Traffic entry procedures at uncontrolled aerodromes

[Benwa]

oh my god...

CJ, if EVERY possibility was included in the CARS or the AIM, it would never end.

They make a suggestion, THAT'S IT !!!!

Just because they don't tell you to do something doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't.


IHow-to join the circuit is so bloody simple. Yet you want it to be more complicated

You should go back to giving it up...

[Cat Driver]

Common sense will dictate how you join a circuit without a control tower.

Size of airplane is hardly the benchmark.

I have been doing circuit joins here in Nanaimo for decades in all kinds of machines..some would be not very good for the overhead join such as the Turbo Commander due to the speed of the thing.

I can count on my hands the number of times I did an overhead join unless it was because I was coming from that direction.....straight in is just fine as far as a join goes if that is the most efficent entry....using proper radio proceedure and due care for other aircraft.

[Flying Nutcracker]

Probably been asked before, but... how big is a circuit anyways???

[corporate joe]

oh my god...

CJ, if EVERY possibility was included in the CARS or the AIM, it would never end.

They make a suggestion, THAT'S IT !!!!

Just because they don't tell you to do something doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't.


IHow-to join the circuit is so bloody simple. Yet you want it to be more complicated

You should go back to giving it up...

Clearly I am not very good at expressing myself, or you are not very good at reading. The whole point is to make things simpler by NOT including every possibility and NOT having two levels of text (laws and suggestions) in order to make things clear cut. You've said it yourself, traffic entry procedures are so simple, do you need to be suggested to enter this way or that way? Wouldn't it just make more sense to say this is allowed, or that isn't?

[Flying Nutcracker]

From the book itself!

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.

[Wilbur]

CJ, the "shoulds" provide guidance on how to do things in the most common situations. But, they are only "shoulds," and not "shalls." because there are far too many variables that require individual pilots to exercise their good judgement to make good decisions in any given situation. It recognizes that there is more than one correct, safe, and sensible way of doing something. My example of airplane size being a determining factor in circuit entry is just one of a myriad of potential variables. The bottom line with circuit entries is fairly simple at the end of the day; you are free to enter anywhere in the circuit if it is safe to do so. If your choice turns out to be unsafe, you can be violated and held to account for making a wrong choice.

The majority of traffic at uncontrolled airports is light VFR stuff. The "should" recommendation on how to enter the circuit is going to result in most people entering the circuit the same way most of the time, and that is entirely adequate. Leaving some decision making room for pilots to do something different when it's prudent to do something different further enhances safety. Will some do something different when it isn't wise? Sure, by that's where 602.01 comes into play.

[corporate joe]

CJ, the "shoulds" provide guidance on how to do things in the most common situations. But, they are only "shoulds," and not "shalls." because there are far too many variables that require individual pilots to exercise their good judgement to make good decisions in any given situation. It recognizes that there is more than one correct, safe, and sensible way of doing something. My example of airplane size being a determining factor in circuit entry is just one of a myriad of potential variables. The bottom line with circuit entries is fairly simple at the end of the day; you are free to enter anywhere in the circuit if it is safe to do so. If your choice turns out to be unsafe, you can be violated and held to account for making a wrong choice.

The majority of traffic at uncontrolled airports is light VFR stuff. The "should" recommendation on how to enter the circuit is going to result in most people entering the circuit the same way most of the time, and that is entirely adequate. Leaving some decision making room for pilots to do something different when it's prudent to do something different further enhances safety. Will some do something different when it isn't wise? Sure, by that's where 602.01 comes into play.

Wilbur, I understand why things are they way they are, I was merely, for the sake of discussion, trying to illustrate what I thought was a bit nonsensical. Clearly things could be a lot worst, and I was only trying to point out how I would make them better (for what that's worth),

Nevertheless it makes no difference. No matter how much I try to say to how I think things should be, the reality remains that they shall not change.

[Benwa]

Now you're talking CJ !

[snaproll20]

everyone should understand that basically, the rules tell you what you CANNOT do (legally). By implication, all else is OK and unless you are being unsafe and negligent, you cannot be prosecuted. Even then, it would probably require an 'incident' to prove you were wrong... i.e. call attention to yourself. Somebody else's opinion on what you did would not be enough for a conviction.

As a consequence, there is no real guidance on how to do many things.

[Hedley]

Somebody else's opinion on what you did would not be enough for a conviction

um, no. That's precisely what occurs for a 602.01 (reckless/negligent) charge - Transport has someone show up at the Tribunal and says that a prudent pilot would not do that, and therefore you were negligent and therefore contravened 602.01.

Yes, it's tremendously subjective.

[snaproll20]

Hedley,

I yield to your superior number of indictments.

Cheers