Some parts of the AIM are law, as they refer to the CAR'S. You can not say the AIM is not law and has no authority. The problem is only some parts have authority... Most pilots are trained with the AIM. The AIM is a lot more accessible and I believe (personal guess here) is used as a reference document more often than the CAR'S because of it's accessibility, how it's promoted and it's distribution process (therefore it's availability).
My point, that I do not seem to be able to explain clearly enough, is why have a document where in it's text, you find suggestions and laws intertwined and possibly confuseable ? That means that some pilots will apply some of the suggestions some of the time, while other pilots will apply all of the text as law all of the time. The "Shalls" are clear to everybody, why not make the "should's" just as clear by removing some of them, and transforming the other into "shalls"? That way, we all know what to expect from everybody, and as a pilot I don't have to guess on whether procedure X will or will not be accepted as a suggestion by the next guy.
Just look at the results of this poll. Notice how no one seems to be applying a procedure the same way? If straight in finals are acceptable in uncontrolled aerodromes, and have benefits outweighing the disadvantages, why "suggest" not to do them by saying pilots "should" do it another way????
Traffic entry procedures at uncontrolled aerodromes
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Hedley, if you can't see the difference between the CAR's included in the AIM and people quoting the CAR's on this website, there is not much more I can say or do. Also, you can say the AIM has no authority all you want, but that doesn't mean it's true.
Cat, in all honesty I'd probably allow them (that's now worth much because I don't have the information or expertise to make such a decision). However, since you're asking, I wouldn't encourage one thing (join from inactive), yet allow another (join straight in).
Cat, in all honesty I'd probably allow them (that's now worth much because I don't have the information or expertise to make such a decision). However, since you're asking, I wouldn't encourage one thing (join from inactive), yet allow another (join straight in).
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Corporate....
....it is really very simple.
If the pilot wishing to do a straight in approach is aware of any other traffic and there is no conflict and said pilot announces his/her intentions on the proper frequency...then " looks " and " listens " for other traffic it is as safe as any other type of approach.
....it is really very simple.
If the pilot wishing to do a straight in approach is aware of any other traffic and there is no conflict and said pilot announces his/her intentions on the proper frequency...then " looks " and " listens " for other traffic it is as safe as any other type of approach.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Cat I agree 100%. That's how things are done up north (NW ON anyway) day in and day out with no problems. Good eyes and ears will save your bacon, not joining the circuit "properly".Cat Driver wrote:Corporate....
....it is really very simple.
If the pilot wishing to do a straight in approach is aware of any other traffic and there is no conflict and said pilot announces his/her intentions on the proper frequency...then " looks " and " listens " for other traffic it is as safe as any other type of approach.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
El Combat:
Unfortunately aviation has evolved over the years where the simple tried and true method of ensuring safety by using common sense has been sacrificed on the altar of the new religion of baffle gab in the quest for the holy grail of safety, brought to us by the paint by numbers mentality who have dummed the pilot pool down to what you see today..
Many decades ago Sandy A. F. MacDonald wrote what has to be the best flight training book ever printed called " From the Ground Up. "
In the first chapter he covered the subject of airmanship and used two characters to describe the different types of pilots.
" Captain Wise " was the free thinker who used common sense to keep himself out of trouble and " Flatspin Fumble " was the idiot type of pilot who never used common sense and was always screwing up.
Sadly it would seem we have far to many Flatspin Fumbles and not enough Captain Wise's in todays pilot pool.
The true artists are becoming more rare replaced by the paint by numbers mentality that are programmed by acronyms.
And thus we have these unnecessary arguments about simple things like how to join a circuit.
Cat
Unfortunately aviation has evolved over the years where the simple tried and true method of ensuring safety by using common sense has been sacrificed on the altar of the new religion of baffle gab in the quest for the holy grail of safety, brought to us by the paint by numbers mentality who have dummed the pilot pool down to what you see today..
Many decades ago Sandy A. F. MacDonald wrote what has to be the best flight training book ever printed called " From the Ground Up. "
In the first chapter he covered the subject of airmanship and used two characters to describe the different types of pilots.
" Captain Wise " was the free thinker who used common sense to keep himself out of trouble and " Flatspin Fumble " was the idiot type of pilot who never used common sense and was always screwing up.
Sadly it would seem we have far to many Flatspin Fumbles and not enough Captain Wise's in todays pilot pool.
The true artists are becoming more rare replaced by the paint by numbers mentality that are programmed by acronyms.
And thus we have these unnecessary arguments about simple things like how to join a circuit.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I'll jump in and answer.Cat Driver wrote:Corporate....
Would you ban straight in approaches if you were writing the rules?
At an uncontrolled airport that uses an ATF, definitely no!
I have too many times taken off (into wind) and had some other clown (either nordo, or on the wrong freq) try to land straight in going the other way. I was watching (luckly) he was not. Or the other variation be downwind and have someone try to join downwind in the opposite direction. It sucks.
Joining overhead to check the windsock is the safest method IMHO to get into the circuit. Now, if you hear alot of radio traffic with a/c in the circuit going a particular direction, a downwind join i would say is reasonable. Straight in, well you have on guy looking for traffic who may or may not see everyone, and you have one guy maybe turning base or final. This person is looking at the runway more than likely, and not paying too much attention to looking for traffic comming staright in. \9perhaps this guy turning final does not have a radio.
MF uncontrolled is another thing. Here radios are mandatory and that changes alot.
Wahunga!
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
Very interesting thread.
As a 'victim' of quite a few near misses, I for one deplore the idea of going overhead, turning downwind and joining final with ghosts/phantoms.
Approaching an uncontrolled airport is simple.
1.) You tune the appropriate frequency.
2.) You listen for radio traffic.
3.) You transmit your intentions.
4.) You listen again.
5.) Closer in, you transmit again.
6.) You listen. Then call final.
7.) Then you land whichever way you want, straight in or whatever is convenient and safe.
If there has been no response, you can be reasonably assured that there is no other traffic for the same airport. The exception is a NORDO.
NORDO can come in many forms.
a.) No radio
b.) Tuned to wrong frequency/ volume down.
c.) Not listening
d.) Firing up after 3.) or 6.) above and then taxiing out without hearing your calls.
(I have experienced all of the above.)
Circling an airport for 3 or 4 minutes with a ghost increases your odds of a midair. The greatest chance of a midair is on final approach as everyone is on the same track and altitude. So, the less time you spend doing it, the better your odds.
To legislate having to perform such procedures would be totally dumb and I would never do it because of the attendant risks. I would rather argue before a judge.
Oh, and to all those "professionals" who transmit on the ATF and then immediately switch to repeat the process on 126.7, I would like to ask if you are REALLY listening on the ATF while being on 126.7. Personally, I see this as dumb. You have no business being on any other than the ATF within 5 miles.
As a 'victim' of quite a few near misses, I for one deplore the idea of going overhead, turning downwind and joining final with ghosts/phantoms.
Approaching an uncontrolled airport is simple.
1.) You tune the appropriate frequency.
2.) You listen for radio traffic.
3.) You transmit your intentions.
4.) You listen again.
5.) Closer in, you transmit again.
6.) You listen. Then call final.
7.) Then you land whichever way you want, straight in or whatever is convenient and safe.
If there has been no response, you can be reasonably assured that there is no other traffic for the same airport. The exception is a NORDO.
NORDO can come in many forms.
a.) No radio
b.) Tuned to wrong frequency/ volume down.
c.) Not listening
d.) Firing up after 3.) or 6.) above and then taxiing out without hearing your calls.
(I have experienced all of the above.)
Circling an airport for 3 or 4 minutes with a ghost increases your odds of a midair. The greatest chance of a midair is on final approach as everyone is on the same track and altitude. So, the less time you spend doing it, the better your odds.
To legislate having to perform such procedures would be totally dumb and I would never do it because of the attendant risks. I would rather argue before a judge.
Oh, and to all those "professionals" who transmit on the ATF and then immediately switch to repeat the process on 126.7, I would like to ask if you are REALLY listening on the ATF while being on 126.7. Personally, I see this as dumb. You have no business being on any other than the ATF within 5 miles.
-
'effin hippie
- Rank 5
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
- Location: Further..further...ok, too far...
I agree with Snap.
I'm gonna do whatever is most efficient, and seems safest for the situation. If there's a problem, bill me later.
How does the plan of everyone merging/decending on the upwind side before crossing midfield reduce the odds of a mid-air? We're just more likely to bump heads on the upwind side.
Mostly tho, this boils down to the NORDO guy out there somewhere...
And I really, really agree with the guy on Pg 1: Why in the f*** in this day and age, is ANY NORDO A/C allowed to move under its own power in this country???
This thread is partly about airmanship I think, even if no one has overtly said so, and for my money, being NORDO for any reason is really really bad airmanship.
1 - I keep a 2 hundred dollar handheld with fresh batteries in the bottom of my bag. It even has headset jacks. It's mostly for activating ARCALs, but I might just make a position report too. Like it's been said already, if you can afford the A/C you can afford a @^&% radio, actually, 2 @^&% radios - aviation is not a right.
2 - Every guy I fly with checks the volume at start and after every frequency change. Simple.
All that said, there can be no substitute for well-peeled eyeballs.
ef
I'm gonna do whatever is most efficient, and seems safest for the situation. If there's a problem, bill me later.
How does the plan of everyone merging/decending on the upwind side before crossing midfield reduce the odds of a mid-air? We're just more likely to bump heads on the upwind side.
Mostly tho, this boils down to the NORDO guy out there somewhere...
And I really, really agree with the guy on Pg 1: Why in the f*** in this day and age, is ANY NORDO A/C allowed to move under its own power in this country???
This thread is partly about airmanship I think, even if no one has overtly said so, and for my money, being NORDO for any reason is really really bad airmanship.
1 - I keep a 2 hundred dollar handheld with fresh batteries in the bottom of my bag. It even has headset jacks. It's mostly for activating ARCALs, but I might just make a position report too. Like it's been said already, if you can afford the A/C you can afford a @^&% radio, actually, 2 @^&% radios - aviation is not a right.
2 - Every guy I fly with checks the volume at start and after every frequency change. Simple.
All that said, there can be no substitute for well-peeled eyeballs.
ef
-
furious george
- Rank 1
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:39 pm
- Location: Aboard the Crazy Train
Oh, and to all those "professionals" who transmit on the ATF and then immediately switch to repeat the process on 126.7, I would like to ask if you are REALLY listening on the ATF while being on 126.7. Personally, I see this as dumb. You have no business being on any other than the ATF within 5 miles.[/quote]
Umm, I have 2 radios and can listen to them at the same time.
Cheers
Umm, I have 2 radios and can listen to them at the same time.
Cheers
If you piss your pants, you'll only stay warm for a while.
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
furious george.
sorry, but you cannot transmit and hear on a single frequency at the same time. Therefore, you can only listen on one while you transmit on the other....And, does your voice mask the guy on the other frequency while you are talking?
....."Did he say he was downwind?"
"er, I dunno."
And IF you establish conflicting traffic on 126.7 within the ATF area, are you going to continue to talk to him on 126.7 and exclude all other listeners, depriving them of vital traffic information?
Please, think about it.
sorry, but you cannot transmit and hear on a single frequency at the same time. Therefore, you can only listen on one while you transmit on the other....And, does your voice mask the guy on the other frequency while you are talking?
....."Did he say he was downwind?"
"er, I dunno."
And IF you establish conflicting traffic on 126.7 within the ATF area, are you going to continue to talk to him on 126.7 and exclude all other listeners, depriving them of vital traffic information?
Please, think about it.
-
Hornblower
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
CJ;corporate joe wrote:ok I give up.
Instead of giving up, recognize that you (and others) were incorrect in understanding of what is law, and what is not.
Also, you could thank Hedley for helping clarify this for you and the others.
As for the original question, yes I always adhere to the (legal requirements for) traffic [sic] entry procedures, ... that is, I make all turns to the left unless otherwise specified ... . That is, I never turn right onto final (unless right turns are specified). straight in final is perfectly legal, if unadvisable at relativly busy airports.
Always refer to the rules (CARs and A.A, amongst others) for what is a legal requirement.
As
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
I gave up because I was unsuccessful in trying to make a point. Let me try it one more time: My point was about the should's and the shall's of the AIM. The shall's are laws, the should's suggestions. My question was, why would the AIM suggest another type of approach (from inactive side)if straight in final is acceptable ? Either it's deemed safe and it is allowed, or it's deemed unsafe and outlawed. Why suggest with a "should" another type of approach? Why have two levels (suggestions and obligations) in a text "made accessible for all pilots" who is trying to make everything simpler than the CAR's (or so it claims)? Why leave room for interpretation?hornblower wrote:CJ;corporate joe wrote:ok I give up.
Instead of giving up, recognize that you (and others) were incorrect in understanding of what is law, and what is not.
Also, you could thank Hedley for helping clarify this for you and the others.
As for the original question, yes I always adhere to the (legal requirements for) traffic [sic] entry procedures, ... that is, I make all turns to the left unless otherwise specified ... . That is, I never turn right onto final (unless right turns are specified). straight in final is perfectly legal, if unadvisable at relativly busy airports.
Always refer to the rules (CARs and A.A, amongst others) for what is a legal requirement.
As
As far as the difference between the should's and the shall's and my initial post, if you read the whole thread you will see that the initial mistake I made was pointed out twice (third time with you) and acknowledged by myself both those times. Finally as far as thanking Hedley, the reason why I didn't, is he is just as mistaken as I was, because to him, none of the AIM is law, which it has been proven to be incorrect. It's part law, part suggestion.
PS: Definition of SHOULD:
should (shd)
aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
Now apply that in the context that the AIM puts it in RAC 4.5.2. So again, either you allow it, or disallow, but there should be no interpretation.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
Hornblower
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
CJ
I agree with you that there should be no room for interpretation, however as long as TC official publications spout pseudo requirements in non regulatory documentation, there will continue to be confusion and misinterpretation.
One (anyone) can disregard anything in such a publication that is not directly supported by a rule, and there is no recourse for sanction in the event of disobedience, since you cannot be charged with a contravention of the AIM, or any other advisory material or policy publication issued by TC.
If the AIM encourages helicopters to break the law by suggesting they turn right in a circuit (where right turns are not specified), the helicopters are pretty well authorized to do it even though such procedures are not permitted in the CARS (rather, right turns are prohibited, and you will find no exception for IFR traffic or helicopters). In this case the helicopters are breaking the law and could be charged, however they have a valid defence of officially induced error if the AIM (which is published by TC) encouraged them to do it.
Don’t think that everything written in TC docs is supported by legislation. They make many errors and even break the law themselves sometimes. Even the legislation is not always clear, ask Hedley. It appears he had 4 kicks at the legal can, and a different decision was made by each level of legal authority each time.
I agree with you that there should be no room for interpretation, however as long as TC official publications spout pseudo requirements in non regulatory documentation, there will continue to be confusion and misinterpretation.
One (anyone) can disregard anything in such a publication that is not directly supported by a rule, and there is no recourse for sanction in the event of disobedience, since you cannot be charged with a contravention of the AIM, or any other advisory material or policy publication issued by TC.
If the AIM encourages helicopters to break the law by suggesting they turn right in a circuit (where right turns are not specified), the helicopters are pretty well authorized to do it even though such procedures are not permitted in the CARS (rather, right turns are prohibited, and you will find no exception for IFR traffic or helicopters). In this case the helicopters are breaking the law and could be charged, however they have a valid defence of officially induced error if the AIM (which is published by TC) encouraged them to do it.
Don’t think that everything written in TC docs is supported by legislation. They make many errors and even break the law themselves sometimes. Even the legislation is not always clear, ask Hedley. It appears he had 4 kicks at the legal can, and a different decision was made by each level of legal authority each time.
FWIW, if you really personally piss someone at Transport off, what they will do is charge you with the "one size fits all" CAR 602.01 reckless/negligent, because all Transport would have to do is assert at the Tribunal that you did something that a "prudent" pilot would not do, and hey, they've got a conviction on negligence.since you cannot be charged with a contravention of the AIM, or any other advisory material or policy publication issued by TC.
In this situation, Transport would argue that a "prudent" pilot would obey everything in the AIM, and I very strongly suspect that the Tribunal member would agree.
Valid defense? Notwithstanding the above, the helicopter contravened CAR 602.96(3) and that's that, and Transport would now argue that the AIM had no legal merit (opposite of the above), and the Tribunal Member would likely agree.helicopters are breaking the law and could be charged, however they have a valid defence of officially induced error if the AIM (which is published by TC) encouraged them to do it.
People who are unfamiliar with Transport's legal shenanigans are unaware that the same representative from Transport will argue a totally different (and contradictory) position from one day to the next.
There is no requirement for any consistency from Transport, as most experienced pilots here have learned.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Transport tailors their interpertations of the regulations to suit their agenda.There is no requirement for any consistency from Transport, as most experienced pilots here have learned.
They can and do take a CAR that is precise and clear in its wording and meaning and interpert it the exact opposite of what said CAR states if they want to deny you due process.
These coc.suckers in TC who do this are a disgrace to any civilized country that professes to govern by law.
We only need look at the Regional Director Civil Aviation in the Pacific Region and his master the DGCA in Ottawa to understand just how morally corrupt TCCA is under its present leadership.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: ....
How do you install a radio and transponder in airplanes with no electrical system? Lots of Cubs, Champs, Taylorcraft etc dont have electrics. Sure you can get a handheld radio but ive never heard of a handheld transponder.THEICEMAN wrote:Well said!! & a mode C transponder! I am tired of looking out for airplanes Up&Down, when the controller tells me "Altitude unknown"......Cap'n P8 wrote:You want to improve safety, then ban NORDO completely. If you can afford to buy and operate an airplane then buy a f*cking radio too you cheap bastards!!!
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... tc4401.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... rt2000.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... _ar420.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... air760.php
For power, I'd use a (sealed) motorcycle battery whidh I'd
recharge after every flight.
This isn't about technology, or weight. It's about money.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... rt2000.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... _ar420.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... air760.php
For power, I'd use a (sealed) motorcycle battery whidh I'd
recharge after every flight.
This isn't about technology, or weight. It's about money.
[quote="corporate joe"]My point was about the should's and the shall's of the AIM. The shall's are laws, the should's suggestions. [quote]
Not true. For instance, the AIM says pilots shall call level upon reaching their cleared altitude. There is nothing in the CAR'S to support this.
Here's some selected CAR'S regarding uncontrolled airports.
DIVISION V - OPERATIONS AT OR IN THE VICINITY OF AN AERODROME
General
602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.
(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that
(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and
(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.
(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall
(a) observe aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding a collision;
(b) conform to or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
(c) make all turns to the left when operating within the aerodrome traffic circuit, except where right turns are specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or where otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
(d) where the aerodrome is an airport, comply with any airport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement;
(e) where practicable, land and take off into the wind unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
(f) maintain a continuous listening watch on the appropriate frequency for aerodrome control communications or, if this is not possible and an air traffic control unit is in operation at the aerodrome, keep a watch for such instructions as may be issued by visual means by the air traffic control unit; and
(g) where the aerodrome is a controlled aerodrome, obtain from the appropriate air traffic control unit, either by radio communication or by visual signal, clearance to taxi, take off from or land at the aerodrome.
(4) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, no pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet over an aerodrome except for the purpose of landing or taking off or if the aircraft is operated pursuant to subsection (5).
602.97 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no pilot-in-command shall operate a VFR or IFR aircraft within an MF area unless the aircraft is equipped with radiocommunication equipment pursuant to Subpart 5.
(2) The pilot-in-command of a VFR or IFR aircraft operating within an MF area shall maintain a listening watch on the mandatory frequency specified for use in the MF area.
(3) The pilot-in-command of a VFR aircraft that is not equipped with the radiocommunication equipment referred to in subsection (1) may operate the aircraft to or from an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area if
(a) a ground station is in operation at the aerodrome;
(b) prior notice of the pilot-in-command's intention to operate the aircraft at the aerodrome has been given to the ground station;
(c) when conducting a take-off, the pilot-in-command ascertains by visual observation that there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle during take-off; and
(d) when approaching for a landing, the aircraft enters the aerodrome traffic circuit from a position that will require it to complete two sides of a rectangular circuit before turning onto the final approach path.
General MF Reporting Requirements
602.98 (1) Every report made pursuant to this Division shall be made on the mandatory frequency that has been specified for use in the applicable MF area.
(2) Every report referred to in subsection (1) shall be
(a) directed to the ground station associated with the MF area, if a ground station exists and is in operation; or
(b) broadcast, if a ground station does not exist or is not in operation.
MF Reporting Procedures before Entering Manoeuvring Area
602.99 The pilot-in-command of a VFR or IFR aircraft that is operated at an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall report the pilot-in-command's intentions before entering the manoeuvring area of the aerodrome.
MF Reporting Procedures on Departure
602.100 The pilot-in-command of a VFR or IFR aircraft that is departing from an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall
(a) before moving onto the take-off surface, report the pilot-in-command's departure procedure intentions;
(b) before take-off, ascertain by radiocommunication and by visual observation that there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle during take-off; and
(c) after take-off, report departing from the aerodrome traffic circuit.
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.
MF Reporting Procedures When Flying Continuous Circuits
602.102 The pilot-in-command of a VFR aircraft carrying out continuous circuits at an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall report
(a) when joining the downwind leg of the circuit;
(b) when on final approach, stating the pilot-in-command's intentions; and
(c) when clear of the surface on which the aircraft has landed.
Reporting Procedures When Flying through an MF Area
602.103 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft flying through 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 and altitude and the pilot-in-command's intentions; and
(b) when clear of the MF area.
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.
Not true. For instance, the AIM says pilots shall call level upon reaching their cleared altitude. There is nothing in the CAR'S to support this.
Here's some selected CAR'S regarding uncontrolled airports.
DIVISION V - OPERATIONS AT OR IN THE VICINITY OF AN AERODROME
General
602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.
(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that
(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and
(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.
(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall
(a) observe aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding a collision;
(b) conform to or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
(c) make all turns to the left when operating within the aerodrome traffic circuit, except where right turns are specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or where otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
(d) where the aerodrome is an airport, comply with any airport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement;
(e) where practicable, land and take off into the wind unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
(f) maintain a continuous listening watch on the appropriate frequency for aerodrome control communications or, if this is not possible and an air traffic control unit is in operation at the aerodrome, keep a watch for such instructions as may be issued by visual means by the air traffic control unit; and
(g) where the aerodrome is a controlled aerodrome, obtain from the appropriate air traffic control unit, either by radio communication or by visual signal, clearance to taxi, take off from or land at the aerodrome.
(4) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, no pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet over an aerodrome except for the purpose of landing or taking off or if the aircraft is operated pursuant to subsection (5).
602.97 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no pilot-in-command shall operate a VFR or IFR aircraft within an MF area unless the aircraft is equipped with radiocommunication equipment pursuant to Subpart 5.
(2) The pilot-in-command of a VFR or IFR aircraft operating within an MF area shall maintain a listening watch on the mandatory frequency specified for use in the MF area.
(3) The pilot-in-command of a VFR aircraft that is not equipped with the radiocommunication equipment referred to in subsection (1) may operate the aircraft to or from an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area if
(a) a ground station is in operation at the aerodrome;
(b) prior notice of the pilot-in-command's intention to operate the aircraft at the aerodrome has been given to the ground station;
(c) when conducting a take-off, the pilot-in-command ascertains by visual observation that there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle during take-off; and
(d) when approaching for a landing, the aircraft enters the aerodrome traffic circuit from a position that will require it to complete two sides of a rectangular circuit before turning onto the final approach path.
General MF Reporting Requirements
602.98 (1) Every report made pursuant to this Division shall be made on the mandatory frequency that has been specified for use in the applicable MF area.
(2) Every report referred to in subsection (1) shall be
(a) directed to the ground station associated with the MF area, if a ground station exists and is in operation; or
(b) broadcast, if a ground station does not exist or is not in operation.
MF Reporting Procedures before Entering Manoeuvring Area
602.99 The pilot-in-command of a VFR or IFR aircraft that is operated at an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall report the pilot-in-command's intentions before entering the manoeuvring area of the aerodrome.
MF Reporting Procedures on Departure
602.100 The pilot-in-command of a VFR or IFR aircraft that is departing from an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall
(a) before moving onto the take-off surface, report the pilot-in-command's departure procedure intentions;
(b) before take-off, ascertain by radiocommunication and by visual observation that there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle during take-off; and
(c) after take-off, report departing from the aerodrome traffic circuit.
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.
MF Reporting Procedures When Flying Continuous Circuits
602.102 The pilot-in-command of a VFR aircraft carrying out continuous circuits at an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall report
(a) when joining the downwind leg of the circuit;
(b) when on final approach, stating the pilot-in-command's intentions; and
(c) when clear of the surface on which the aircraft has landed.
Reporting Procedures When Flying through an MF Area
602.103 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft flying through 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 and altitude and the pilot-in-command's intentions; and
(b) when clear of the MF area.
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.
The AIM is not law and contains no laws or regulations; rather it merely quotes some laws and regulations. It has no more force in law than does the Ground Up or any other aviation book, and it should not be relied upon as a source for laws and regulations. Compliance with the AIM does not necessarily guarantee complinace with the Act or CARs. When the Act or CAR's are ammended, they are typically effective on a specified date. The AIM may not be ammended until some much later time. However, if you are following recommended procedures in a current AIM, they could provide you with a defence if TC tried using 602.01 for some reason.
"Shoulds" are typically used for recommending procedures that are not universally workable or necessary. For circuit entry, it is not best to have every airplane overfly the airport and fly a full circuit. It works for light airplanes, but who the heck would want a 737 mixing it up with the little guys as they all funnel overhead the airport. It's probably better for the Boeing to join a long final to minimize the impact of his wake turbulance. The world is not black and white, and the CAR and AIM are written to reflect this fact.
Inverted, I had a VHF, GPS, and Mode C Transponder in my Champ all powered by two, redundant, gel cell batteries. Could have also added a wind generator, but never did as the two batteries powered the system for about 10 hours between recharging.
"Shoulds" are typically used for recommending procedures that are not universally workable or necessary. For circuit entry, it is not best to have every airplane overfly the airport and fly a full circuit. It works for light airplanes, but who the heck would want a 737 mixing it up with the little guys as they all funnel overhead the airport. It's probably better for the Boeing to join a long final to minimize the impact of his wake turbulance. The world is not black and white, and the CAR and AIM are written to reflect this fact.
Inverted, I had a VHF, GPS, and Mode C Transponder in my Champ all powered by two, redundant, gel cell batteries. Could have also added a wind generator, but never did as the two batteries powered the system for about 10 hours between recharging.
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Very interesting. I don't have time (or the tools) to verify the info, but assuming it is correct, would that mean that the AIM has a law (a shall) that is not contained in or backed up by the CAR's ?airway wrote: Not true. For instance, the AIM says pilots shall call level upon reaching their cleared altitude. There is nothing in the CAR'S to support this.
Wilbur, as far as the example you gave you about the 737 who should join straight in and while the smaller guys should overfly the circuit, that is interpretation (even though it makes a lot of sense). Here's the problem: at what size should you not overfly from inactive? A jet? Below 12 500 maybe? I am sure some Navajo guys can make a great argument on why they should enter straight in final. The fact of the matter remains that everyone's reasoning will be different and every situation will be different. Saying vaguely that everyone should enter a certain way (as there is no specification in the AIM for size, that was YOUR interpretation) is completely useless. If TC wants pilots to use their good judgement according to the situation when entering the circuit, why not just say: the pilot shall (or even the word should if it is deemed safe) enter the circuit from straight in, from inactive side or from downwind, only if he has assured himself that there is no possible conflict with other traffic. Why completely fail to mention straight in downwind in the text if it is commonly used, and it is deemed safe?
I still believe that by not including straight in approaches in a "should" (or even a shall for that matter) the AIM is creating an expectation and is leaving room open for unneeded interpretation (that will vary from pilot to pilot--- just look at the results of the poll). All pilots will think THEIR interpretation makes sense. That is why there are laws, so that we have a common ground of behaviour to expect from other pilots and to avoid a certain chaos. However if those laws don't make sense (and no one respects them), or if those laws are unclear and interpretative, I personnaly think it defeats part of their purpose. But hey, that's just me.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
