Talk:Holding (aeronautics)

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Searching for 'holding' didn't turn up anything so I created a new article, I later accidentally stumbled across the article at Hold (aviation). Since it was shorter and hadn't been edited much I have merged it into this article. I reused the illustrations from that page. Rpvdk 10:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as for a hold being used for VFR pattern, I've never seen that, I've been told to make a right three sixty to avoid traffic or to let some other guy in in front of me, as for "cessna 12345, hold over the overpass, left hand turns, five mile legs" I've never heard of that in the states

Me neither. What I usually get is "Piper 12345, remain west of the interstate and call me back in three minutes" or something, but that can still be considered a hold, it's just a very vaguely-defined one.
- They are used in Europe, usually over a reporting point on a published VFR arrival route. As an example, check this chart: http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/aim/060525-060706/eAIP/html/graphics/eAIP/GG-VAC-1-A4.pdf There are VFR holds over T and N. -- Rpvdk 07:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent additions were making the article very technical very early. I've moved these down a bit. The article should first explain the basics, and then go in depth for completeness. Too many technical terms right at the start may needlessly confuse someone not familiar with aviation. -- Rpvdk 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bump article status

As requested by User:Terraxos I've added references to the article, and I think it looks pretty okay. Not great by any means, but better than start-class. Therefore, I suggest we bump the article up to B-class. Thoughts, comments, criticisms? I'll bump the article up on or about 4/19/08 unless there's disagreement. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...what is a "holding fix"?

This would be better at explaining a holding pattern if the article bothered to explain what a "holding fix" is. (74.177.36.93 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

History of the holding pattern owes its shape to that of an island - really?

I find this very doubtful. For one, ships don't have to fall into a holding pattern - if a harbour is full, they just stop - not something aircraft can do. There's no way I can believe ships had to circle the island rather than just stay put if they couldn't enter the harbour. And if the ships were to just drop anchor near the island, its shape to today's aircraft holding pattern would have to be nothing more than just coincidental. Ships were having to stop outside congested harbours long before this man-made island was created. I can't possibly believe that the shape of a holding pattern has anything to do with historical islands - it's simply probably the most convenient and practical shape for the purpose it holds for aircraft. I'd delete this paragraph entirely, but since I'm not *sure* it isn't true, thought it best to flag as dubious. If someone has any evidence that this idea is actually true, please cite a source. Otherwise, if there's a general consensus, the paragraph should be deleted entirely.

I echo this. I will delete it because it lacks any reference. I'm not sure if the paragraph is implying that ships were moving in a circular/elliptical pattern, because they'd naturally be unable to do that due to the wind. Furthermore, we know of many examples of big convoys in the age of sail loitering outside ports because they couldn't beat up into the wind. Anchoring near the inlet was often undesirable because closeness to the shore enhanced the risk of falling in lee. I don't see much justification in the paragraph for claiming any tie to aviation, and it reeks of fictition. 88.91.84.31 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]