Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Procedure turn not required

In the US we used the acronym SHARPTT supported by the FARs to determine when a procedure turn is not authorized/required.

A couple of those obviously carry over (eg NoPT on the IAF or if cleared straight in) but idk where to look in ICAO documentation (PANS-OPS didn’t help) or the EASA parts to answer my own question. An instructor here told me SHARPTT will work here as well but I prefer to know where the rules are and read them myself.

So when is a procedure turn not required/authorized?

Also an example…
Flying on DEVNI4F into ESGT to the ILS RW 19. There is a racetrack in the procedure. I assume one must fly it if just cleared for the ILS RW 19 approach while flying the arrival…?

Sweden

SHARPTT = ???

EHLE / Lelystad, Netherlands, Netherlands

Are you sure you mean ESGT as I cannot find DEVNI4F and also cannot see a RW 19?

EGTF, EGLK, United Kingdom

While this rule may work in Europe, it seems largely superfluous, as the requirements will be explicitly stated on the chart. In your example (which, incidentally, is ESGJ rather than ESGT), STAR positions you nicely for a straight-in approach and I see no reason to fly the racetrack unless you need extra time for whatever reason.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

Cttime wrote:

So when is a procedure turn not required/authorized?
Procedure turns are unusual in Europe. The rule is to have racetracks or base turns. If there is a charted initial approach that takes you to the final without passing the racetrack or base turn, then you do a straight-in. (See the plates for ESSP for example.)

Ultimately it depends on your clearance — straight-in or full procedure.

Flying on DEVNI4F into ESGT to the ILS RW 19. There is a racetrack in the procedure. I assume one must fly it if just cleared for the ILS RW 19 approach while flying the arrival…?

Absolutely not! The controller will not be happy at all if you do that… DEVNI4F takes you straight to the final. There is no operational reason to fly the racetrack.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 03 Dec 20:49
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

In fact, now that I can see DEVNI4F, the STAR text even says intercept the LOC not below 2700 ft, so you definitely won’t be flying a racetrack.

The racetrack would need to be flown if you received a DCT OA as OA is the IAF and the end of the racetrack is the start of the intermediate leg before the final approach leg. The reason for the racetrack must be that there are no other suitable navaids (without reliance on GPS) to otherwise position you on to the final approach course.

In reality (given that there is also a MRVA chart) I presume you would either get the STAR or get radar vectored on to the final approach course which leaves the racetrack as the less likely option.

Interestingly EGST does not have a STAR so there is a higher likelihood to be required to fly the racetrack unless you get vectored on to the final approach course.

Last Edited by wbardorf at 03 Dec 21:14
EGTF, EGLK, United Kingdom

I see you all caught my mixing up ESGJ and ESGT.
I’ve also used procedure turn in the American sense (including the racetrack in my definition of a PT)

I understand as some have said that there is no operational need for conducting the racetrack but isn’t it a part of the full procedure (as it is drawn in bold)?

I’d like to believe it would be common sense that since it’s not needed (unless you weren’t cleared low enough on the arrival) that it wouldn’t be expected. But on the other hand couldn’t a controller expect a full procedure unless an aircraft requested and/or is cleared otherwise?

Last Edited by Cttime at 03 Dec 22:41
Sweden

Peter_Mundy

SHARPTT

Straight in – (as in receiving a clearance with the words “cleared straight in x approach runway xx”
Holding in lieu of a procedure turn (conducting any entry to the racetrack as your procedure turn)
Arc – DME arc
Radar vectors (controller vectors you to the final approach course)
P – NoPT listed on intrude to approach on the feeder, intermediate or from a certain IAF
Teardrop
Timed approach

Sweden

Cttime wrote:

I understand as some have said that there is no operational need for conducting the racetrack but isn’t it a part of the full procedure (as it is drawn in bold)?

Yes, the racetrack is part of the full procedure, but there is no operational need for the full procedure when you arrive from the STAR.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Cttime wrote:

but idk where to look in ICAO documentation (PANS-OPS didn’t help) or the EASA parts to answer my own question

These aspects of procedural workflow and responsibility are much less well developed and documented outside the US flying environment. I think it comes from having relatively few procedures in a non-radar environment, so the norm is vectors to the ILS.

A lack of regulatory rigour on how to join IAPs is not the only issue. For example, the lack of an equivalent to AIM 5-5-4 a 3 (b) troubles me:

Section 5. Pilot/Controller Roles and Responsibilities
Pilot

3. Upon receipt of an approach clearance while on an unpublished route or being radar vectored:
(a) Complies with the minimum altitude for IFR; and
(b) Maintains the last assigned altitude until established on a segment of a published route or IAP, at which time published altitudes apply.

23 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top