ATF Procedures

[Gannet167]

For what it's worth, DND regulations state that you may only join 45 degrees to downwind, base, or straight in final if it's an MF and there is a traffic advisory available. If the MF does not have traffic advisory information available, or it's an ATF you can only join the downwind if there's no doubt of traffic conflict, otherwise it should be the upwind side:

"Where no MF procedures are in effect, aircraft should approach the traffic circuit from the upwind side. Alternatively, once the pilot has ascertained without any doubt that there will be no conflict with other traffic entering the circuit or traffic established within the circuit, the pilot may join the circuit on the downwind leg"

-GPH204A, 5.25 1.e

So straight in final is only good to go if it's an MF with traffic advisory service, or if you're flying an IFR approach.

[AuxBatOn]

GPH204 is a procedures manual, very much like the AIM (in fact, it is pretty much a copy of it, minus some sections).

Noticed the shoulds and may?

[Gannet167]

Why can't I depart the circuit from crosswind, downwind, or even base? Normal circuit traffic starts descending from 1000' on base leg, I don't see why I can't stay at 1000' or climb higher..

If you want to fly downwind at circuit altitude and just continue past base on your merry way, once clear of the circuit start a climb, that would be cool. But climbing on downwind puts you at conflict with someone crossing midfield 500' above circuit altitude. Your high wing aircraft and his low wing aircraft collide on the downwind because you can't see each other and he has no reason to expect another aircraft 500'+ above circuit altitude climbing on downwind. The whole idea of having everyone fly the SAME altitude and join the circuit in the SAME places is to allow everyone to easily see each other and avoid conflicts.

[Gannet167]

GPH204 is a procedures manual, very much like the AIM (in fact, it is pretty much a copy of it, minus some sections).

Noticed the shoulds and may?

I agree but if you don't follow the 204 procedures on a check ride, it quite possibly wont pass. These are, in effect, the rules. I have seen guys violated by the unit ICP for joining straight in final at an ATF.

[AuxBatOn]

I am an ICP and I would never fail someone or recommend pulling a ticket for using judgement (joining straight-in if it makes sense to do so).

[photofly]

Unless you created a conflict, you would probably not fail a PPL check ride for joining straight in against the advice of the AIM - but it would be counted as a major error - and deservedly so, for not knowing and being able to demonstrate the recommended procedure. I don't think many people would say - including pilot examiners - that in day to day flying, a straight in approach to a quiet aerodrome is dangerous, nor is it anything that TC can punish you for.

[fleetcanuck]

Hi AuxBatOn,

It is stated quite clearly that you can coordinate that at a facility with an MF. Could you please show me where it is an approved procedure at an ATF facility? Also, could you please tell me why it would be a better procedure than what is recommended?

I understand there is a difference between U.S.A. rules and Canadian.

[AuxBatOn]

I am Canadian, although I have been flying in the USA for the last couple of months.

Canadian rules are restrictive, meaning that if the regulator wants to limit you, he'll write it in the rules. If it is not in the rules then you are allowed to do it. The AIM is NOT rules, but recommended procedures. The CARs are the only aviation regulations for civil aviation.

[fleetcanuck]

I, and I think most people, understand the AIM are not 'rules'. However, most things in airmanship are not rules either. Being pedantic about whether something is a rule or not, when it is recommended practice that most of the pilot population follows, does not advance safety.

I would think in the RCAF there are a lot of practices which are not rules. Nonetheless, they are followed and the operation is safer. I am not sure if it is in the CARs to sample fuel after each refuelling and to monitor the process. It does enhance safety. If you want to be the person who does a straight in approach when everyone else is following the circuit, I am sure you will not gain much respect for your airmanship. Personally, I would rather follow the recommended procedures and be safer, than to stand toe to toe with someone who got cut-off, or worse, and defend that my actions were not banned by the CARs.

Again, why would 'straight in' be better than the recommended procedure? Please answer that for yourself. I am not going to continue defending best practices that are followed by the majority after many years of development. If you feel the AIM is not full of good information that should be followed, please get it withdrawn or rewritten.

[AuxBatOn]

I would think in the RCAF there are a lot of practices which are not rules. Nonetheless, they are followed when it makes sense and the operation is safer.

Fixed that for you...

Again, why would 'straight in' be better than the recommended procedure? Please answer that for yourself. I am not going to continue defending best practices that are followed by the majority after many years of development. If you feel the AIM is not full of good information that should be followed, please get it withdrawn or rewritten.

Somebody is 1 mile final in the circuit. You are 5 miles from the field, lined up with the runway. What is safer/makes the most operational sense?

Airmanship is a lot more than blindly following recommended procedures. It is applying procedures when it makes sense to do so, as long as safety is not compromised and rules are followed.

[photofly]

I think the question to ask is how do you know the only other aircraft is on a 1 mile final?

The NORDO aircraft that's just turning a slow downwind and is the one that, as things turn out, is going to be in conflict with your straight in approach has (according to the AIM) a reasonable expectation that on a good VFR day he doesn't have to anticipate conflicting traffic flying an unapproved long final - there isn't supposed to be any.

Not withstanding that every pilot has to expect and look out for the unexpected, your idea of what constitutes what "makes sense" might not agree with his.

Sometimes you might consider taking the long way around to be better airmanship purely because that's what anyone else is entitled to expect, even if you're not sure there's anyone else there.

[AuxBatOn]

I think the question to ask is how do you know the only other aircraft is on a 1 mile final?

The NORDO aircraft that's just turning a slow downwind and is the one that, as things turn out, is going to be in conflict with your straight in approach has (according to the AIM) a reasonable expectation that on a good VFR day he doesn't have to anticipate conflicting traffic flying an unapproved long final - there isn't supposed to be any.

Not withstanding that every pilot has to expect and look out for the unexpected, your idea of what constitutes what "makes sense" might not agree with his.

You look out. And you give priority as he is established in the circuit. It is not rocket science.

[photofly]

As you fly your straight in approach contrary to the advice in the AIM, looking for traffic on the base leg where it's supposed to be (which of course you know because the AIM says so) do you have in mind to keep an extra extra extra good lookout - even better than usual - because deep down you know perfectly well that you're somewhere you're not supposed to be?

How do you feel about the other aircraft that to save a few seconds is deliberately flying the wrong base leg where you're not perhaps looking quite so carefully? Oh, but that's ok, because he's doubly aware he's not where he's supposed to be so he's looking quadruply hard both for you and the guy on the correct base leg.

I'm starting to wonder why we bother having a circuit at all; we can just all look out, can't we?

Ignoring the AIM sounds less and less like good airmanship, the more you explain what a fine idea it is.

[HiFlyChick]

I am Canadian, although I have been flying in the USA for the last couple of months.

Canadian rules are restrictive, meaning that if the regulator wants to limit you, he'll write it in the rules. If it is not in the rules then you are allowed to do it. The AIM is NOT rules, but recommended procedures. The CARs are the only aviation regulations for civil aviation.

I'd be cautious about going against the AIM, though unless you've got a good reason (i.e. not just "It's not a reg anyway'') - TC has its own perspective. The reason why I say this is that I have been editing our Company COM and TC has been getting me to put in stuff from various CBAACs, etc. They're supposedly not regulatory either, but are considered "guidance material", but from any of the TC guys I talk to they seem to consider stuff like that gospel. I don't know that they'd hunt you down for violating AIM rules, but if there was a CADORs or a complaint from someone else, I bet they'd use your actions against you if you were going against recommended procedures without an actual reason.

But then there's the whole should vs. shall discussion....

[AuxBatOn]

Are you suggesting an IFR aircraft arriving at a field in VMC should join the circuit? Are you suggesting it would be dangerous and a great lack of airmanship doing otherwise? If so, you may want to call a couple of companies... As far as doing a right base, this is contrary to the CARs.

HiFltChick: if someone complains then you likely upset him. If hou deviate from procedude, it has to make sense with the current conditions. I can think of 1000 reasons it would make semse.

[photofly]

I appreciate and enjoy the distinction between contrary to the AIM and contrary to the CARs as much as the next pilot, particularly when comfortably on the ground discussing things online. But it seems like a very thin distinction on which to depend for my safety while in the air.

[glass1/2full]

I do see some operators will turn at 500ft and the odd ones that will turn at a 1000ft en route. I say the odd ones because i don't see too many other operators that actually turn at a 1000ft.

we personally turn at a 1000ft departing enroute.
no requirements to do so but as mentioned, AIM is suggestive in its nature and we stick to some of these suggestive practice in hope that most will as well.

as someone had mentioned already you might be turning into some of the flight training guys in the circuit if you turn at 500ft. while it might not be an issue in lets say sandy lake in northern Ontario it might be an issue in a place like owensound or Peterborough lets say. we keep it simple and depart straight out to a 1000ft. that extra 30 seconds on the climb out inst going to make any difference to your fuel burn or,to your on time performance for your operator.

as for the rest of the suggested practice in the AIM for ATF, we will stick to them as well, we figure that the less experience flight training will most likely be familiar with the procedures as it is what they are taught and we keep it to their familiar grounds by sticking to some of these procedures for their and our safety to keep us apart in the air. that way we are all speaking the same language and are somewhat on the same page.



some common scene, and a good safety culture installed in your personality + knowing the guidelines and some rules along with suggested practice will go a long ways in a good outcome in the higher risk airports.

[goingnowherefast]

There's also a big difference between arriving/departing Poplar Hill Ontario on Sunday Morning and Steinbach South Saturday afternoon. The first airport will have nobody within 50 miles, the latter will have 6 152s in the circuit.

[fleet16b]

Unless you created a conflict, you would probably not fail a PPL check ride for joining straight in against the advice of the AIM - but it would be counted as a major error - and deservedly so, for not knowing and being able to demonstrate the recommended procedure. I don't think many people would say - including pilot examiners - that in day to day flying, a straight in approach to a quiet aerodrome is dangerous, nor is it anything that TC can punish you for.

Straight in final at a ATF Aerodrome is a direct violation of CARs whether its quiet or no
I do agree that if its quiet its most likely not dangerous but TC does not agree

[AuxBatOn]

Reference please.

[fleet16b]

Reference please.

Just stepped out of the TC Office, they are quoting CAR 602.96 SECTION 3 paragraph C
They are also telling me to refer to the MF/ATF Poster that clearly show that you are not to c/out straight I approaches at an ATF Aerodrome
Sorry I do not have a link to the poster

Para C seems sketchy to me but the poster is quite clear.
I am pretty sure the poster is not part of CARs so how they think they can enforce it I don't know
However that is the statement I was just told

[B208]

When the AIM says you "should" do something, then that is what you "should" do unless there is a really compelling reason not to.

[fleet16b]

When the AIM says you "should" do something, then that is what you "should" do unless there is a really compelling reason not to.

Agreed but the argument from some is that AIM s are suggested practices only and that's the problem.
One does not have to follow the AIM procedures and AIM are 100% NOT regulations and a Pilot cannot be violated for going against AIM ( quote from TC )
All it would be is poor airmanship .

[5x5]

Just stepped out of the TC Office, they are quoting CAR 602.96 SECTION 2 paragraph C
They are also telling me to refer to the MF/ATF Poster that clearly show that you are not to c/out straight I approaches at an ATF Aerodrome
Sorry I do not have a link to the poster

There's a link to the circuit poster in my post (3rd down on the first page) and once again here http://www.tc.gc.ca/PUBLICATIONS/EN/TP1 ... 11541E.pdf.

Also here's a link to a an article from TC - The Ten Most Commonly Contravened Regulations - and circuit procedures is #9 on the list with one point being

(b) conform with/avoid pattern of other aircraft,

I added the emphasis.

Seems they would really rather not have you flying a straight in final.

[AuxBatOn]

There is no 602.96 section 2 para c...