172driver wrote:
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.
Then Peter should have been told “enter hold at OKPEM until instructed”.
For most of us outside France “racetrack” means something completely different, NOT entering hold.
The question then becomes – when was the approach clearance issued?
The racetrack is not a hold it is used as a procedure turn..it is there in the IR theory and I will say I was taught during my practical IR training, all types of procedure turn. Please reread NCYankee’s post. He could have been describing what happens in France.
You asked what he should have done:-
He should have flown to OKPEM as cleared. Peter doesn’t mention when he was cleared for the approach. At OKPEM he was told to fly the racetrack (I have to assume there was no other clearance or communication given between the 2 communications.)
On reaching OKPEM, because she said fly the racetrack (a procedure turn) Peter should simply have entered and flown the racetrack (the oval that looks like a racetrack marked as a hold on the approach plate). As ATC had said fly the racetrack not fly the hold you can legitimately expect that you have been cleared for the approach but I would have expected the ATCO to have said “cleared for the approach to ILS 13” at some point either before or on entering the racetrack.
In France we are brought up to work with ATC and recognise that they are providing us with a service to make traffic flow as efficient as possible. We are brought up to believe that we are in charge, not ATC. We expect requests to be granted and understand if they are not, it is not because ATSOs are on some sort of power trip.
We also understand that no one is perfect and not every situation can be covered in textbooks.
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.
There’s additional option for this: doing split S maneuver (opposite of Immelmann) 
Emir wrote:
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.
I meant 1 lap, as normal with you enter and exit the hold as Peter did if not instructed otherwise.
Tower/ATC did miss communicate and used wrong terminology.
Peter did the correct thing and asked for clarification.
No objection about the correctness but it’s still 0 laps, entering holding doesn’t count.
Where was the wrong terminology?
gallois wrote:
He should have flown to OKPEM as cleared. Peter doesn’t mention when he was cleared for the approach. At OKPEM he was told to fly the racetrack (I have to assume there was no other clearance or communication given between the 2 communications.)
On reaching OKPEM, because she said fly the racetrack (a procedure turn) Peter should simply have entered and flown the racetrack (the oval that looks like a racetrack marked as a hold on the approach plate). As ATC had said fly the racetrack not fly the hold you can legitimately expect that you have been cleared for the approach but I would have expected the ATCO to have said “cleared for the approach to ILS 13” at some point either before or on entering the racetrack.
As you say, given the phrasing – “fly the racetrack to ILS13” – Peter could legitimately expect to have been cleared for the approach. So what did he do wrong?
Emir wrote:
No objection about the correctness but it’s still 0 laps, entering holding doesn’t count.
In the US, it counts as a hold. You are established in the hold on crossing the fix OKPEM on the initial entry and on crossing the fix inbound, that counts as once around. Most of my holds in maintaining IFR currency are based on the HILPT where only once around is allowed on an approach clearance and any subsequent “racetracks” requires a clearance.
I haven’t had a need to fly an arrival hold in the US. Most of them are associated with approaches in the mountains where the MEA is very high. I asked a friend who is expert in ATC matters what the clearance would be. He said that first you get cleared into the hold and once inside the hold you get cleared for the approach. So if this procedure were in the US, the first clearance would be something like “Cleared direct OKPEM, maintain 3000 until OKPEM, hold as charted, report established” Once you report in holding, the next clearance would be “Cleared ILS 13, …” If the procedure racetrack was a bold line, it is part of the mandatory part of the approach and one would simply receive the following clearance: “Cleared direct OKPEM, maintain 3000 until OKPEM, Cleared ILS 13, …” It would require the hold be flown once around, crossing OKPEM twice, on entry and on exit to the holding pattern aka racetrack.
Airborne_Again wrote:
As you say, given the phrasing – “fly the racetrack to ILS13” – Peter could legitimately expect to have been cleared for the approach. So what did he do wrong?
I don’t see that Peter did anything wrong, but I would not consider it an approach clearance. At least in the US, I need to hear “cleared approach ILS 13 …”, so although I would understand it to require me to fly the procedure’s lateral guidance, until I hear cleared for the approach, I would not initiate any descent.
