Airborne_Again wrote:
there is no operational need for the full procedure when you arrive from the STAR.
Understood but my question is about if there are regulatory writings/guidance on when specifically a procedure turn / racetrack / base turn is not required and/or authorized.
Essentially I’m asking if anyone knows the regulatory basis for this statement (if one exists).
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.
In the US this would be untrue unless one of the SHARPTT items I mentioned were true. There, even if aligned for a straight in approach you are expected to conduct the full approach if SHARPTT does not apply.
Simlilar to you, I have been trying to find text in PANS-OPS that would clarify whether the racetrack procedure needs to be followed or not.
Looking at ICAO (i.e. non-FAA) STARs and IAPs in various countries, the explanation seems to be that the STAR text includes wording such as “[…] to intercept localiser” which would make it clear that no racetrack procedure is required required, in particular as the STAR is already positioning you on the final approach track.
If the ATC instruction for ESGJ was “Direct OA, cleared ILS approach Rwy 19”, then you would need to fly the racetrack procedure in order to establish yourself on to the intermediate approach track before the FAP. In today’s GPS world, with ATC’s blessing, you could theoretically self-position yourself on to a 5-mile final at or above the MSA to intercept the localiser, which is basically what the RNP 19 approach does (although at a 12-mile final, BAMAX). In the old-school, non-GPS world, you wouldn’t have any other real means of positioning yourself for the approach and be assured of terrain clearance. The way to do it then would be to fly directly to OA, descend to MSA, enter the racetrack procedure and descend to 2700 ft and then intercept the localiser and descend with the glideslope.
Cttime wrote:
In the US we used the acronym SHARPTT supported by the FARs to determine when a procedure turn is not authorized/required.
If we use the same approach you mention (guidance using an acronym not in itself official but mostly supported by the FARs), then all the thread replies above essentially answer your question by providing the guidance similar to SHARPTT. Even the US regulatory environment isn’t 100% black and white. There is an article on just this subject in the Nov 2018 issue of IFR magazine, and it seems that the subject gets heated discussions in US IR pilot hangar-flying sessions. The article quotes the official guidance in 14 CFR 91.175(j) and AIM 5-4-9 but then go on to say that there are cases where a procedure turn is required but doesn’t make sense, and their final conclusion is “when in doubt, ask” (FAR 91.123(a)) ;-)
Sure, it would be nice if EASA regs were even half as clear as the US ones, but I would say that you would be just as safe in Europe following the US official guidance plus the guidelines in the IFR mag article. That is, a PT is there to reverse course or lose altitude. If your ATC clearance lines you up with the final approach course outside the PT (such as the DEVNI4F arrival example at ESGJ), then it would seem very clear that the PT is not expected unless the plate says something specific to the contrary. But even then, if still in doubt …
If you need it to lose altitude, then I’d certainly request the PT to be sure the controller is not surprised when you head off into the racetrack.
Sorry for nitpicking, but the discussion becomes clearer if everyone tries to use standard terminology.
An approach procedure can use two kinds of manoeuvres when a straight-in is not possible: A racetrack or a course reversal. A course reversal can be either a procedure turn (of which there are two kinds) or a base turn.
A hold-in-lieu-of-PT (racetrack) is one type of course reversal. The others are traditional procedure turn and teardrop turn. Not sure what you mean by standard terminology, nor what you have in mind with a base turn.
chflyer wrote:
A hold-in-lieu-of-PT (racetrack) is one type of course reversal. The others are traditional procedure turn and teardrop turn. Not sure what you mean by standard terminology, nor what you have in mind with a base turn.
I mean the terminology used in PANS-OPS, which is the document used by most countries (certainly all of Europe, but not the US) to define how to fly and construct approach (and departure) procedures.
A “base turn” is a kind of course reversal where you fly outbound from a beacon (typically an NDB) at an offset to the reciprocal of the final approach course and then after some defined time or DME distance turn back onto the final approach course. Before racetracks came into widespread use, base turns were ubiquitous in Europe and there are still some procedures around that use them.
chflyer wrote:
There is an article on just this subject in the Nov 2018 issue of IFR magazine, and it seems that the subject gets heated discussions in US IR pilot hangar-flying sessions.
Do you happen to have a link to this article or the title of it?
As to this specific procedure I think I’m reasonably satisfied that since the end of the arrival says to “intercept final” that the racetrack is not required.
Thanks for all the input everyone. And thanks for the patience with me mixing terminologies.
AFAIK that mag is purchase-only, or maybe an online sub. @ncyankee might know more.
Indeed, Europe tends to not use procedure turns. In “classical IFR” here, you fly to some navaid which defines the holding pattern and you sort yourself out in the hold, and then fly the procedure to land. If any descent is required (e.g. from a high MSA enroute) then this is done in the hold, going round and round.
Peter wrote:
Indeed, Europe tends to not use procedure turns. In “classical IFR” here, you fly to some navaid which defines the holding pattern and you sort yourself out in the hold, and then fly the procedure to land. If any descent is required (e.g. from a high MSA enroute) then this is done in the hold, going round and round.
Actually, a racetrack and a hold are not the same thing. They are very similar but there are subtle differences in how you fly them. Usually there is both a racetrack and a hold at the same place.
From PANS-OPS:
Normally a racetrack procedure is used when aircraft arrive overhead the fix from various directions. In these cases, aircraft are expected to 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 is expected to 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.
To me this reads like the discovery of a whole new branch of physics, where the gravitational field is 0.3% weaker than the normal one which is why it has remained undiscovered for so long, and a raft of Nobel prizes are going to be awarded to the researchers who found it 
I wonder how many IR instructors and examiners know this?
