The communication was me requesting ILS 13 via TUKVI.
Being into racing is not a requirement for IFR.
Next time I will get an mp3 and then it can be dissected.
BTW I now remember I was cleared for the ILS before all this and they wanted me to stay at 5000ft but did not say so! It came out when I said Ready for descent. Another cock up by another controller.
Ok my point of view is that we won’t get a final truth in this case. It is still ambiguous what could have been meant by ATC. And although we have denucleated any bit of information what might have been meant as racetrack still we’re only talking about opinions and will just go round in racetracks (couldn’t resist 😉)
Anyway, very interesting so far.
UdoR wrote:
Anyway, very interesting so far.
Except that along the way I had to stop the popcorn, and now end up using vast amount of painkillers due to specific thread induced headaches. Wonder if I can send the bill to EuroGA… 
We do know that the term “racetrack” is part of English aviation phraseology
It may well be part of ENGLISH aviation phraseology. It is certainly NOT part of US aviation phraseology. I flew IFR in the US for 20 years and never heard or saw the term once. I have heard “hippodrome” in French and was confused by it – luckily I was with an instructor. (You also hear it at Arcachon but there they want you to fly over one, not fly one yourself). So now I know. I suspect it is part of FRENCH aviation phraseology rather than English (even British English).
gallois wrote:
Are you sure? I thought IAFs were always fly over, but I am not 100% on that.
I should have written IAFs which are also a holding pattern fix.
Both on the AIP and the Jeppesen plates for LFAT ILS 13 all fixes are fly-by, except for AT410 in the missed approach, which is fly-over. Of course, that doesn’t apply when a fix is used for a hold or a racetrack – then you should always fly over as that’s how the procedures work.
This implies that IAFs that are also racetrack fixes should be flown over, but other IAFs need not be. If Peter had been clear directly to TUKVI, it would have been a fly-by fix. In the design of T- and Y-bar procedures, due consideration is taken to fly-by so that the straight part of the intermediate approach segment is long enough.
Racetrack is defined in Pan Ops and as NCYankee has quoted it roughly the same in USA as in France. It is not the fault of the regulators that you have never heard it. Sorry, but you should know if IR qualified.
Do you have to be into racing to know that the oval track has the look of a racetrack. Surely, even the most blinkered pilot knows the shape of an athletics track. In my day we used to have school sports and we all knew a 400m track.
The ILS 13 is shown on the plate to be IAF TUKVI on special clearance. This obviously wasn’t available.
Okay so you arrived at OKPEM at 5000ft perhaps having been cleared for the approach, perhaps not. You now have to both descend and turn onto the OKPEM to OLMAV 313°. The normal method to make the turn from the TUKVI -OKPEM route onto the 313°. Now you know that ATC cannot under SOPs to ask pilots to change angle by more than IIRC 110° so one would expect a procedural turn/course reversal.
IMO the best way to do this is in some sort of protected space and lo and behold there is one based on OKPEM in the way of a hold. If ATC had not cleared you for the approach already or if they wish to rescind the clearance, she could have asked to to enter the hold. The disadvantage of the hold for the pilot is that firstly there can be more than one aircraft in the hold at the same time, as long as separation can be maintained. You would also have to request descent and you might be expected to go round several times or have an EAT time while the ATCO goes off and deals with other traffic, possibly on other frequencies.
One would might well have got cleared for the approach before arrival at OKPEM. So, the procedure turn becomes part of the approach. You descend (although there are limits on the rate of descent) without needing clearance. You are the only one in the racetrack normally.
She could have just left it as “cleared for the approach via OKPEM” she could have said “following procedure turn report inbound OKPEM”. There are other phrases she could have used including “hold at OKPEM”. But putting you in the hold was not (I am assuming ) what she wanted. Her main job is to facilitate safe and efficient traffic flow management. Putting you into the hold would have meant you requesting descent when ready, then reporting at certain points and finally you asking for and her giving you clearance for the approach. It all adds to the workload and maybe need changes to the traffic flow plan or a bit of shuffling.
By rights it is true that “saying fly the racetrack” should not have been necessary. And normally it wouldn’t be because most (certainly the pilots I know ) would not need to be told to fly the racetrack just as they wouldn’t need to be told to fly any other course reversal or procedure turn. They would just do it.
Looking at your track you seemed unsure how you should make that turn.
Despite being told to fly the racetrack (possibly to give you some sort of guidance) you still did not enter the racetrack in a normal manner and even if you had entered, you still didn’t fly it.
With some ATCOs around the world, even in USA you would be given a phone number to call having landed.
So please let’s stop making excuses or blaming others. IMO when you expressed that you didn’t know what a racetrack was and you were doing that funny turn, she probably thought “oh bugger it there is no one else around to bump into him or for him to bump into”. So she could just let you get on with it. And it appears to me that’s what she did. YMMV.
As I wrote I was cleared for the ILS before getting sent to OKPEM. And when approaching TUKVI later I was just told to contact LFAT tower,which I did with Localiser established.
The ATCO who talked about the racetrack could not understand English, so I stayed inside the protected area of the hold (all of which is obstacle safe, contrary to some post, and is big enough for a 747) plus they had me on radar.
gallois wrote:
…even if you had entered, you still didn’t fly [the racetrack].
He did fly the racetrack. His only error was doing an offset entry rather than a parallel entry — something which in this case did not matter at all. Or what do you mean by “fly the racetrack”?
With some ATCOs around the world, even in USA you would be given a phone number to call having landed.
Given that you seem to be the only one here who thinks that Peter did something wrong, that claim seems a bit hasty. And it still isn’t clear to me what you think he should have done instead. Maybe the point where we differ is what “fly the racetrack” means. So what do you mean by it?
I can’t type very much (skiing) but Gallois ought to explain the total ATC silence at key junctures.
The answer is probably the last line here and no matter how much one beats about the bush, this remains a key problem in some countries in Europe.
Ultimately one must do what one thinks will be safe, and in this case I knew
I may be wrong on the last one.
It may have been a case of staff training. After all, in IFR ATC terms, this place is a bit of a backwater.
The other interesting thing is a total lack of input from ATC on this thread.
