Because it takes more airspace. Pilots are expected to turn in the shortest direction, which is to the right.
FWIW It is quite common (or at least I find so) that if the hold goes the ‘wrong way’ for an approach like in this case there can often be an alternate procedure.
I hope that link works (apologies for AIP chart, don’t have access to anything else here) – have a look near the bottom “ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE EXTENDED HOLDING PATTERN” Which describes flying the outbound track until the base turn dme and then commencing a standard right turn to intercept (depicted as dotted line).
[ PDF relocated, as EAD links go dead on each AIRAC cycle – Peter ]
If you have the chart on a moving map and terrain is no issue, can one not just anticipate the turn radius and turn the heading bug to line up with the outbound course? If you’re flying at 100kts, the radius is over the cone of confusion anyhow. Of course, we shoudn’t be using moving maps but if you did…
I think the option of a left turn after the VOR would be more appropriate as the IAS increases.
The OP said "What is correct way to fly this approach if arriving from the north and having just basic navigation on board? ".
If you have a moving map then it’s easy – just fly to near the VOR and turn right straight onto the outbound track.
Obviously “Eurocontrol IFR” is practically impossible without a proper IFR GPS, but in much of Europe you will not pass an initial IR checkride if you switch on the GPS.
Above the MSA, and at a reasonable DME distance, turn right to intercept the outbound radial. Do not start the descent until established on the outbound radial.
Good rule of thumb: you need about 30 seconds for a turn onto an intercept angle, so start your turn 30 seconds before reaching the VOR. Don’t forget about slant range (adds around 0.6 NM at the MSA above the beacon).
This is safe, legal, and expeditious (in order of relevance), assuming you have the ATC clearance if any are required.
Safe: you are always at an altitude that is safe by procedure design – no guessing about width of protected areas on which side of the beacon
Legal: you only descend once established on the published procedure. [EASA Part NCO – you are legally allowed to kill yourself by doing anything “necessary for landing”, so this does not apply]
Expeditious: It is the quickest way to get onto the procedure.
A fun “EASA private ops” way of flying this would be a DME arc to the final approach track. That would be even shorter, but you are on your own between 3,500 and 2,200ft as far as obstacle clearance is concerned.
I still think my way is best!
Your way is almost the same, except you flatten the angle for the turn to intercept the outbound from 100 degrees to 60 degrees or so by approaching the beacon at track 220 or so instead of 180. It also gives you a bit more time to descend from 3,500 to 2,200 feet, although the outbound distance and the turn should be ample.
Should work equally well, but if you want a reasonable distance to intercept the new inbound track this add several miles, probably a couple of minutes of extra flight time, and it increases workload (one extra OBS setting and intercept).
Of course a 60 degree turn to intercept an outbound track over the VOR is easier than 100 degree turn (less overshoot if you turn late), I don’t think it’s worth the extra time.
You’re right Cobalt…. The only real difference is whether you want to over-fly the VOR station or not….my take from some of the preceding posts is that some believe you should…
