Holding pattern, racetrack; different?
Brian Mellor
pattern. However, I was using some Aerad approach plates last week (Aerad is
a publisher, similar to Jeppesen), and happened to look through some of the
notes in the front of the book.
I came across a section on the "racetrack", and noted words to the effect
that "... a racetrack is *not* the same as a holding pattern". I never got
chance to read it in detail, so I don't know the full story. Anyone out
there got an Aerad manual? Or maybe I am alone in my misunderstanding;
everyone else always knew they were not the same?
--
Brian Mellor
Harry Blackstock
In a holding pattern you are trying to kill time so go
slow and conserve fuel. Don't know if that is what they
ment but that is one difference..Hank Blackstock
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
I came across a section on the "racetrack", and noted words to the effect
that "... a racetrack is *not* the same as a holding pattern". I never got
chance to read it in detail, so I don't know the full story. Anyone out
there got an Aerad manual? Or maybe I am alone in my misunderstanding;
everyone else always knew they were not the same?
There are two differences between holdings and racetracks.
1) If the outbound time of a racetrack is longer than 1 minute 30 seconds,
and you are doing an offset entry, after 1 minute 30 seconds you should
turn to an outbound track parallel to the inbound track and proceed on
that course until it is time to turn inbound.
2) You should avoid flight on the non-holding side.
The reason for (1) is to keep you from getting unreasonably far away
from the inbound track on an offset entry since racetrack procedures
often have quite long outbound times.
The reason for (2) is, I guess, to avoid a non-stabilised final when
you pass the fix inbound with a large course deviation. If you do
e.g. a parallel entry exactly as procedures tell you, you could find
yourself a good way out on the non-holding side after you've turned
inbound.
In a hold this is no problem as the airspace is protected - the only
important thing is that you reach the fix. In a racetrack, you also
need to be established on the inbound track before reaching the fix as
you will continue on final on the same track.
There is also a practical difference, if not a difference in
principle, in that holdings usually have a 1 minute timing, while
racetracks usually have a longer timing. Typically an approach hold
and a racetrack on the same facility have different times and are thus
charted differently.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
Logikkonsult NP AB, Swedenborgsgatan 2, S-118 48 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN
Phone: +46 8 615 68 69, Fax: +46 8 641 19 06, Internet: l...@lk.se
Julian Scarfe
wrote:
> How would you define a racetrack? I assumed it was synonymous with holding
> pattern. However, I was using some Aerad approach plates last week (Aerad is
> a publisher, similar to Jeppesen), and happened to look through some of the
> notes in the front of the book.
In article <LHE.95No...@anhur.sics.se>, l...@sics.se (Lars-Henrik
Eriksson) gave an excellent description of the differences between holding
pattern procedures and racetrack procedures.
However, I think Brian might be looking for something more general than
that. I certainly didn't know what a racetrack was until I looked it up
(probably because the word isn't used much, at least in the UK, even
though the procedures themselves are). A racetrack is a part of an
instrument approach procedure and is usually longer than a hold (which
occurs before an IAP).
There are three ways (possibly more?) of getting from the Initial Approach
Fix (at minimum holding altitude or above) to the Final Approach Fix (at
the correct altitude for the approach). The Base Turn (teardrop), the
Procedure Turn and the Racetrack. The first two reverse direction of
travel, the racetrack does not.
Usually for that reason, in UK IAPs at least, the racetrack often forms a
part of an alternate procedure e.g ILS/DME27 at Norwich (EGSH). The
holding pattern on the LOM, which is the IAF and FAF, has an inbound leg
aligned with the ILS, so the best way to get down from the hold is the
racetrack: you extend the outbound leg of the hold to 2 minutes (poss
2:30, I forget) and descend. If you were coming from the other direction
(west) you'd probably choose the base turn instead.
Julian Scarfe
ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Jim Tilbey
Brian Mellor <br...@aviation.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I came across a section on the "racetrack", and noted words to the effect
> that "... a racetrack is *not* the same as a holding pattern". I never got
> chance to read it in detail, so I don't know the full story. Anyone out
> there got an Aerad manual? Or maybe I am alone in my misunderstanding;
> everyone else always knew they were not the same?
Depending on the wording this is correct, Holding patterns are very
often described as a Racetrack Pattern, however a Racetrack Procedure
is an IAP like a Base Turn or Procedure Turn Procudure (commonly
known as Reversal Procedures.)
The Reversal Procedures have the disadvantage that entry into them is
restricted to one direction, normally within +/-30 degs of the
outbound track. The Racetrack procedure can be entered from any
direction just like a holding pattern.
The following might help to illustrate (pencil and paper at the ready)
Holding Procedure :- 1-min standard hold approaching VOR on track 091
mag turning right at the facility.
Rwy 09 VOR/DME approach :- Base Turn Procedure establishing outbound
on 259 radial with a right turn at 8DME to establish on extended
Final Approach track (FAT).
It is impossible to enter this procedure unless you approach from the
NE (only then if you don't have to take up the hold), so in this case
there is a published racetrack procedure which basically extends the
hold out to 8DME before a right turn to establish on the extended FAT.
Hope this makes it a bit clearer.
--
Jim Tilbey
Kirkwall, Orkney, U.K.
lucien
Racetracks and holding patterns look the same, but have different
objectives.
Holding patterns are used to park aircraft in an efficient way.
(For example the missed approach procedure may put you in a holding
until ATC has time for you.)
Racetracks are used for connecting arrival routes with approaches in
a smooth way:
e.g.
-All a/c may be required to keep up the same speed on the arrival,
but they need a place to decellerate, (A PA28 has a different FAS
compared with a B744)
-The arrival point may bring you above the FAP at FL70, in the race track
you can descent down to 2000 ft, (This might be the case if the
airport is surrounded by other airports or obstacles)
-Or the angle btwn the last leg of the arrival route, and the inbound
course of the ILS is too much,
-any other requirement from the arrival that makes it impossible to
commence with the approach.
Hope this helps,
Lucien
Wally Roberts
>How would you define a racetrack? I assumed it was synonymous with holding
>pattern. However, I was using some Aerad approach plates last week (Aerad is
>a publisher, similar to Jeppesen), and happened to look through some of the
>notes in the front of the book.
>
>that "... a racetrack is *not* the same as a holding pattern". I never got
>chance to read it in detail, so I don't know the full story. Anyone out
>there got an Aerad manual? Or maybe I am alone in my misunderstanding;
>everyone else always knew they were not the same?
In the United States, "racktrack" has no official meaning these days. It
is a term of art used to describe a holding pattern. The AIM still makes
reference to a "racetrack pattern as one option for course reversal in an
instrument approach procedure that has a standard procedure turn.
In that case, the pilot could elect to do an extended holding pattern not
to exceed 10 miles from the procedure turn fix. It's "legal," but often
not real good technique, as opposed to tracking the procedure turn course
outbound, if you need to go out very far.
All holding patterns in the U.S., charted as such are limited to the holding
speeds set forth in the AIM and to 1 minute outbound (14,000, and below) unless
a DME distance is published with the pattern.
Regards,
Wally Roberts
Julian Scarfe
> In that case, the pilot could elect to do an extended holding pattern not
> to exceed 10 miles from the procedure turn fix. It's "legal," but often
> not real good technique, as opposed to tracking the procedure turn course
> outbound, if you need to go out very far.
Does this mean that as long as you stay within the prescribed distance you
can *choose* a procedure turn, base turn (teardrop) or racetrack to get
from IAF to FAF? In the UK (at least according to my Aerad charts) you
have to fly the manoeuvre specified.
Do you know the ICAO position on this Lars-Henrik? Sometimes Aerad uses
some artistic licence in describing the ICAO rules!
Julian Scarfe
ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Jim Tilbey
ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Julian Scarfe) writes:
> Julian Scarfe
> ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk
From ICAO Doc 8168 when referring to reversal procedures it states :-
' It should be noted that the airspace provided for these procedures
does not permit a racetrack or holding manoeuvre to be conducted
unless so specified.'
When referring to Racetrack Procedures it states :- ' Racetrack
procedures are used where sufficient distance is not available in a
straight segment to accomodate the required loss of altitude and when
entry into a reversal procedure is not practical. They may also be
SPECIFIED as alternatives to reversal procedures to increase
operational flexibility (in this case they are not necessarily
published separately.)
I read this to mean (correct me if I'm wrong), that if a reversal
procedure is specified in a particular IAP, then unless there is a
published alternate Racetrack procedure on the same approach plate or
the Racetrack is published as a separate procedure you cannot go
around making up your own procedure.
The reason that many IAP's include reversal procedures is because it
is often the case that adhering to a specified radial or track is the
only way of ensuring that the Initial Approach segment conforms to
the laid down criteria for an IAP (i.e. with respect to obstacle
clearance etc).
Airport Authorities spend thousands on designing and implementing new
approaches and believe me if it wasn't necessary they wouldn't.--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
In article <terpsDH...@netcom.com>, Wally Roberts <te...@netcom.com> wrote:
> In that case, the pilot could elect to do an extended holding pattern not
> to exceed 10 miles from the procedure turn fix. It's "legal," but often
> not real good technique, as opposed to tracking the procedure turn course
> outbound, if you need to go out very far.
Does this mean that as long as you stay within the prescribed distance you
can *choose* a procedure turn, base turn (teardrop) or racetrack to get
from IAF to FAF? In the UK (at least according to my Aerad charts) you
have to fly the manoeuvre specified.
Do you know the ICAO position on this Lars-Henrik? Sometimes Aerad uses
some artistic licence in describing the ICAO rules!
My PANS-OPS is explicit in saying that you may NOT fly a racetrack
when a procedure turn or base turn is charted (unless, of course, a
racetrack is also charted). It does not explicitly disallow - nor does
it permit - a procedure turn or base turn to be flown when a racetrack
is charted.
Caveat: my copy of PANS-OPS is edition 3. Edition 4 is the current
one, but I doubt something like this would have changed.
Wwplummer
Barrier Combat Air Patrol (BARCAP), etc missions "racetracks". They have
the same intent as a hold but the shape, leg times and speeds are quite
different. --Bill
Dave Rabinowitz
>that "... a racetrack is *not* the same as a holding pattern". I never got
It should be noted that this distinction does not exist in the US. The word
"racetrack" appears once in the Airman's Information Manual as the description
of one form of procedure turn. It does not occur at all in the text on
holding.
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
jim.t...@zetnet.co.uk (Jim Tilbey) wrote:
>In message <jas12-06119...@atroute1.pem.cam.ac.uk>
> ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Julian Scarfe) writes:
>
>> In article <terpsDH...@netcom.com>, Wally Roberts
><te...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>From ICAO Doc 8168...
You are speaking ICAO PANS-OPS. I am speaking United States TERPs.
But he was not responding to you, but to a question by Julian Scarfe
(as can be seen from the quotes of your own posting) about what ICAO
had to say about the matter.
Wally Roberts
>In article <terpsDH...@netcom.com> Wally Roberts <te...@netcom.com> writes:
>
> jim.t...@zetnet.co.uk (Jim Tilbey) wrote:
> >In message <jas12-06119...@atroute1.pem.cam.ac.uk>
> > ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Julian Scarfe) writes:
> >
> >> In article <terpsDH...@netcom.com>, Wally Roberts
> ><te...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >From ICAO Doc 8168...
>
> You are speaking ICAO PANS-OPS. I am speaking United States TERPs.
>
>But he was not responding to you, but to a question by Julian Scarfe
>(as can be seen from the quotes of your own posting) about what ICAO
>had to say about the matter.
I don't necessarily see that from those quotes. I don't know how to operate
this newsgroup stuff that well. But, my distinct recollection was that he,
or someone, asked about the apparent discrepency between the U.S. AIM and the
requirement to fly a teardrop exactly as charted.