ATF Procedures

[tipsails]

Regardless of this thread, I'm still going to keep flying straight in approaches. MF, RDO, ATF... I make my calls it's not my fault you can't hear them.

[JohnnyHotRocks]

Straight in as in not circling

[fleet16b]

Regardless of this thread, I'm still going to keep flying straight in approaches. MF, RDO, ATF... I make my calls it's not my fault you can't hear them.

And you can do that as long as the ATF Is IFR equipped and has an air/ground com. unit that is active but if you do it at an ATF that is not equipped as describe then fault goes to the IFR Pilot
It is also not the NORDO Pilots fault if he cant hear you

[fleet16b]

I'm glad we can agree one is allowed to fly an instrument approach as published.

In the future can we please refrain from taking Transport Canada's word, unsubstantiated by CARs, as gospel?

I don't think anyone was taking their word as gospel
That's why I started the thread
Overall , I think this thread has generated some good discussion and has represented many points of view that some of us were not aware of

[AirFrame]

Overall , I think this thread has generated some good discussion and has represented many points of view that some of us were not aware of

I agree. And yet, 13 pages later, the question has not been answered.

[photofly]

TC states that an IFR straight in CAN be c/out at an ATF IF the aerodrome is IFR Equipped and has air-ground communication if he does that have those two things then no IFR straight in
He mentioned RAC 9.13 (see below or in previous post)/

This is now even more ridiculous.

If TC permits a straight in approach and landing to any aircraft it must be permitted to all aircraft including those flying VFR, for there is nothing in the CARs to distinguish one from the other. If it is legal and possible for an IFR aircraft to land straight-in without conflict or violation it is obvious that an aircraft flying under the VFR can do the same.

[Rockie]

The IFR circling weather minimums for Burlington are 500 feet and 2 miles.
The IFR straight in weather minimums are 500 feet and 11/2 miles (higher ceiling due to remote altimeter setting)

I think we can all agree when the weather is at minimums for either a circling or straight-in approach there ought not be anybody in the circuit whether they have a radio or not. With that weather I wouldn't be too keen on doing a circling either

There are infinite possibilities above minimums WRT weather, and it's safe to say if an airplane was using the approach to get below a 2000 foot ceiling with 15 miles visibility the circuit may be teeming with light airplanes. If the guy is a light twin he would be well advised to cancel IFR and join them in the circuit - whereas if he's a faster jet the guy in the circuit next up would make the world run smoother if he just left the jet a gap to get down in.

Judgement...

[fleet16b]

TC states that an IFR straight in CAN be c/out at an ATF IF the aerodrome is IFR Equipped and has air-ground communication if he does that have those two things then no IFR straight in
He mentioned RAC 9.13 (see below or in previous post)/

This is now even more ridiculous.

If TC permits a straight in approach and landing to any aircraft it must be permitted to all aircraft including those flying VFR, for there is nothing in the CARs to distinguish one from the other. If it is legal and possible for an IFR aircraft to land straight-in without conflict or violation it is obvious that an aircraft flying under the VFR can do the same.

Photofly
Rereading my statement, I realized that I left a word out (in red)
Should read

TC states that an IFR straight in CAN be c/out at an ATF IF the aerodrome is IFR Equipped and has air-ground communication if he does not have those two things then no IFR straight in
He mentioned RAC 9.13 (see below or in previous

[photofly]

I presumed you meant that. My comments stand.

Remember, great and mighty as TC inspectors are, they cannot make up laws as they see fit. Straight in for IFR means straight in for all. Hurrah!

[fleet16b]

I presumed you meant that. My comments stand.

Remember, great and mighty as TC inspectors are, they cannot make up laws as they see fit. Straight in for IFR means straight in for all. Hurrah!

Ha ha ha well the poster and TC say otherwise .......... but I do like your democratic style !!!!!

[AuxBatOn]

Hint: whatever the TC inspctors think, a poster is not regulatory, unless CARs reference to it..

[fleet16b]

Hint: whatever the TC inspctors think, a poster is not regulatory, unless CARs reference to it..

Yup that's what I said in the beginning of the whole thread
AIM , RAC etc are not regulatory ...... only CAR's are ......that's the whole dilemma

[LousyFisherman]

VFR minima. no wind
Low power NORDO taking off on 35
IFR breaks out of cloud straight in 17
IFR pilot fails to see NORDO in ground clutter as it has already taken off, gained 50 feet and possibly wandered to the side of the runway.

Does the NORDO pilot see him?
How long does each pilot have before there is a collision?
Which plane would you like to be in?

IFR straight in to an unmanned ATF in VFR conditions sounds foolish to me. Worse, I think it endangers others.

IMHO
YMMV
LF

[Rockie]

With regard to the CAR's, where it says "shall" or "shall not" there is no discretion unless you have some waiver or ops spec permitting something different - or you're willing to declare an emergency.

Where it says "should" or "should not" you can infer "grey area" and "use your own judgement". Where the CAR's don't say anything you can infer the same thing.

[Rookie50]

The IFR circling weather minimums for Burlington are 500 feet and 2 miles.
The IFR straight in weather minimums are 500 feet and 11/2 miles (higher ceiling due to remote altimeter setting)

I think we can all agree when the weather is at minimums for either a circling or straight-in approach there ought not be anybody in the circuit whether they have a radio or not. With that weather I wouldn't be too keen on doing a circling either

There are infinite possibilities above minimums WRT weather, and it's safe to say if an airplane was using the approach to get below a 2000 foot ceiling with 15 miles visibility the circuit may be teeming with light airplanes. If the guy is a light twin he would be well advised to cancel IFR and join them in the circuit - whereas if he's a faster jet the guy in the circuit next up would make the world run smoother if he just left the jet a gap to get down in.

Judgement...

And....Nobody; including fleet, has told me how I, let alone the citation, is supposed to legally break off in Burlington (my home base) to circle...to join the pattern full of aircraft on right downwind for 32. At 600 feet or even 1000, for that matter. Look at the terrain to the west. 1000 is VFR, BTW. Anyone, would you approach Burlington from the west (or north) at 1000 AGL, Nordo, or even no terrain GPS?

Please fleet resolve this question if straight in approaches are "illegal" -- look at the plate and tell me how to legally land on 32. Simple question. And assume you can't cancel IFR in air, Toronto can't hear you.

Burlington has air to ground....but they aren't there often at night or scuzzy weather.

Obvious answer is always to do what is practicable and safe -- which is how I fly and I cancel IFR into Burlington almost every time -- but this is a regulatory discussion, so looking for a regulatory answer---

[fleet16b]

The IFR circling weather minimums for Burlington are 500 feet and 2 miles.
The IFR straight in weather minimums are 500 feet and 11/2 miles (higher ceiling due to remote altimeter setting)

I think we can all agree when the weather is at minimums for either a circling or straight-in approach there ought not be anybody in the circuit whether they have a radio or not. With that weather I wouldn't be too keen on doing a circling either

There are infinite possibilities above minimums WRT weather, and it's safe to say if an airplane was using the approach to get below a 2000 foot ceiling with 15 miles visibility the circuit may be teeming with light airplanes. If the guy is a light twin he would be well advised to cancel IFR and join them in the circuit - whereas if he's a faster jet the guy in the circuit next up would make the world run smoother if he just left the jet a gap to get down in.

Judgement...

And....Nobody; including fleet, has told me how I, let alone the citation, is supposed to legally break off in Burlington (my home base) to circle...to join the pattern full of aircraft on right downwind for 32. At 600 feet or even 1000, for that matter. Look at the terrain to the west. 1000 is VFR, BTW. Anyone, would you approach Burlington from the west (or north) at 1000 AGL, Nordo, or even no terrain GPS?

Please fleet resolve this question if straight in approaches are "illegal" -- look at the plate and tell me how to legally land on 32. Simple question. And assume you can't cancel IFR in air, Toronto can't hear you.

Burlington has air to ground....but they aren't there often at night or scuzzy weather.

Obvious answer is always to do what is practicable and safe -- which is how I fly and I cancel IFR into Burlington almost every time -- but this is a regulatory discussion, so looking for a regulatory answer---

I am very familiar with the Burlington Traffic patterns having worked there and learned to fly there .
However , not being an IFR Pilot I would not feel qualified to tell you what to do in the situation you describe.
I suggest you ask TC but most people here seem to have no trust in their responses so I doubt you will want to do this
Still it would be nice if you did and posted their response here for all of us.
With that said I guess you do what you feel is safe and hope for the best for yourself and others in the air around you.

[fleet16b]

With regard to the CAR's, where it says "shall" or "shall not" there is no discretion unless you have some waiver or ops spec permitting something different - or you're willing to declare an emergency.

Where it says "should" or "should not" you can infer "grey area" and "use your own judgement". Where the CAR's don't say anything you can infer the same thing.

I get what your saying but in some ways it makes me feel uncomfortable...... seems like an avoidance of the obvious and a bit of a cop out.
For the most part , the majority of pilots out there are not going to get that picky about the wording .
The Rules , instruction , procedure how ever it's spun are published for a reason ....as suggested safe practices/good airmanship and further more most pilots are going to use them and are expecting others to use them also.
The above statement just smacks of an excuse to bend good airmanship practices.

[Rookie50]

Fleet -- respectfully --- this topic you are initiating is on proper ifr procdedures at an atf. You're a very experienced pilot and are obviously familiar with Burlington. So -- I'd like your regulatory opinion on how I would circle to land at Burlington legally on 32, under IFR rules.

Surely if straight in is prohibited -- and often there is no air to ground there -- must be a legal method.

Simple scenario! Its 1000 and 3 miles. No wind. No ground station active either. Fine circuit weather. Planes in the pattern. (potentially!) I'm arriving from London. How do I approach and land? Anyone? -- without a straight in approach.

Note --Can't cancel IFR in the Air. (on final anyway) Toronto can't necessarily hear you - below 1000 AGL --

[fleet16b]

Fleet -- respectfully --- this topic you are initiating is on proper ifr procdedures at an atf. You're a very experienced pilot and are obviously familiar with Burlington. So -- I'd like your regulatory opinion on how I would circle to land at Burlington legally on 32, under IFR rules.

Surely if straight in is prohibited -- and often there is no air to ground there -- must be a legal method.

Simple scenario! Its 1000 and 3 miles. No wind. No ground station active either. Fine circuit weather. Planes in the pattern. (potentially!) I'm arriving from London. How do I approach and land? Anyone? -- without a straight in approach.

Note --Can't cancel IFR in the Air. (on final anyway) Toronto can't necessarily hear you - below 1000 AGL --

ZBA seems to be a special case for sure
As I have stated , I am not an IFR do not feel I have a qualified opinion on this.
The most I can say is if TC has come up with a "recommended procedure" in the name of safety and one that you know most are going to follow, then why would you go against the grain ? Most likely that is in your opinion the safest procedure and as the pilot ultimately your call .
In reality do you not feel that you should ask this thru official channels ?

I started this thread to discuss ATF Procedures in general but it has morphed into a discussion centered around IFR procedures.
Not my original intention but an interesting discussion that looks at both views

[photofly]

CARS never say "should". CARs are mandatory. The AIM has all the touchy feel should stuff.