Apart from what is a racetrack in this case, I was taught that I can only begin with the approach if I was cleared to do so.
So if in this situation I was cleared for a racetrack and at the same time to continue with the approach, then I would have most probably ended up doing something similar like you did (teardrop or parallel doesn’t make the difference), so no holding. But if there was no clearance to begin with the approach, then that is equal to “hold at” (without explicitly saying so), because the clearance limit is the IAP and there’s no proceeding beyond without clearance.
Very interesting to read the comments from french natives here, by the way. The explanation sounds very reasonable to me.
UdoR wrote:
But if there was no clearance to begin with the approach, then that is equal to “hold at” (without explicitly saying so), because the clearance limit is the IAP and there’s no proceeding beyond without clearance.
A bit of controversy here is that both OKPEM and TUKVI (as well as OLMAV) are marked on the approach plate as IAF. However, being cleared to OKPEM it’s obvious that no further progression is allowed without further clearance. And ATC usually gives it (if possible) after initial entry when inbound holding fix, OKPEM in this case. If the clearance is not received and you enter holding pattern, you should ask for expected approach time.
A racetrack is a procedure, a holding another one, similar, but different 
They are performed and are limited differently, and serve different purposes. A racetrack does not automatically imply the presence of a holding, same as the other way.
Let’s again illustrate the differences, using LEIB Ibiza again, but say the ILS06… one will notice the bold outline for the racetrack, distance delimited, against the fine lined holding depiction, delimited by time (or more precisely gate position).
This stuff has been defined for ages, there’s an ICAO presentation. relating to racetracks.
Now being told to perform a non-published procedure should result in queries, similar to what has been done in the present case. The controller seems (I wasn’t there…) to have used a non-standard and wrong procedure designation, and a silence is certainly no acknowledgement.
If you get sent to XXXX, and a hold is charted there, are you required to enter the hold if not thus instructed?
If ATC is silent, or they don’t understand questions, then safety-wise you probably should, but… and we did that in the other linked LFAT thread.
I think at the bottom of this is a zero-ELP ATCO, hence the silence. This is ATC SOP.
There is a funny one re TUKVI, not related to this topic: TUKVI is (just about) in UK airspace, so Lille cannot send you there. In reality this is obviously nonsense because TUKVI is used all the time.
Yes I probably did a wrong hold entry but then I was not asked to “hold”, so wasn’t focusing on the correct entry, and I did a course reversal
Peter wrote:
If you get sent to XXXX, and a hold is charted there, are you required to enter the hold if not thus instructed?
Normally no (my limited knowledge). If you get a direct, that’s a shortcut. After the direct I’d proceed as intelligent as possible in line with the flight planned route.
However, when the waypoint is the clearance limit, it’s different I’d say. Example: you get an IFR clearance on ground that has a clearance limit in the middle of the route. I’d say you’ve got to hold there until further cleared. I’d say it’s the same with an approach. If you don’t get cleared you can’t proceed any further and have to wait. If I’d get cleared to an IAF I’d say that’s the valid IAF for me (in case there’s more than one IAF in question, like in the present case).
Understood the course reversal @Peter, haven’t taken that into account. In that case your “entry” was advantageous in that you’re on the right track already before passing the fix. Then it’s no holding entry.
By the way I did a racetrack entry in Salamanca LESA. Clearance was only “as published”. Up to now I wasn’t even aware that this is called racetrack. In a racetrack the goal is to catch the final approach, like the ILS. Therefore it is much longer than a holding.
Edit: after reading a second time: when ATC says “fly the racetrack to ILS13”, I’d say it’s an implicit clearance to do the approach and not to enter a holding.
Peter wrote:
and referring to a “racetrack” which doesn’t exist.
There is a racetrack!! Its right off the end of the runway.
Hippodrome le Touquet.
So clearly you are supposed to fly to OKPEM, turn right directly across the inbound ILS track, buzz the horses at low altitude and enter the normal left hand down wind circle to land procedure to LFAT.
Peter wrote:
If you get sent to XXXX, and a hold is charted there, are you required to enter the hold if not thus instructed?
You do if it is the clearance limit. In the LFAT case, if I was sent to OKPEM with no other instructions – particularly no approach clearance – I would hold.
How do you know something is a clearance limit? Quite often ATC sends you somewhere when enroute, and obviously they need to attend to you before you get there. Usually there is no hold there, but unless you are flying with low level IFR charts, you won’t know anyway.
There is a racetrack!! Its right off the end of the runway.
At 5000ft and in IMC (mostly)…
when ATC says “fly the racetrack to ILS13”, I’d say it’s an implicit clearance to do the approach and not to enter a holding.
I agree, but that would be seriously negligent of ATC.
I did get a “cleared for ILS13” at some point later. Without a “cleared for” I would not do the ILS. One even has to fly through the LOC if being vectored but not “cleared for the ILS” (have had that a few times – ATC mistake).
The thing is that LFAT is really casual – both the tower and Lille the approach controller – normally. The problem is that you can’t issue more complicated instructions and be casual at the same time.
Peter wrote:
Yes I probably did a wrong hold entry . . .
Without being too pedantic, unless one is specifically told to enter a Hold in a particular way, there is no right or wrong way to enter a hold – the Standard methods are only recommended.
In an usual situation (which I would maintain this was), or if confused, I was taught to use the simplest method of arrival making one’s turns within the hold itself since this is protected airspace. This is what Peter did.
No apology, in my opinion, needed,
The racetrack should be referring to the hold at OKPEM.
See reference to “racetrack” in PANS-OPS 2.4.6 “Arrival holding”
