entered the hold at OKPEM and did one lap and then joined the approach
Except that he didn’t do that 
he joined holding with offset entry (no laps) and, after reaching holding fix inbound, continued with approach. We all agree that he did correct thing and we mainly agree that ATCO though exactly that. The issues are terminology, confusion and ELP.
NCYankee wrote:
ICAO PAN OPS 8168
Thank you @NCYankee to point that out. Also interesting to read that in the U.S. you would understand something quite different.
That brings to my attention that one should only use a clear phraseology. E.g. in the approach charts that @Dan posted the procedure is labelled “racetrack” directly in the map. Then it looks clear to me to name it as such. But if nowhere the word “racetrack” is used, one should not use such a word (as did ATC here).
Darkfixer wrote:
OKPEM is most likely a Holding.
It’s not a Race track or Procedure.
It is definitely a hold. That is clear from the approach chart in the AIP.
UdoR wrote:
Also interesting to read that in the U.S. you would understand something quite different.
Unless someone flies a lot in Europe, I don’t think any US certificated pilot would have understood that, I certainly wouldn’t. As I wrote earlier, I would have assumed the non-English speaking ATCO was referring to the hold. Which, it seems, she was!
Anyway, to illustrate how this is handled in the US: I had a nearly identical situation last week, IFR from KSBA to KSMO, 5k ft in IMC. There was a slower airplane (PA28, I think) ahead of me on the airway and I first got vectors for spacing and then a ‘reduce speed to 100kts or lower’. The PA 28 turned inbound (radar vectored), then there was a KingAir – faster, obviously – coming from the opposite direction headed for same IAF and then myself in a C182. Again, I got a ‘vector for separation and spacing’ (ATCO actually apologized) and then radar vectors for the approach. No hold was harmed in all of this! What I’m getting at here is that in all the years flying in the US I have been vectored for spacing or sequencing many, many times, but only got a hold on extremely few occasions. Seems that US ATC works the flows differently from Europe.
UdoR wrote:
That brings to my attention that one should only use a clear phraseology. E.g. in the approach charts that @Dan posted the procedure is labelled “racetrack” directly in the map. Then it looks clear to me to name it as such. But if nowhere the word “racetrack” is used, one should not use such a word (as did ATC here).
I looked at Jeppesen guidance and legend. Jeppesen charting standards don’t specify the word “racetrack” when charting a hold/racetrack. In effect, they are synonymous. Here is what Jeppesen states in the approach chart legend:
16 – Holding/Racetrack patterns are shown with both inbound and outbound bearings. Restrictions are charted when applicable, heavy weight tracks indicate the holding/racetrack is required.
Other charting standards from country sources may have a requirement to add the word “racetrack”, but Jeppesen does not appear to do so. The primary distinction between a hold and a racetrack appears to be the intended usage of the holding pattern. If it is primarily to be used for holding, the pattern seems to be called a holding pattern. If it is primarily used in an approach procedure for the purpose of either losing altitude or re-orienting the aircraft path as a course reversal, racetrack seems to be the usage. Regardless if the procedure is termed a hold or a racetrack, the same standards are used for defining the protected areas.
So it appears to me to be a terminology understanding issue and not an error on the part of the ATC instructions. In the US, we call a charted hold as either a hold, a HILPT if it is mandatory part of the approach procedure, or an Arrival Hold if it is not a mandatory part of the procedure. It seems there has been some good discussion and learning by all in this thread, including myself who never have used the word racetrack in 54 years of flying.
NCYankee wrote:
don’t specify the word “racetrack” when charting a hold/racetrack. In effect, they are synonymous.
Now we’re getting to the point. This explains a racetrack pattern contrary to a racetrack procedure. According to ICAO doc 8168 Volume 1, Chapter 2.4.6:
Quote
2.4.6 Arrival holding
A racetrack holding procedure will normally be located at an IAF or the IF. When one or more of the IAFs from the
standard “T” or “Y” pattern are not provided, the holding pattern will normally be located to facilitate entry to the
procedure (see Figure II-4-2-7).
The racetrack procedure is explained in the same document item 3.2.3 and 3.3 and in particular here:
Quote
3.3.1.2 Typically, a racetrack procedure is used when aircraft arrive overhead the fix from a direction which does
not allow direct entry to the reversal, as shown in Figure II-5-3-4. In these cases, aircraft should enter the procedure in a
manner similar to that prescribed for a holding procedure entry with the following considerations:
a) offset entry from Sector 2 shall limit the time on the 30° offset track to 1 min 30 s, after which the pilot should
turn to a heading parallel to the outbound track for the remainder of the outbound time. If the outbound time is
only 1 min, the time on the 30° offset track shall be 1 min also;
b) parallel entry shall not return directly to the facility without first intercepting the inbound track when
proceeding to the final segment of the approach procedure; and
c) all manoeuvring shall be done in so far as possible on the manoeuvring side of the inbound track.
Chapter 3 of Doc 8168 is headlined “Initial Approach”, so this is the transition from IAF to IF. According to item 3.2.1 the racetrack procedure is only to be chosen where no IF can be positioned.
Quote
3.2.1 Where no suitable IAF or IF is available to construct the instrument procedure, a reversal procedure,
racetrack or holding pattern is required.
(note that racetrack pattern is mixed up at this paragraph with racetrack procedure under item 3.2.1. It clearly has to relate to the racetrack procedure out of context)
This conclusively makes it clear, that at the end of the racetrack procedure the final approach segment starts directly.
So again conclusively @Peter when the ATC states to “do a racetrack”, where an IAF, IF and FAF exists on the approach chart it is clear as ice that only the racetrack holding according to chapter 2.4.6 can be meant. Where did you have your copy of ICAO Doc 8168 on this flight? (joking 
)
UdoR wrote:
This conclusively makes it clear, that at the end of the racetrack procedure the final approach segment starts directly.
Actually not. An IF is not needed for the intermediate approach segment. In the case of course reversals (procedure turn, base turn, racetrack), the intermediate approach segment starts when you are established on the final approach course. The final approach segment starts at the FAF/FAP.
I think @NCYankee has perfectly summarised the position in France.French pilots expect to fly the racetrack as a procedure turn when approaching OKPEM on that heading. There is no other procedure turn indicated or possible.
To make that tight left at OKPEM would have meant crossing the hold without permission or over shooting and coming back onto the 313° of the next part of the approach to OLMAV. This might also not have been enough of a delay to maintain separation with the other traffic.
I don’t know why Peter had to be told to fly the racetrack it should have been automatic.
Yes most racetracks/hippodromes are marked in bolder lines. Some are superimposed on the hold on some you have both with the racetrack being a larger oval. There are many of both types in France.
But OKPEM is probably not the normal IAF to be used from the UK. TUKVI, OSDIT or OLMAV are more often used which might well be why the approach plate simply identifies a hold here.
But as NCYankee explained it doesn’t have to be marked. It is something we should have learnt during IR training.
In hindsight I wouldn’t be surprised if the ATCO wished she had simply told Peter to hold at OKPEM. He would then have to fly the same pattern as he would have as a procedure turn via racetrack. Either way you would normally be asked to report entering the hold or racetrack. That way the ATCO would know that there should be 4 mins before crossing OKPEM again and if cleared going on to the next leg to OLMAV. As Emir wrote Peter didn’t enter the racetrack. Would he have done so if the ATCO had told him to hold?
The advantage of the procedure turn/racetrack here is that the ATCO could have cleared him for the approach, probably when he reported crossing OKPEM and entering the racetrack. Knowing it was going to be 4mins before he crossed it she could have cleared him for the approach at any point leading to OKPEM. In the hold giving clearance would probably be given in the hold on the inbound leg. The hold is not considered part of a procedure. It is possible, whilst holding, if other traffic turns up at one of the other IAFs or VFR they could well be slotted in ahead of you even if that means you continuing in the hold, whereas once you have been cleared for the approach, you have priority and traffic is separated from you.
IMO from what Peter has described and shown on his track I don’t see what else the ATCO could have done or said other than telling him to hold which might have done him no favours. It’s not their fault to paraphrase “she doesn’t know what we pilots don’t know”.
gallois wrote:
As Emir wrote Peter didn’t enter the racetrack.
You are repeatedly stating that Peter did something wrong, but for some reason you never tell us what he should have done instead. Can you please do so?
Airborne_Again wrote:
You are repeatedly stating that Peter did something wrong, but for some reason you never tell us what he should have done instead. Can you please do so?
I think I know what @gallois means, and it’s that Peter should have stayed in the hold until receiving an explicit approach clearance. As I wrote earlier, that’s what I would have done.
