From the information provided, I think making a hold entry as a means of reversing the course, and then flying the approach procedure from the IAF OKPEM is what I would have done. I probably would have tried to double check a for a more specific approach clearance, ie “confirm cleared ILS13 via OKPEM?”.
There are a couple of things raised in this thread that I think are worth discussing. Firstly, racetracks are a thing, they are there own thing as described by others already. Personally, I do not see how to come to the conclusion of there being a racetrack depicted in this approach. I only see a hold. The racetrack is well shown in the Ibiza/LEIB examples. I have in the past, heard some people use the term racetrack to refer to a hold. This is incorrect, but 19/20 times it is obvious what they mean. I wonder in this case if this is what the controller did, with this being one of the 1/20 times it isn’t obvious.
Secondly, regarding clearance limits. If we stick with IFR flying for this, then generally speaking we get a route clearance to destination (not always, ie. OCAS in the UK, but let’s assume we generally hold a full route clearance. Direct-tos don’t change this. Whether we skip part of the route or not we still hold a route clearance, unless we are specifically told otherwise. We all should know that normally we don’t fly an approach without a clearance though, and an approach typically (and in this case) starts at an IAF. In this respect, if cleared direct to, or just upon reaching an IAF, we do not have an approach clearance, then if there is a hold depicted (which there will be the majority of the time), then we should hold here. We do not have a clearance to fly the approach, so why would we fly it? It does seem to be becoming more common for charts to have notes on them now stating this. If an airport wants you to do something different to this, then again it should be stated somewhere in the AIP/chart (eg. often places with parallel runways will tell you that if you are on a closing heading to the localiser, then it should be intercepted even if you have not been cleared to do so).
Emir wrote:
Which is?
1) If you do an offset entry, you should keep to the offset course at most 1:30 minutes (nominal), then turn to the regular outbound course.
2) If you do a parallel entry, you should attempt to intercept the inbound track before the fix.
Indochine wrote:
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 Southend procedure is a base turn. Most new procedures use a racetrack as you can enter a racetrack from any direction, while you can only start a base turn from certain tracks inbound to the IAF – ±30° from the outbound track. (If that sector does not include the reciprocal of the final approach track, the entry sector is extended to include the reciprocal of the final approach track.) In the Southend example, a Cat A/B aircrafgt must track 013°-073° inbound to SND.
1) If you do an offset entry, you should keep to the offset course at most 1:30 minutes (nominal), then turn to the regular outbound course.
2) If you do a parallel entry, you should attempt to intercept the inbound track before the fix.
Those are really minor differences if any. Ad #1 I’d expect this to be defined by DME distance. Ad #2 it’s not uncommon to do this when entering holding.
Emir wrote:
Those are really minor differences if any. Ad #1 I’d expect this to be defined by DME distance. Ad #2 it’s not uncommon to do this when entering holding.
I said it was subtle. 
I have never seen #1 defined by DME distance, btw. E.g. the rule is applicable in Dan’s Ibiza example above, yet there is no such DME distance given.
When you fly a Cat A aircraft you can usually get away with anything as the racetrack is typically designed for Cat C or D aircraft, but in a Cat C aircraft (the SAAB 340?) it does begin to matter.
Re #2, you are allowed to do it but it is not expected. PANS-OPS assumes you fly direct to the fix after turning inbound from a parallel entry.
btw. E.g. the rule is applicable in Dan’s Ibiza example above, yet there is no such DME distance given.
In the provided example and with offset entry I’d definitely use given DME distance (11 IBA) to initiate turn towards localizer.
Emir wrote:
In the provided example and with offset entry I’d definitely use given DME distance (11 IBA) to initiate turn towards localizer.
I was not talking about the inbound turn.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If you do an offset entry, you should keep to the offset course at most 1:30 minutes (nominal), then turn to the regular outbound course.
If you keep to the offset course (212° in the Ibiza case) until 11 DME, you’ll likely be way outside the protected area.
Now I get what you meant italics helped a lot
As @Yeager wrote yes of course you can manouver the aircraft so as to choose your entry to a hold or racetrack providing you stay within the protected area or above TAA/MSA. This was not my argument and would have no problem with Peter doing so.
My argument was that whether it was a hold or racetrack he did not fly it as he should.
All IFR pilots should know what a racetrack is. It’s a common aviation term and is in English becoming “hippodrome” if you are communicating in French. I do not understand why many IR holders on here are not aware of it.
A cleared to destination is a clearance, not to the vertical of the airfield (that is VFR eta) it is to the IAF noted on your FPL along with the time you are estimated to be there which helps if you have a radio failure as well as for efficient traffic flow management.
In the case at LFAT, Peter was arriving at his chosen IAF at the same time as other traffic IIUC. So the Lille ATCO wanted to delay Peter, enough for the other traffic to pass. To do that the ATCO gave him a direct to possibly a different IAF. She could have said “hold at OKPEM EAT 11h30”. But, and this is where I am guessing Peter would have already been at platform altitude so no need to hold for descent. She also didn’t want to delay Peter too long by putting him in a hold where he would not have necessarily had priority over other arriving traffic because he would not have been cleared.for the approach. But maybe a sharp (very sharp) turn over OKPEM towards OLMAV would a) not given the delay required and b) would have been against SOPs for the approach controller.
So IMO the controller did him a favour by saying “fly the racetrack”. Normally she should have said “cleared for the approach via OKPEM”. But this was not a normal situation. It probably happens a lot but most of us know to make a procedural turn if approaching an IAF from a direction where you maybe could not avoid an overshoot of the inbound leg to OLMAV.
@Emir as I wrote a “perpindicular” entry is possibly peculiar to France.
If you take the hold at OKPEM as an eg.
(Excuse me for a moment while I get my brain into gear :))
Let’s say you were approaching OKPEM on a heading of 030° and you didn’t want to manouver to a differentheading. The text books and those little plastic Pooley’s hold entry wheels would dictate that you turn right at OKPEM to make a parallel entry.
But the French say “well it would be much easier just to make a left turn over OKPEM as if it’s a direct entry” The books say it can’t be a direct entry and is not a parallel or teardrop entry so we’ll make something up and call it a "perpendicular " entry.🙂 It works for us for anything from a heading of, in this case 025°to 050°.
Let’s say you were approaching OKPEM on a heading of 030° and you didn’t want to manouver to a different heading.
Anything between 320 and 030 would be offset, below 320 is parallel, above 030 is direct and you just modify timing crossing holding pattern before joining outbound leg. It may look perpendicular but there’s no need for inventing new stuff for something already well defined.
