Are IFR aircraft required to report "down and clear"? For those unfamiliar with that phrase it's used to satisfy 602.101 (e).
Here is the VFR rules:
MF Reporting Procedures on Arrival
602.101 The pilot-in-command of a VFR aircraft arriving at an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall report
(a) before entering the MF area and, where circumstances permit, shall do so at least five minutes before entering the area, giving the aircraft's position, altitude and estimated time of landing and the pilot-in-command's arrival procedure intentions;
(b) when joining the aerodrome traffic circuit, giving the aircraft's position in the circuit;
(c) when on the downwind leg, if applicable;
(d) when on final approach; and
(e) when clear of the surface on which the aircraft has landed.
Here are the IFR rules:
Reporting Procedures for IFR Aircraft When Approaching or Landing at an Uncontrolled Aerodrome
602.104 (1) This section applies to persons operating IFR aircraft when approaching or landing at an uncontrolled aerodrome, whether or not the aerodrome lies within an MF area.
(2) The pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft who intends to conduct an approach to or a landing at an uncontrolled aerodrome shall report
(a) the pilot-in-command's intentions regarding the operation of the aircraft
(i) five minutes before the estimated time of commencing the approach procedure, stating the estimated time of landing,
(ii) when commencing a circling manoeuvre, and
(iii) as soon as practicable after initiating a missed approach procedure; and
(b) the aircraft's position
(i) when passing the fix outbound, where the pilot-in-command intends to conduct a procedure turn or, if no procedure turn is intended, when the aircraft first intercepts the final approach course,
(ii) when passing the final approach fix or three minutes before the estimated time of landing where no final approach fix exists, and
(iii) on final approach.
Just wondering if I carried this over from the VFR world into IFR. I don't think I'm the only guy out there who does this - seems like alot of folks will broadcast their taxi intentions after leaving the runway. But just curious what the proper thing is to do.
If required you can tell the other A/C on the ramp or movement area what you are up too, or what side you are passing on, etc, as long as it is necessary comm's it is good airmanship, just don't talk to hear yourself talk.IMO
-- you better review that one again it certainly wasn't that simple and in fact it was one of the major contributing factors to adopt CRM --Look at the Tenner reef accident in 1977 the worst aviation accident ever and was a simple runway clearing / reporting issue
In the attempt not to have thread drift -- certainly it's required and any airport with FSS or published MF -- remote and uncontrolled and no traffic within 500nm pilots do what we do best -- get lazy --
Well, not exactly from the controller's point of view, but I know what you're saying....Gilles Hudicourt wrote:I think that what the OP fails to understand, is that the instant an IFR aircraft has successfully landed following an IFR approach, he ceases to be an IFR aircraft......
This is an interesting statement However.......Gilles Hudicourt wrote:I think that what the OP fails to understand, is that the instant an IFR aircraft has successfully landed following an IFR approach, he ceases to be an IFR aircraft......
The CAR's as posted are quite specific that these rules to be followed are based on whether you are arriving VFR or IFR rather than what you are after landing. One thing to point out is that the VFR procedures posted are for an airport with a Mandatory Frequency while the IFR requirements posted are for any uncontrolled airport. Perhaps there are other requirements on top of that for the IFR aircraft if he lands at an MF airport. And perhaps there are other requirements not posted here that the policy wonks can easily dig up from other remote sections of the CAR's that you didn't know about.
Of course good technique dictates reporting down and clear under normal circumstances but when it comes to a potential violation point of view and whether something is technically mandatory, the exact wording of the CAR's will be significant. Of course there is the TC catch-all to violate someone under reckless operation.
I agree with this. I believe it's called "airmanship".photofly wrote:I think the op is over thinking. Tell other pilots what you'd want them to tell you.
What is this "airmanship" you speak of?Flybabe wrote:I agree with this. I believe it's called "airmanship".photofly wrote:I think the op is over thinking. Tell other pilots what you'd want them to tell you.
Kind of becoming lost in translation, I thinkTaco Joe wrote:What is this "airmanship" you speak of?Flybabe wrote:I agree with this. I believe it's called "airmanship".photofly wrote:I think the op is over thinking. Tell other pilots what you'd want them to tell you.
- Rank 3
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:00 pm
- Location: somewhere over the rainbow
The station I work at has two RAAS sites along with our home station. At our home site, we don't generally ask for a down and clear call, unless the visibility is very poor, because we can visually ascertain whether you are still on the runway or not.
At our RAAS sites, however, we will ask for a down and clear call because we cannot visually confirm whether an aircraft is still on the runway. Even if you report down on the runway, we still want a clear call. We have to assume that you are still out there until we get a verification that you are off; whether it be from you, or calling the Airport office to ask if you're sitting on the ramp or not. We tend to prefer the former, it's much less hassle. Also, if we don't get that call and another aircraft wants to land or depart, we have to let them know that there may or may not be an aircraft out there until we can get that confirmation.
My two cents