Traffic entry procedures at uncontrolled aerodromes

[lilfssister]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but don't you Canadians require all aircraft to be mode C equipped in airspace that has IFR traffic?

No

[lilfssister]

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

Please don't confuse the CARs with the AIM.

1.1.3 Aeronautical Information Publications


TC AIM The Transport Canada Aeronautical information Manual (TC AIM) has been developed to consolidate pre-flight reference information of a lasting nature into a single primary document. It provides flight crews with 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.

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.

The rules of the air and air traffic control procedures are, to the extent practical, incorporated into the main text of the TC AIM in plain language. Where this was not possible, the proper CARs have been incorporated verbatim into the Annexes; however, editorial liberties have been taken in the deletion of definitions not considered essential to the understanding of the intent of the CARs. This has been done to enhance comprehension of the rules and procedures essential to the safety of flight. The inclusion of these rules and procedures in this format does not relieve persons concerned with aviation from their responsibilities to comply with all Canadian Aviation Regulations as published in the Aeronautics Act and CARs. Where the subject matter of the TC AIM is related to CARs, the legislation is cited.
In the compilation of the TC AIM, care has been taken to ensure that the information it contains is accurate and complete.

[lilfssister]

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.

Incorrect.

RAC 4.5.2 Traffic Circuit Procedures — Uncontrolled Aerodromes
2) v) Aerodromes not within an MF area: 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 (Figure 4.6).

2)(vi) Aerodromes within an MF area when airport advisory information is available: Aircraft may join the circuit pattern straight-in or at 45˚ to the downwind leg or straight-in to the base or final legs (Figure 4.1). Pilots should be alert for other VFR traffic entering the circuit at these positions and for IFR straight-in or circling approaches.

[lilfssister]

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).

RAC 4.5.3 Helicopter Operations

Pilots of helicopters at uncontrolled aerodromes are urged to avoid air taxiing or low flying across runways and taxiway areas where risk of collision with unseen aircraft or vehicles exists.

CAR 602.19

(2) When two aircraft are converging at approximately the same altitude, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft that has the other on its right shall give way, except as follows:

(a) a power-driven, heavier-than-air aircraft shall give way to airships, gliders and balloons;

(b) an airship shall give way to gliders and balloons;

(c) a glider shall give way to balloons; and

(d) a power-driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft that are seen to be towing gliders or other objects or carrying a slung load.

[Cat Driver]

or carrying a slung load.

If I were wearing a jock strap would that qualify me Sis?

[lilfssister]

To be a slung load, the load must be external to the aircraft ... so you tell me Cat... (We'll use this definition from my dictionary for external: not basic or essential )

[BTD]

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.

Incorrect.

RAC 4.5.2 Traffic Circuit Procedures — Uncontrolled Aerodromes
2) v) Aerodromes not within an MF area: 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 (Figure 4.6).

Lilfssister. I find your statement odd. I belive that Hedley is correct. In your above post quoting from the AIM. It talks about the difference between should and shall. Then you contradicted that by saying Hedley was incorrect when in your following post you quoted a should. Not a shall.

The AIM is not law. It contains parts of the CARS as well as other valuable information. Find the stuff about bird migration patterns in the CARS. It won't be there.



If I missed something please inform me.

From the AIM

1.2 Summary of National Regulations

Civil aviation in Canada is regulated by the Aeronautics Act and the CARs. (See MAP 7. for procurement of the CARs). A legislation index is located in GEN 5.

AIM is not one of the items it quotes as a regulatory document.

BTD

[BTD]

I was thinking I should clarify my last post.

With an MF area and a specialist you should join the ways listed in the CARS. Upwind from overhead/downwind/base/final etc.

With and MF area and no specialist or an ATF you should join overhead or straight in downwind.

My point was that no where in the cars does it prohibit joining from where ever you want at either. And the AIM is not law, and uses the term should anyway.

BTD

[Single-Engine IFR]

Regardless of what the letter of the law is, the intent of the recommended procedure is to maintain a predictable action that hopefully most, if not all, of the traffic will adhere to. Whether you can get away with entering the circuit straight in on final is not the point. Not every other pilot in the circuit may be as savvy and experienced as you are and may actually expect all traffic to conform to the recommendations. If he, (she) screws up and has a mid-air with you because you arrived unexpectedly filling his windshield, it doesn't make you any less dead because you were technically not breaking the law.
There was the case a few years ago at 108 Mile where one aircraft did a straight in while the other one was on the wrong downwind, (the traffic pattern changes from a left to a right at night. They collided on final, (fortunately no fatalities.)
Anyway, I always follow the procedure as published in the AIM.

SEI

[lilfssister]

Lilfssister. I find your statement odd. I belive that Hedley is correct. In your above post quoting from the AIM. It talks about the difference between should and shall. Then you contradicted that by saying Hedley was incorrect when in your following post you quoted a should. Not a shall.

The AIM is not law. It contains parts of the CARS as well as other valuable information. Find the stuff about bird migration patterns in the CARS. It won't be there.



If I missed something please inform me.

From the AIM

1.2 Summary of National Regulations

Civil aviation in Canada is regulated by the Aeronautics Act and the CARs. (See MAP 7. for procurement of the CARs). A legislation index is located in GEN 5.

AIM is not one of the items it quotes as a regulatory document.

BTD

Did you read the one that said:

The rules of the air and air traffic control procedures are, to the extent practical, incorporated into the main text of the TC AIM in plain language.

[corporate joe]

Regardless of what the letter of the law is, the intent of the recommended procedure is to maintain a predictable action that hopefully most, if not all, of the traffic will adhere to. Whether you can get away with entering the circuit straight in on final is not the point. Not every other pilot in the circuit may be as savvy and experienced as you are and may actually expect all traffic to conform to the recommendations. If he, (she) screws up and has a mid-air with you because you arrived unexpectedly filling his windshield, it doesn't make you any less dead because you were technically not breaking the law.
There was the case a few years ago at 108 Mile where one aircraft did a straight in while the other one was on the wrong downwind, (the traffic pattern changes from a left to a right at night. They collided on final, (fortunately no fatalities.)
Anyway, I always follow the procedure as published in the AIM.

SEI

Well said. Like I said before, we are pilots, not lawyers, and we should be using airmanship, not playing with words and laws.

[pelmet]

When my enroute heading is close to straight in final, if there is any doubt about traffic, I do as per recommendation of AIM. If I can monitor the airport frequency and don't hear any other traffic, I keep a good lookout and do a straight-in as LEGALLY allowed.
There always seems to be someone who knows of some midair years ago caused by this or that aircraft doing a straight in final. Read this Australian midair collision study and you will find plenty of midairs between two aircraft in the circuit.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/200 ... ir_col.pdf

Common sense.

[corporate joe]

Common sense like you said, is key. However, the problem is just that. Who's common sense should we use? Common sense varies from one individual to another, so who's to say which one has more sense? Of course everyone will favour their own logic, but who's to say it's the strongest one, or even better the one used by the majority?

A study shows that that 88% of drivers think they are better drivers than the average. Obviously those numbers are impossible, so I think we can conclude that most individuals can not apropriately and objectively assess their own skills (or lack of). Common sense would dictate, that if you are at a red light in the middle of the night, and that you can assess without a doubt that there are no other vehicles coming in any direction, that you should be able to go right through it. And, I think a strong case can be made for that type of logic.

However, I do not think the Canadian airspace is a safer place with an AIM open for interpretation. Just as SOP's standardized the cockpit in the name of safety (because everyone knows what to expect of everyone else), I think the AIM should be standardized and leave as little room for interpretation as possible. Everyone SHALL join the circuit the same way (whatever that way is, on downwind or on final, but once it is decided, everyone sticks with it).

My two cents.

[Hedley]

88% of drivers think they are better drivers than the average

That's pretty funny ... I heard that 37% of statistics are made up on the spot

Here's another one: Celine Dion walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Why the long face?"

P.S. If you outlaw straight-in finals at uncontrolled airports, you've just outlawed practice instrument approaches. What about "letter" approaches, which may not even line you up with a runway, but just point you at the airport?

Biggest safety improvement for uncontrolled airports would be to require radios. Not sure I like that idea much, either, though. Too many dweebs with their heads down that never look outside, and that would just encourage them to not bother looking around.

[Big Pistons Forever]

OldTimer

Shame on you ....You forgot to mention that you have always got to land towards the opposite end of the the runway in relation to the ramp that way you get a nice slow taxi backtract on the runway (never the parellel taxiway) so everything is nicely cooled down and you can shut her down as soon as you arrive at the ramp

[oldtimer]

You are so right.
For that litle indescretion, I have allowed the fleas from a thousand camels to infest my armpits.

[pelmet]

I have some news for you. I have been flying large aircraft into uncontrolled airports in the north for over a decade now. If you think that myself or anyone else up there is all of a sudden go way out of our way to the dead side of the airport, descend and then come back overhead to join a downwind after cancelling IFR whether in a 737 or a Beech 99 or a Dash-7 and end up half the time screwing things up for everybody else you can forget it.
There is a reason for the AIM allowing interpretation. It is called allowing flexibility in our operation.
There is a real world out there. Besides, think of all the greenhouse gas emissions I am preventing.

[corporate joe]

I think the AIM should be standardized and leave as little room for interpretation as possible. Everyone SHALL join the circuit the same way (whatever that way is, on downwind or on final, but once it is decided, everyone sticks with it).

Again, I am not advocating one procedure over the other. Believe me I don't need to be convinced about the benefits of straight in finals in certain cases. What I don't like is the interpretation element of the whole thing. All I am saying is it should be allowed, or disallowed; the way it is written now can cause some confusion, and that's what needs to be avoided.

[Benwa]

I kinda like the way it's worded.

"Should" says it all IMHO...

[BTD]

Did you read the one that said:

The rules of the air and air traffic control procedures are, to the extent practical, incorporated into the main text of the TC AIM in plain language.

Yeah that is fine. That does not mean though that everything in the AIM is law.

Regardless of that. I'm not trying to argue which is better. Just which is the law.

In addition for larger fast aircraft to fly circuits they would usually be well outside of any circuit created by a 150 or other light aircraft. Another problem created is everyone converging on a point on the upwind side of the airport (a common landmark like a town). Have had many close ones with aircraft while doing that.

Again I'm not arguing which is right or wrong. But the AIM itself says it isn't law. And if you can't find something in the AIM rewritten in the CARs or Aeronautics Act. I guess it isn't law.

BTD

[BTD]

1.1.3 Aeronautical Information Publications

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.

ii) Unless otherwise specified or required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria, aircraft should approach the traffic circuit from the upwind side.

Corporate Joe Said
"So, NO you CAN NOT legally fly straight in final or base. "


So yes. I guess you legally can.

BTD

[corporate joe]

Corporate Joe Said
"So, NO you CAN NOT legally fly straight in final or base. "


So yes. I guess you legally can.

BTD

That was already established, and I was corrected, but thanks for bringing it up again

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.

Let me ask the question differently: If the procedure of entering the circuit straight in final offers an operational advantage and it can be done safely (as some have claimed), why not allow it or encourage it? Why say that pilots SHOULD enter the circuit from mid-downwind (from inactive side) and in some cases, where there is no traffic, from downwind? Isn't that just making things that should be simple more complicated?

But more importantly, what is the point of the AIM, if pilots only "respect" (or shall I say "fear" the reprisal of) the CAR'S?

[Cat Driver]

If the procedure of entering the circuit straight in final offers an operational advantage and it can be done safely (as some have claimed), If the procedure of entering the circuit straight in final offers an operational advantage and it can be done safely (as some have claimed), why not allow it or encourage it?

Of course there will be times when a straight in is not only beneficial but makes more sense than flying all over the country getting into the circuit pattern.

Why would there be any question of being able to do it safely, we have been doing straight in approaches ever since the Wright Brothers started flying.

why not allow it or encourage it?

It is allowed and in many cases encouraged.

[CLguy]

Widow, you can bet in a court of law the words, should and shall have very distinct meanings and that is the sole reason they are used. It has nothing to do with whether it creates confusion by the people who are suppose to interpret and live by them.

[Hedley]

the way it is written now can cause some confusion

What confusion? I'm not confused. Are you confused? Why are you confused? This is pretty bloody simple:

1) the AIM is NOT law
2) even if it was, it says "should"

I say again: You can only be charged with contravening the CARs, which quite specifically do NOT prohibit a straight-in final or base at uncontrolled airports.

End of story. End of confusion.