I haven’t heard of that I must admit. I had always understood Oc was a form of Celtic but I will have to do more research :)
UdoR wrote:
Airborne_again What is about the ICAO doc 8168 as I cited here in post #66 or in the Jeppesen phraseology as cited in post #65?I know both are not legally binding, but we’re talking about language usage here. To me it tells a lesson that you find the term “racetrack hold” in books. So it sounds reasonable that it exists and is used at least in parts of the world.
You’re right that there is a single use of term “racetrack hold” in PANS-OPS volume I (and also a single use in PANS-OPS volume II). The term is nowhere explained – in particular it is not in the definition section, while “racetrack procedure” is. I believe this to be an editorial slip and that they simply refer to a hold. But I can’t deny that the term is there.
This must be the most entertaining thread on EuroGA – ever! My corner shop has run out of popcorn…
Anyway, back to the serious business:
Airborne_Again wrote:
Sorry, but it is a standard term in aviation English.
Nope, in the US it certainly isn’t. It does not exist in the IR literature, the pilot/controller glossary and in the FARs.
172driver wrote:
Nope, in the US it certainly isn’t. [Racetrack] does not exist in the IR literature, the pilot/controller glossary and in the FARs.
A quick check shows that it is mentioned in AIM section 5-4-9, so it is a bit surprising that it doesn’t exist in the US IR literature. Anyway, this is EuroGA, isn’t it?
Nope again. Sorry, @A_A, the word ‘racetrack’ in the AIM refers to the pattern of a hold, NOT to the procedure being discussed here, which doesn’t exist in the US.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Anyway, this is EuroGA, isn’t it?
Sure, but as we can see quite a few European pilots aren’t familiar with it either.
172driver wrote:
Nope again. Sorry, @A_A, the word ‘racetrack’ in the AIM refers to the pattern of a hold, NOT to the procedure being discussed here, which doesn’t exist in the US.
Ok. You’re FAA IR holder, not I. I just find it curious that this quote from the AIM “Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree ↔ 260 degree course reversal.” mentions four options with the exact same terminology as the four options in the PANS-OPS figure from post 138, yet one of them means something else in the AIM case.
It’s not on the Jepp plates but if you look on the Eurocontrol French plate in the AIP there is indeed a direct racetrack from OKPEM to the ILS, this is presumably what she asked you to fly and was quicker than what you ended up doing. Now why it’s not on the Jepp plate who knows.
Do you mean this one?
This is the Jepp one. Can you please point out where the AIP one shows a “racetrack” but the Jepp one does not?
The way the AIP plate is drawn is misleading and could be interpreted (by a complete amateur, however) as this
slowbird wrote:
direct racetrack from OKPEM to the ILS, this is presumably what she asked you to fly and was quicker than what you ended up doing.
That’s not correct IMHO’, you don’t have track guidance. I noticed on several AIP plates they don’t publish the inbound or sometimes outbound course for track guidance on the plate next to the holding symbol but its noted in the RNAV holding box (the 139 you need to figure out yourself :-) ). This is open for harmonisation I would think. On the Jepp plate you can see it as obvious part of the hold. So you easily can program it in the navigator (left turn inbound course 319 -1 min) and fly in LNAV or fly it manually if needed. I think the controller made it confusing and unfortunately Peter should have flown in my opinion a parallel entry over OKPEM then outbound on 139 for 1 minute and fly back with a right turn to OKPEM and request if he was cleared for the approach when turning inbound OKPEM. In the GNX it computes the hold itself based on the input.
open for harmonisation
I think that’s an extremely polite way of saying that the AIP plates are often crap – because they are published by each country only reluctantly and only to comply with ICAO data promulgation obligations.
The same has been said for stuff in daily VFR usage – example.
