Peter_G wrote:
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.
Well… The protected area of the hold is constructed under the assumption that you do enter the hold in the intended way. If you don’t, you may cause loss of separation from terrain, other aircraft or airspace. (Not that it would happen when you fly a cat A aircraft such as the TB20 in a hold designed for cat C aircraft such as the one at OKPEM.)
No apology, in my opinion, needed,
I agree. My post was written to ask @gallois for clarification of what he meant with the turn not being correct. I could not see anything else, but it seemed such a minor point that I might have missed something.
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 would understand this in the way ATC assumed: use published holding to make a turn towards IAF and continue according to published procedure. Obviously, she used wrong terminology and later on she was confused with getting question that she didn’t expect about something that looked absolutely obvious to her.
zero-ELP
Oh you know what zero-ELP is from our recent correspondence 
I must admit to not being familiar with this “racetrack” terminology. I don’t recall it being covered in the CB IR syllabus (whereas holds, procedure turns, etc. were).
Is it related to the “alternative procedure” that some approaches have, e.g., the ILS for runway 30 at Cardiff EGFF (indicated by the dotted line)? Here, the hold is extended to a fixed DME distance before turning inbound to intercept the localiser (this is, in fact, the approach that I flew on my IR test: there was no mention of “racetrack” in the clearance).
Every day is a school day… I had never heard of a ‘racetrack’ as a separate maneuver, it’s not used in FAAland other than to describe the standard pattern of a hold.
First, I would have asked ‘what do you mean by racetrack?’ and tried to get some clarification. Absent that, I would have assumed the ATCO referred to the hold (I know, assumptions are not a good idea in aviation).
Then I would also have flown a teardrop entry here, minimizing maneuvering.
However, I would have stayed in the hold until given an explicit approach clearance.
Indochine wrote:
I must admit to not being familiar with this “racetrack” terminology. I don’t recall it being covered in the CB IR syllabus (whereas holds, procedure turns, etc. were).
I just checked the IR syllabus in part-FCL. Interestingly neither holds, base/procedure turns nor racetracks are mentioned! For the traditional IR, the syllabus mentions PANS-OPS definitions and they do include both holds, base/procedure turns and racetracks. Interestingly, that is not included in the CB-IR syllabus!
Anyway, it surprises me if racetracks are not taught as full procedure approaches today almost always involves flying a racetrack! In particular as there are subtle differences between how you fly a hold and how you fly a racetrack.
The hold is generally based on an inbound leg of 1min.
A hippodrome/racetrack can be the same as a hold it can also be larger.
The racetrack is part of the procedure turn. From the direction Peter approached the IAF he was cleared to would need a procedure turn to continue the approach to the ILS 13. On the IAP chart it is pretty obvious from the shape that when the ATCO said fly the racetrack you make your procedure turn using the racetrack as in Pan Ops. There are 4 entries to the racetrack in France “direct” " teardrop" “parallel” and “perpendicular”. This last being particularly French I believe.
Looking again at the track Peter approached the IAF the most suitable entry to that racetrack is the parallel entry as all other entries require an ugly turn.
But then Peter did not fly the racetrack he cut it short. So whether it was a hold (mistakenly called a racetrack which I don’t believe it was) or a racetrack as stated ( she could have said cleared for the procedure turn) he still should not have cut it short.
Why spend more time trying to show ATC are in the wrong rather than simply doing the blindingly obvious?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Anyway, it surprises me if racetracks are not taught as full procedure approaches today almost always involves flying a racetrack! In particular as there are subtle differences between how you fly a hold and how you fly a racetrack.
Sounds like an another instance where my ground school left in items they did not strictly need to.
Maybe this is just a case of terminology. I’ve never heard the term “racetrack” before, but I am familiar with procedures such as the one at Cardiff (that I posted above), and this was taught. When I think of a “full procedure”, I think of something like this at Southend (extract from the ILS for runway 23 below) – flying outbound from a beacon (where you may or may not have been holding) until a proscribed DME distance, to turn inbound to the localiser. Are either of these examples of a “racetrack” procedure? The Cardiff “alternative procedure” appears to be similar to the Ibiza runway 06 ILS procedure posted above.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In particular as there are subtle differences between how you fly a hold and how you fly a racetrack.
Which is?
gallois wrote:
“perpendicular”
What’s that?
Racetracks are part of what is commonly known as procedure turns, which are part of the approach procedure, as opposed to the holds which are not part of the approach procedure.
Peter did a “pragmatic”, though procedural incorrect entry procedure (to the racetrack) – I would have done what he did (knowingly or not “to him”? ;-) ). “Drifted a little north” prior to reaching the entry point and his offset (teardrop) entry would have been procedural acceptable. So f@cking be it. From a practical and operational point, I would have done the same = “teardrop” entry followed by the approach. ICAO doc 8168 will outline the differences between holding entry and racetrack entry etc. Racetracks were always the black sheep of most IR instructors doc 8168 theory.
