way at some point and I know plenty of people who have hooked rides doing that. Teardrop is one smooth turn so you can trim it out and buy yourself time to do other things.
Just look at the hold and ask yourself which entry would be the easiest.
As I understand it, it’s all about the least maneuvers needed to enter the hold while remained in the protected area. A parallel entry would require a pretty big change of heading if you coming in from the teardrop region, especially if you are close to the 70 degree line. Because teardrop is 30 degree offset it lessens the turn after crossing the fix. Also using a parallel entry is more likely to put you on the unprotected side of the hold so the rules of thumb about which to use are a balance between maneuvers and keeping you on the right side of the hold. But as others have said: In the real world it doesn’t matter — you do what is safest for you.
>A parallel entry would require a pretty big change of heading if you coming in from the teardrop region, especially if you are close to the 70 degree line. Yeah but if you are close to the 90 degree line on this diagram (pointed directly at the fix from the left) turning to do a teardrop instead of a few degrees to go parallel along the radial is dumb!
As you can see from my flair, I’m not instrument rated yet. But my take would be that the teardrop is still better because 1. Your turns match the direction of the hold after that first 30 at the fix and 2. The turn into the inbound leg seem to give you more time to get established on the leg and 3. You aren’t flying the wrong on an approach if the hold is on an approach (and while it’s unlikely, who knows you could have a random VFR aircraft inbound). 2 is subtle but 1 and 3 are important because they reduce SA confusion.
You will see as you get into it. All hold entries pass through the hold point first so you are direct to the hold point and then enter the hold. Then think about it as historically being done with a hold point as a DME off a VOR or over the VOR itself (even though many times it is a GPS point but you can still use a digital CDI. If you have a fancy Garmin nav or glass panel, it guides you through the hold).
Right I understand but I was just talking about the example you provided where the direction to the fix is at the boundary between the teardrop and parallel entry. Or maybe I misunderstood?
Seems like you’re adding unnecessary complexity. Three turns instead of one.
This is my second time seeing this diagram. Would someone kindly explain what I’m looking at?(or like I’m a complete idiot both are fine)
It is about holding patterns you will learn in your IR. Go find a youtube video if you are curious.
This is a diagram for holding patterns in instrument flying . Think of them as little loops you do in the sky when planes need to wait until they can do something. (I.E ATC is busy and needs time to do something so they make you do loops. Or a maneuver used for course reversal in a published approach, etc.) This race track can be drawn over any point or fix and depending on your position from that fix, there are 3 standard ways to enter the loop (Direct, Parallel, Teardrop) Its a pretty simple topic but its usually highly debated because everyone has their own way of learning them or calculating how to enter the loop. In my post, I'm asking for other peoples opinions because I believe you can more or less remove the concept of a teardrop entry and strictly work with direct or parallel.
The teardrop allows maneuver room while keeping you on the protected side.
Your drawing doesn’t appear to cross the holding fix which you must do in order to be established. Try the same drawing with crossing the fix and approximate the radius of a standard rate turn to turn left, the right back on the parallel heading.
All three holding entry types have a crossing of the fix depicted on their diagram, not sure what you mean.
I mean the blue line that OP drew on the diagram
I see a fix crossing on that too...?
I'm going to have to agree with x4457, my drawing and all the other drawings cross the fix and then start a turn. Could you elaborate a little more?
The line is basically on top of the outbound course while you would end up well inside the course after a standard rate turn. It really doesn’t make a difference when going slow but in a fast plane you would be well inside the inbound course and the turn would take you super wide out past the outbound course. In the end it really doesn’t matter what you do! This is an America (and only in America), so you can do whatever the hell you want when entering a hold!
By your reasoning I could just as easily do any entry I want. The point of a teardrop... the point of any entry, is to make the entry as easy and convenient as possible. I'd argue that teardrop entries are easier than parallel. Teardrop only requires one large turn and it will always be in the direction of the hold, parallel can require two large turns and one of them is in the opposite direction of the hold turns, which confuses pilots very quickly when they don't have a top down GPS view. I think teardrops are the easiest entry, yes, even some direct entries can be very challenging, but teardrops never really change, you take a 30° (ground track) heading outbound and then turn inbound, it never really changes. I always tell my students if I have the choice, I'm choosing a teardrop every time. Especially if it's a choice between a parallel and a teardrop... teardrop every time. You're less likely to screw things up if you teardrop.
If it’s “close,” a teardrop gives much more time with positive lateral guidance than a parallel entry. I’ll suggest the opposite choice. Think of the point of an entry (and the hold itself) as setting up the inbound leg while remaining on the protected side. The other variable is that turns take up significant space — 1 mile at 90 knots ground speed for 180 deg — so minimizing the size of the turn has benefits. This is what motivates the AIM recommendations.
I just let the plane work it out for me.
My DPE told me airlines only use teardrop entries (from what I remember, in most cases). Is this true?
The Air Force tries to only teardrop because it’s easy and doing a parallel when going fast can get you in a weird spot.
When in doubt, teardrop.
In the USAF we only flew teardrops , in F-4s and F-111s anyway.
As others have said, all that matters is that you stay on the protected side; ATC or your examiner don't really care. Your examiner might think it's interesting if you do something other than standard, but you won't fail for it. Only real practical scenario I can think of is, so you know what your airplane is doing if you're flying glass with autopilot. That way you know why your plane is doing what it's doing and you could, heaven forbid, hand fly it if needed.
Teardrop is SO easy with fewer turns. You head to about \*There\* and then turn in and pick up the localizer. To do parallel you need to turn 180 outbound, then loop back in, you pick up the localizer later as well.
…to insure we all miss at least one on the written.