just do a direct or teardrop, eliminate the parallel!

 

Keep in mind on an instrument checkride the PTS requires you to demonstrate the recommended holding entries. So ATC might not care but your examiner is supposed to.

 

I never could understand all the discussion about hold entries. Just do the proper one and you will enter the hold with the least amount of heading change. No reason to be cranking around and turning any more than required when people are riding in the back. It's not that tough.

 

No, actually, neither the Instrument nor the Instrument Instructor PTS REQUIRES one to use AIM recommended entries. But the examiner MIGHT so believe that it does. Hence, the original question.

 

Excellent article; thanks.

 

True dat; what's best for the pax is a factor. It's just that "proper" does bear some discussion, no? The issue for me is having done it one way (USAF) for 20 years, and now considering a CFII upgrade and/or airline checkride (if THEY ever hire again!) on the civilian side. Like I said, given 20 years, I can do the USAF 70-degree method without any brain cells spent nor having to draw it out. AIM method, not so much. Sounds like the AIM method is best, though, since you avoid this whole topic.

 

I'm not even sure the USAF teaches the 70-degree method anymore. I don't have my "usb stick" with me so I don't know if it is still in 11-217 (Instrument Procedures).

I can tell you that just about everyone I've flown with (military) used AIM / ICAO holding entry techniques.

To answer the OP's question, no it doesn't matter how you enter holding. But if you go outside the holding airspace, which unless you're a terps expert and you're sure of what you're doing, you will either anger ATC or you could hit terrain. Unless you have a compelling reason to go against AIM / ICAO, you probably shouldn't.

 

We teach both methods at UPT, which helps confuse the students. I always try to point out the ways the two are similar. What we call parallel is still considered direct by the AIM, and that the AF just gives you more freedom on what you can teardrop.

I have heard there is a new 11-217 on the way with significant changes as well as some big changes to General Flight Rules as well.

I just hope we can get back to 60-16 and 51-37.

 

You heard right...lots of changes on the way to line up Air Force rules with FAR/AIM ICAO rules.

Much less restriction coming which means more rope to hang yourself with...

 

I don't see it as more rope to hang yourself. A rule is a rule. Learn it, fly it. The Air Force has been limiting itself operationally due to outdated flying rules.

Our instrument procedures are woefully out of date. The problem is they want our procedures to be in an Air Force Publication (11-217), but it takes years to get the publication updated (my Ops Specs at my airline gets updated every two weeks). The chair force doesn't have the man power or logistics to keep up with all the changes to FAR / AIM, ICAO, PANs OPs. Additionally, 11-217 reads more like a "how-to" book, or "you should" book, than a procedures document.

The problem now with 11-217 is the document is very disjointed and disorganized. If the text is italics bold, then it is procedure. Everything else becomes "tech-cedure". Then there is that pesky little known verbage about, if you can't find the particular subject or material in 11-217, then pilots must follow FAR / AIM, ICAO. Well who in the USAF was issued a FAR / AIM, ICAO? Nobody.

This brings up one more thing that needs fix'n. For the heavy world, we pay Jepp to build us Special Departure Procedures and to do airfield obstacle surveys. Well, if Jepp is good enough for missing obstacles, then why can't we also get their approach charts and kill the NACO crap? We're already paying two different organizations to do airfield studies.

Every unit (that I've been in) had a Jepp account and you can go online and get the charts (I always do this for civilian or joint use fields becasue the Jepp products, especially the diagrams and information pages, have way better information than NACO) Why are we duplicating this effort? Why not just go with Jepp? The Jepp procedures are superior to the NACO products. Why do I need to look in an IFR Supplement, Flight Information Handbook, NACO approach plate/airfield diagram, Airfield Suitability, the applicable Area Procedures, the General Publication (GP) and NOTAMs just to go to one airfield??? It is ridiculous and way overkill.

Oh, I'm dreaming again. Someone told me I should stop that.

-Fatty