Good reading. I found the communication notes particularly interesting.
All traffic within a 10-mile radius of a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating should continuously monitor and communicate, as appropriate, on the designated CTAF until leaving the area or until clear of the movement area. After first monitoring the frequency for other traffic present passing within 10 miles from the airport, self-announcing of your position and intentions should occur between 8 and 10 miles from the airport upon arrival. Departing aircraft should continuously monitor/communicate on the appropriate frequency from startup, during taxi, and until 10 miles from the airport
To help identify one airport from another, the correct airport name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each self-announce transmission.
Note: Pilots are reminded that the use of the phrase, “ANY TRAFFIC IN THE AREA, PLEASE ADVISE,” is not a recognized self-announce position and/or intention phrase and should not be used under any condition.
There is also a graphic on page 9 on the two ways to enter the circuit from the crosswind leg.
Helpful, but only when flying in the US. (That was what you intended, wasn't it?) Specifically, the diagram on page 9 is not applicable in Canada.
The AIM details the appropriate radio communcations for Canadian uncontrolled airports. At an MF aerodrome (which do not exist in the US) use the compulsory radio calls as detailed in the CARs. For ATF aerodromes, you are recommended to use the same radio calls as if at an MF aerodrome (with no ground station.)
Incidentally, I heard a Transport Canada aircraft using the dreaded ACTPA, this morning. Abbreviated ("... Conflicting: Transport 012") as though the pilot was ashamed to be heard stimulating his brain's guilty pleasure centres.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
I reallyy have a tough time understanding why they would draw the diagram descending on the downwind side to enter the circuit on the downwind at a 45 deg and then making a note stating not to do it if the pattern is congested....if it isn’t safe all the time, I don’t think it’s safe at all. What about all the Nordo traffic you didn’t know was in the circuit making it congested....
I remember (20 years ago) some Transport Canada Inspectors giving the exact same 2 circuit entry procedures at a rust remover. Nobody in the audience thought descending on the downwind side was a good move but they were adamant it was the safest way.
TC does come up with some bonehead procedures , pushes them down peoples’ throats with “education”, threats, or worse, and then two or three years later, do a 180 on it.
I am always amazed at how they are able to get some of these procedures by their own people, who do, or should, know better.
The US has some wicked congestion at uncontrolled airports,and things like landing into the wind do not seem to concern some pilots.
It can be a gong show.
But as mention, FAA and TC can, and do have different procedures sometimes.
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
For the sake of my own mental health, please just land at the airport by the fastest means you can with consideration to other traffic. Doing loops around the runway is just congestion. NORDO traffic should be illegal at publically owned facilities.
square wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:54 pm
For the sake of my own mental health, please just land at the airport by the fastest means you can with consideration to other traffic. Doing loops around the runway is just congestion. NORDO traffic should be illegal at publically owned facilities.
One can afford to fly, one can perhaps afford a handheld, for safety....
One can afford to fly, one can perhaps afford a handheld, for safety....
Maybe the problem is that more people stop relying on radios and look out the window -- I personally think that Ab initio pilots learn to fly initially without the use of a radio. People simply don't keep a good watch anymore, besides NORDO is still allowed in a very large area of Canada. When I get pilots looking at me as if I had 3 heads and ask "how could anyone possibly fly without a radio or a GPS" I just shake my head. We need a good foundation in the basics before we move on to technology.
Now we have students learning initial IFR rating using an autopilot and a Garmin 1000 - - when I see that on a resume it goes straight to the bin -- tried it and it's like they don't have a rating
One can afford to fly, one can perhaps afford a handheld, for safety....
Maybe the problem is that more people stop relying on radios and look out the window -- I personally think that Ab initio pilots learn to fly initially without the use of a radio. People simply don't keep a good watch anymore, besides NORDO is still allowed in a very large area of Canada. When I get pilots looking at me as if I had 3 heads and ask "how could anyone possibly fly without a radio or a GPS" I just shake my head. We need a good foundation in the basics before we move on to technology.
Now we have students learning initial IFR rating using an autopilot and a Garmin 1000 - - when I see that on a resume it goes straight to the bin -- tried it and it's like they don't have a rating
I don't disagree with your other points VB, but you may be assuming way too much from a comment about a sensible suggestion to have a handheld in a Nordo aircraft - (something I suspect most already do).
A radio is a tool. I can do an NDB approach by hand, and fly a long CC at a 1000 AGL using just a watch and a map, just fine. Doesn't mean a GPS and an AP aren't useful tools.
For context, I don't know where you fly, but here in the west GTA, coming into the pattern to land on a sunny Saturday at an uncontrolled airport jammed with students and weekend flyers without a radio, doesn't seem the smartest thing to do.
One can afford to fly, one can perhaps afford a handheld, for safety....
Maybe the problem is that more people stop relying on radios and look out the window -- I personally think that Ab initio pilots learn to fly initially without the use of a radio. People simply don't keep a good watch anymore, besides NORDO is still allowed in a very large area of Canada. When I get pilots looking at me as if I had 3 heads and ask "how could anyone possibly fly without a radio or a GPS" I just shake my head. We need a good foundation in the basics before we move on to technology.
Now we have students learning initial IFR rating using an autopilot and a Garmin 1000 - - when I see that on a resume it goes straight to the bin -- tried it and it's like they don't have a rating
I think we should wait until everyone in our group is really good at every applicable skill until we move on to any other inevitable step
One thing that VFR traffic can sometimes forget is to watch out for the IFR guys, who may be joining straight in off the IFR approach, even at a non-MF airport.
One hopes that IFR traffic remembered to bring their radios, and to look out for NORDO traffic if applicable. IFR traffic doesn’t automatically get right of way, remember. Nobody wants to get mown down by a citation on final but the responsibility for that doesn’t rest only with the NORDO pilot.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
HiFlyChick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:35 am
One thing that VFR traffic can sometimes forget is to watch out for the IFR guys, who may be joining straight in off the IFR approach, even at a non-MF airport.
Tell that to the light twins that regularly take off or land in the opposite direction to VFR circuit traffic. Or the ones who call up 5 miles out having just switched to the frequency, hear nobody say anything for a few seconds, and proceed to land straight in. With two or three VFR aircraft in the circuit. "Hey, we're on a schedule guys."
Not the norm, but it happens more often than is reasonable, IMHO.
The pilot has to determine the runway, but It’s not an entirely free choice.
02.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.
.
.
.
(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall
.
.
.
(e) where practicable, land and take off into the wind unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
In most cases, landing downwind is a no-no.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- when I see that on a resume it goes straight to the bin -- tried it and it's like they don't have a rating
