Traffic entry procedures at uncontrolled aerodromes

[corporate joe]

Just curious how many people respect the traffic procedures at uncontrolled aerodromes when on a charter/corporate flight (and they are on a visual approach, NOT an instrument procedure). My personal experience is that most pilots will enter the circuit from places where they are not supposed to (straight in final) to save time fuel and cost if the airport has no known traffic in it.

[Hedley]

I believe you are referring to CAR 602.96(3), which does NOT prohibit straight-in finals at uncontrolled airports.

With no MF (just wanna make that clear) ... you can legally fly straight-in final, straight-in base, or straight-in downwind, or straight-in crosswind at any uncontrolled airport.

As long as you do NOT turn RIGHT where LEFT turns are required (or LEFT where RIGHT traffic is specified in CFS) you are NOT contravening the CARs.

The funny thing is that helicopters and gliders contravene this regulation all the time, and I really somehow doubt that they are all in possession of SFOC's in respect of CAR 602.96(3).

[corporate joe]

I believe you are referring to CAR 602.96(3), which does NOT prohibit straight-in finals at uncontrolled airports.

With no MF (just wanna make that clear) ... you can legally fly straight-in final, straight-in base, or straight-in downwind, or straight-in crosswind at any uncontrolled airport.

As long as you do NOT turn RIGHT where LEFT turns are required (or LEFT where RIGHT traffic is specified in CFS) you are NOT contravening the CARs.

The funny thing is that helicopters and gliders contravene this regulation all the time, and I really somehow doubt that they are all in possession of SFOC's in respect of CAR 602.96(3).

You are right and you are mistaken. Even though CAR 602.96(3) does not outlaw it, RAC 4.5.2 sets mandatory procedures and entry points.

"(....) aircraft should approach the traffic circuit from the upwind side. Alternatively, once the pilot has acertained without any doubt that there will be no conflict with other traffic entering the circuit or traffic established within the circuit, the pilot may also enter the circuit on the downwind leg (figure 4.6)."

So, NO you CAN NOT legally fly straight in final or base.

That being said, if someone just learned about this regulation as hedley did by reading this post, please click the "what procedures?" option for the purpose of this poll.

I really am curious.

[Hedley]

NO you CAN NOT legally fly straight in final or base

Yes, you can. I do all the time. Please call Enforcement and send them my way. They have me on speed dial, anyways.

You cannot be charged with contravening the AIM, only the CARs.

Please don't confuse the CARs with the AIM.

FWIW I suspect I have received many, many more registered letters from Enforcement than most other here (a dubious distinction, I know).

I have represented myself multiple times at the Tribunal, Tribunal Review, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeals. Haven't gotten onto the docket of the Supreme Court, but there's always another day.

[Benwa]

RAC 4.5.2 DOES by setting mandatory procedures and entry points.

"(....) aircraft should approach the traffic circuit from the upwind side. Alternatively, once the pilot has acertained without any doubt that there will be no conflict with other traffic entering the circuit or traffic established within the circuit, the pilot may also enter the circuit on the downwind leg (figure 4.6).".

Keyword here is should. Ever wonder why TC did not use shall instead ?

So I guess Hedley's right !

[Hedley]

Pretty hard to fly a training IFR approach to minima (under VFR) without doing a straight-in final!

[corporate joe]

Pretty hard to fly a training IFR approach to minima (under VFR) without doing a straight-in final!

Remember, I am talking about visual approaches, not instrument procedure approaches (as specified in my original post). This has nothing to do with VFR or IFR. You can fly an instrument approach under VFR conditions.

Benwa: you are correct in making the distinction between the "should" and "shall".
Throughout the TC AIM, the term “should” implies that Transport Canada encourages all pilots to conform with the applicable procedure. The term “shall” implies that the applicable procedure is mandatory because it is supported by regulations.

However, that does not mean like Hedley stated, that you can not be charged contravening the AIM, because the AIM has CAR's in it. The AIM is still a " a single source for information concerning rules of the air and procedures for aircraft operation in Canadian airspace. It includes those sections of the CARs that are of interest to pilots."

Now as far as the "should" and "shall" go, I treat the "should's" the same way I treat the "shall's" is most cases. It's called airmanship. We are pilots, not lawyers.

[Hedley]

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer, Corp Joe

[corporate joe]

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer, Corp Joe

Not gonna argue with you there. Wouldn't be able to deal with all the BS involved. I became a pilot (naively yes) thinking that up there, I'd be far away from all the crap down here.

[Cat Driver]

"(....) aircraft should approach the traffic circuit from the upwind side. Alternatively, once the pilot has acertained without any doubt that there will be no conflict with other traffic entering the circuit or traffic established within the circuit, the pilot may also enter the circuit on the downwind leg (figure 4.6)."

Yup, when I owned a flight school I can't remember how many times I had to point this word out to my instructors....

I never got to disturbed about it though because I understood their situation.....poor understanding of the real world and paranoid that they might displease their TC masters by actually being capable of a rational thought process.

[Cat Driver]

Now as far as the "should" and "shall" go, I treat the "should's" the same way I treat the "shall's" is most cases. It's called airmanship. We are pilots, not lawyers.

I treat the shoulds as a suggestion.

I treat the shalls as regulation.

Am I lacking in airmanship?

Maybe I am an inferior pilot?

[Benwa]

Probably old AND inferior yes.

[corporate joe]

Now as far as the "should" and "shall" go, I treat the "should's" the same way I treat the "shall's" is most cases. It's called airmanship. We are pilots, not lawyers.

I treat the shoulds as a suggestion.

I treat the shalls as regulation.

Am I lacking in airmanship?

Maybe I am an inferior pilot?

Take it easy there bud. I am not TC. I am not the boogey man, I am not out to get you.

[Benwa]

TC is trying to read my mind !!!

[Cat Driver]

Take it easy there bud. I am not TC. I am not the boogey man, I am not out to get you.

Relax coroprate joe, you and TC would be the last people who I would worry about....

You started a discussion and I was only expressing my opinion.

And before you could get me you would need to get a little more exposure to how the world really operates...

[corporate joe]

Take it easy there bud. I am not TC. I am not the boogey man, I am not out to get you.

Relax coroprate joe, you and TC would be the last people who I would worry about....

I am quite relaxed thank you, that's why I was politely asking you to take it easy. I really don't want this post to become sour, as many other posts do.

You started a discussion and I was only expressing my opinion.

I have got nothing against your opinion, on the contrary, it just felt like you were getting all freaky on me with the "maybe I am an inferior pilot" blabber

And before you could get me

Again, I am not out to get you.

you would need to get a little more exposure to how the world really operates...

I find it quite impressive that you have assessed the quantity (or lack of) exposure I have gotten on how the world really operates. Under such impressive skills, I will respectfully exit this discussion and hope that the poll I am trying to make does not get sidetracked by secondary issues.

[cyyz]

Look no other traffic in the circuit do as you please...

Someone in the circuit, cut him off and he'll call TC...

Anyone on the ground who's got 1000 hours flying their bonanza to the hamptons who see's you entering anyway they like without any traffic above, let them call TC, because they'll get their dues shortly...

Airmanship, if you want to be a cow about someone's flying from the ground, you might as well put a web cam and do it from home if it bothers you so much.

[AV8OR]

How do you know for sure that there isn't traffic in the circuit? NORDO aircraft fly at uncontrolled airports all the time.
Wouldn't it make sense for all to follow some sort of plan? Ticks me off when guys join mid-left downwind from the active side and make a right turn to join when you're crossing mid-field on the "correct" side.
But hey, I realise nothing in the AIM need be followed.

[newfycontrol]

What better way to check that a runway is clear then on short final.

[oldtimer]

I always like to join the pattern or circuit the quickest and safest way I know how and that is indicating 240 Kts and real low downwind and base then chop and drop to the runway but if it is real busy I will land downwind in between traffic. It is best to cut someone off in the circuit because that will make that pilot irate and he will announce to eveyone that I am there, saving me a whole bunch of useless radio calls. When you cme in low (200ft or less) like that, you only need to worry about traffic that has suffered an engine failure and is doing an off airport forced landing because all the traffic is above you where you can see it and or behind you which is no worry. Anyone see anything wrong with this procedure?
As an aside and being serious for a moment, have a look at the CAP procedures for Kamloops.
Assume 3 scenarios.
1. You are IFR and the weather is at IFR minimums so you do the full procedure LOC / DME approach but there is VFR circuit traffic on RWY 08. What kind of procedure would you use?
2. You are on an IFR flight plan from CYLW so you are cleared direct VOMAD for the LOC NDB C approach but at VOMAD, the weather clears enough that you request and are cleared for a CONTACT approach. Again circuit traffic is on RWY 08.
3. You are on an IFR plan from CYLW (inbound track to 233 YKA is 307M) but the weather is screaming VFR and VFR circuit traffic is using RWY 08 but some idiot wants to follow the Thompson River from the north and land on RWY 26. Wind is calm. So you call Vancouver Center and cancel the IFR but keep the alerting service open till landing.