Narrative:

As part of our evaluation; we planned to execute the ILS runway 29 approach at alton/st louis regional (aln); and then fly the published missed to a hold (with later vectors for an ILS at another airport). The PF initiated the missed approach to the decision altitude and intercepted the toy 322 degree radial to track outbound to topaz intersection. Aln tower switched us back to stl TRACON. Once the aircraft was stabilized at 2200 ft on the 322 degree radial of toy; I asked the PF what type of entry he planned to make upon reaching topaz. He stated he was going to make a parallel entry. I asked why he chose that entry procedure. He stated (correctly) that we were exactly on the line between a teardrop entry and a parallel entry and that since either would be correct and he preferred parallel entries; that was his choice. He continued to track the toy 322 degree radial as we passed topaz; flew outbound on the radial; and then turned right (which was the correct direction because the missed approach hold at topaz is nonstandard). He then flew to intercept the toy 322 radial inbound. The entire procedure was done perfectly. After we were established in holding; the stl TRACON controller called to say we had entered holding incorrectly. He then began to go through an explanation that sounded like he was saying we had to use a teardrop entry to enter the hold. The PF looked at me and I said 'just say thanks and let it drop;' which we did. A couple mins after that there was a controller change and a female controller came on. We were with her as we departed the hold on vectors to the other airport. As we started away; she said something to the effect of 'did you all get that straightened out on your hold?' again; I told the PF to just say 'yes; thank you' and let it drop. That was on jul/sun/06. On monday (today); when I got in to the office; I called the procedures desk at stl TRACON. I explained the event to XXX. He briefed YYY; the quality control person; after our phone conversation. As luck would have it; the particular controller walked into the office. XXX questioned him and then reported the result of his conversation to me. The controller was also a pilot. He stated that it would be incorrect to enter the hold by using a parallel entry because per the aim; a parallel entry has the aircraft parallel the holding course on the non-holding side. After some discussion; I was still not comfortable that anyone understood that it was perfectly acceptable for the pilot to make a parallel entry for this hold when inbound along the holding course.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C182 PLTS ARE ADVISED THAT THEIR ENTRY INTO HOLDING WAS INCORRECT.

Narrative: AS PART OF OUR EVALUATION; WE PLANNED TO EXECUTE THE ILS RWY 29 APCH AT ALTON/ST LOUIS REGIONAL (ALN); AND THEN FLY THE PUBLISHED MISSED TO A HOLD (WITH LATER VECTORS FOR AN ILS AT ANOTHER ARPT). THE PF INITIATED THE MISSED APCH TO THE DECISION ALT AND INTERCEPTED THE TOY 322 DEG RADIAL TO TRACK OUTBOUND TO TOPAZ INTXN. ALN TWR SWITCHED US BACK TO STL TRACON. ONCE THE ACFT WAS STABILIZED AT 2200 FT ON THE 322 DEG RADIAL OF TOY; I ASKED THE PF WHAT TYPE OF ENTRY HE PLANNED TO MAKE UPON REACHING TOPAZ. HE STATED HE WAS GOING TO MAKE A PARALLEL ENTRY. I ASKED WHY HE CHOSE THAT ENTRY PROC. HE STATED (CORRECTLY) THAT WE WERE EXACTLY ON THE LINE BTWN A TEARDROP ENTRY AND A PARALLEL ENTRY AND THAT SINCE EITHER WOULD BE CORRECT AND HE PREFERRED PARALLEL ENTRIES; THAT WAS HIS CHOICE. HE CONTINUED TO TRACK THE TOY 322 DEG RADIAL AS WE PASSED TOPAZ; FLEW OUTBOUND ON THE RADIAL; AND THEN TURNED R (WHICH WAS THE CORRECT DIRECTION BECAUSE THE MISSED APCH HOLD AT TOPAZ IS NONSTANDARD). HE THEN FLEW TO INTERCEPT THE TOY 322 RADIAL INBOUND. THE ENTIRE PROC WAS DONE PERFECTLY. AFTER WE WERE ESTABLISHED IN HOLDING; THE STL TRACON CTLR CALLED TO SAY WE HAD ENTERED HOLDING INCORRECTLY. HE THEN BEGAN TO GO THROUGH AN EXPLANATION THAT SOUNDED LIKE HE WAS SAYING WE HAD TO USE A TEARDROP ENTRY TO ENTER THE HOLD. THE PF LOOKED AT ME AND I SAID 'JUST SAY THANKS AND LET IT DROP;' WHICH WE DID. A COUPLE MINS AFTER THAT THERE WAS A CTLR CHANGE AND A FEMALE CTLR CAME ON. WE WERE WITH HER AS WE DEPARTED THE HOLD ON VECTORS TO THE OTHER ARPT. AS WE STARTED AWAY; SHE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF 'DID YOU ALL GET THAT STRAIGHTENED OUT ON YOUR HOLD?' AGAIN; I TOLD THE PF TO JUST SAY 'YES; THANK YOU' AND LET IT DROP. THAT WAS ON JUL/SUN/06. ON MONDAY (TODAY); WHEN I GOT IN TO THE OFFICE; I CALLED THE PROCS DESK AT STL TRACON. I EXPLAINED THE EVENT TO XXX. HE BRIEFED YYY; THE QUALITY CTL PERSON; AFTER OUR PHONE CONVERSATION. AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT; THE PARTICULAR CTLR WALKED INTO THE OFFICE. XXX QUESTIONED HIM AND THEN RPTED THE RESULT OF HIS CONVERSATION TO ME. THE CTLR WAS ALSO A PLT. HE STATED THAT IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO ENTER THE HOLD BY USING A PARALLEL ENTRY BECAUSE PER THE AIM; A PARALLEL ENTRY HAS THE ACFT PARALLEL THE HOLDING COURSE ON THE NON-HOLDING SIDE. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION; I WAS STILL NOT COMFORTABLE THAT ANYONE UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE FOR THE PLT TO MAKE A PARALLEL ENTRY FOR THIS HOLD WHEN INBOUND ALONG THE HOLDING COURSE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.