Downwind at 1000 AGL

[Colonel Sanders]

An awful lot of people think that the downwind leg of
a circuit in Canada must be flown at 1000 AGL.
They will tell you that the 1000 AGL is in the CARs.

They are wrong. CAR 602.96 says many things
about how you can and cannot fly a circuit, but it
specifically does NOT specify an altitude, for some
very good reasons.

Here are a couple of scenarios. Can you fly circuits
when that wx exists at that location? Any special
procedures? What altitude would you fly the
downwind leg of the circuit? Provide the applicable
CARs reference.

1) a gazillion miles visibility and an 800 foot solid,
well-defined overcast, above an uncontrolled
aerodrome with class G airspace from the surface
to 2,200 feet AGL.

2) a gazillion miles visibility and an 800 foot solid,
well-defined overcast, above an uncontrolled airport
with class E airspace to the surface.

3) a gazillion miles visibility and an 800 foot solid,
well-define overcast, above a controlled airport with
with class D airspace to the surface.

If you have more than 500TT, please don't answer - I
want to save this for the PPL/CPL's with < 250TT.

Note that I have tried to keep this simple with the
same, very benign weather conditions at all locations.

[Lotro]

I've only got 170 hrs, a PPL and no CPL training. I'm bored, so I'll take a stab at it, and risk being flamed.

With my flight experience, however, 800 ft ceilings means I don't fly.

All of these are airspace related questions, which. Believe is CARs 601, which is the closest to a proper citations can offer right now.

1) Class G my understanding is that you have to have 2 miles vis and remain "clear of cloud". I believe there's also a requirement to remain above 500 ft AGL in "non-built up areas", which suggets out could fly the circuit anywhere between 500 and 799 ft.

2) Class E is controlled, kinda, and has a requirement for 500 ft separation from cloud, so, you'd have to fly the circuit at 300 ft, which violates the 500 ft from ground in "non-built up areas." so I think you can't fly.

3) Class D with an operating tower you can ask for special VFR which only requires that you remain clear of cloud and maintain separation. I thin you'd be ok at whatever assigned altitude they gave you.

How'd I do?

[photofly]

above an uncontrolled airport
with class E airspace to the surface.

... Which must therefore be a control zone, right?

Does flying a downwind count as "for the purposes of taking off or landing"? That seems relevant, and I don't know the answer.

EDIT: I'll answer my own question in the affirmative (I have reasons) and therefore my answers are:

1) yes - anything up to 800'
2) yes - anything up to 300'
3) yes, with special VFR, anything up to 800'.

[BTyyj]

1) Yes - uncontrolled airspace VFR requirements under 1000ft AGL are 1nm vis and clear of cloud, with no requirement to be a certain altitude above ground.
2) Yes - file SVFR, which meets VFR requirements for a controlled zone.
3) Yes - request SVFR, which meets class D requirements in this weather.

[dr.aero]

Colonel, I'm interested in what your answer would be for those situations. I hope you're not looking for a definitive yes or no answer because you haven't given the required information.

Regarding this issue, there was a very good article written about this by Transport Canada recently. You can find it in the Aviation Safety Letter 3/2012 under the title: "Visual Flight - Safe and Legal".

1) a gazillion miles visibility and an 800 foot solid,
well-defined overcast, above an uncontrolled
aerodrome with class G airspace from the surface
to 2,200 feet AGL.

Below 1000' in uncontrolled airspace the weather requirements are 2SM and clear of cloud. You would be able to comply with that.

CAR 602.14 states that unless you're conducting a takeoff, approach or landing you shall fly "over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than" 1000' above the highest obstacle within 2000' of the airplane.

To keep things clear: downwind is the only leg on the circuit that is not part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phases.

To ensure that you're in compliance with CAR 602.14 you will need to know a fair bit about the aerodrome that you wish to fly these circuits at. You might very well find that you need to climb up to 1000' AGL before levelling after takeoff so that you are able to "land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface" in the event that your engine fails. Another consideration to think about to ensure compliance is how big are you flying your circuit? You might determine that you can fly a 700' AGL circuit and maintain compliance but if you stray too far away from the airport and towards a built up area, you may find that you're not longer in compliance with 602.14 as you're unable to "land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface". In that case, you might have to fly a higher circuit than 700' AGL. When you're not in a built up area you need to maintain a distance of at least "500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure."

2) a gazillion miles visibility and an 800 foot solid,
well-defined overcast, above an uncontrolled airport
with class E airspace to the surface.

Class E is controlled airspace and if it's to the surface it will be a control zone - the VFR weather requirements for a control zone state that you need to be able to maintain 500' vertically from cloud and 500' AGL. You are unable to comply with this - unless you get a SVFR clearance and comply with CAR 602.14.

3) a gazillion miles visibility and an 800 foot solid,
well-define overcast, above a controlled airport with
with class D airspace to the surface.

Again, this is a control zone - you are unable to comply unless you get a SVFR clearance and comply with CAR 602.14.

Lotro - "500 ft from ground in "non-built up areas."

There is no requirement to maintain 500' AGL in non-built up areas. You can actually fly 1 cm above the ground as long as you maintain 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

[photofly]

To keep things clear: downwind is the only leg on the circuit that is not part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phases.

I dispute that, from a thorough reading of the CARs. What do you base that claim on?

[CpnCrunch]

A more interesting question (in my opinion) is when would it actually be sensible to do a circuit with an 800ft ceiling. For a PPL it's probably almost never a good idea (again in my opinion), unless you're just doing circuits. If you're a bush pilot then you understand the risks and hopefully you've enough training/skill to be able to do it somewhat safely.

[HavaJava]

What about this?

1. Class D control zone with unlimited visibility and 900 overcast.

2. Class D control zone with unlimited visibility and 1100 overcast.

Oh, and the airport is completely surrounded by a built-up area

[dr.aero]

To keep things clear: downwind is the only leg on the circuit that is not part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phases.

I dispute that, from a thorough reading of the CARs. What do you base that claim on?

Read the ASL article I referenced in my post.

It says this with regards to flight in a control zone: "Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 602.14 still applies. For example, if you are over a “built-up area”, you will need to maintain at least 1 000 ft above obstacles."

If you read CAR 602.14 it says "except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing" you must maintain 1000' above the highest obstacle within...." It's not categorically stated that downwind leg is not considered a "takeoff, approach or landing" phase but the ASL article does strongly imply it!

In that section it's specifically talking about control zones, however, CAR 602.14 applies at all times.

Since it's not categorically stated I agree it's somewhat open to interpretation. In these 'ambiguous' areas I find it best to ask yourself if you'd be able to say you exercised good airmanship while doing the activity in question. If you're uncertain about if the activity would be safe or would be a good airmanship decision - I think that makes the decision for you!

I'll take your issue to the extreme to illustrate a point.

If you say that the downwind leg of the circuit is not part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phase then you do not have to comply with CAR 602.14 - meaning you could fly 1 cm above someone's house, a boat, a building, etc. You could argue then that you're perfectly legal to fly in class G airspace at an airport while flying circuits when the clouds are at 100'. You'd probably fly at say 80' so you're clear of the clouds. And since you're not required to comply with 602.14 as you argue the downwind is part of the takeoff, approach or landing phase, then you'd be legal to fly between buildings in a downtown area while you're on your 'downwind' leg. Are you really going to argue that point with a straight face?

Having instructed a TC Enforcement Officer awhile ago we had some good conversations about aviation. He told me that if you were to ever get enforcement action take against you, you had to have broken a CAR. You'd argue that you didn't break CAR 602.14 for the above reasons but then you'd have to explain why you didn't break CAR 602.01 - the cardinal rule!

I think that a normal pilot would agree that in the above case, you would be found in violation of CAR 602.01. Now all you need to do is find out how low you can go before you violate CAR 602.01!

[dr.aero]

What about this?

1. Class D control zone with unlimited visibility and 900 overcast.

2. Class D control zone with unlimited visibility and 1100 overcast.

Oh, and the airport is completely surrounded by a built-up area

1) You require a minimum of a 1000' ceiling to fly 500' below cloud and 500' AGL as per the VFR control zone requirements. You may be able to get SVFR, traffic permitting, and that would allow you to fly in the CZ. If you use SVFR, you still need to ensure compliance with CAR 602.14. Answer is: maybe.

2) It is possible that you could do it as you have the VFR control zone requirements. It's not clear if you would be in violation of CAR 602.14. Answer is: maybe.

If you're implying that the area, being completely surrounded by a built-up area, means that you'll be flying over a built-up area while on downwind then you will need to be 1000' above the highest obstacle within 2000'. That makes 1) become a 'no' (even with SVFR) and 2) remains 'maybe' as it's unclear if the built up area has obstacles that would penetrate the 1000' high and 2000' radius cylinder of airspace as you fly on downwind.

[CpnCrunch]

To keep things clear: downwind is the only leg on the circuit that is not part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phases.

I'm pretty certain the 1000ft rule doesn't apply to downwind because many airports are next to built-up areas and it's normal to fly at 1000ft circuit height over peoples' houses in the built-up area. If the 1000ft rule applied, in many cases you'd need to fly a 1500 ft circuit to be 1000 ft above buildings, antennas, etc. within 2000 feet.

Also if you think about it, the downwind is really just part of the 'approach' (which is the entire portion of the flight from (after) the cruise down to the ground).

I think you're right that it would be 602.01 they'll nail you with if you flew too low over a TC inspector's house on your downwind.

[dr.aero]

To keep things clear: downwind is the only leg on the circuit that is not part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phases.

I'm pretty certain the 1000ft rule doesn't apply to downwind because many airports are next to built-up areas and it's normal to fly at 1000ft circuit height over peoples' houses in the built-up area. If the 1000ft rule applied, in many cases you'd need to fly a 1500 ft circuit to be 1000 ft above buildings, antennas, etc. within 2000 feet.

Also if you think about it, the downwind is really just part of the 'approach' (which is the entire portion of the flight from cruise down to the ground).

I think you're right that it would be 602.01 they'll nail you with if you flew too low over a TC inspector's house on your downwind.

Houses are 500' tall? If you're flying over a built up area that has 500' buildings then you will need to be 1000' above them. I've explained myself in previous posts regarding this - I would recommend that you don't take what people say for granted; look it up yourself and satisfy yourself. Talking to a TC inspector at your local office would probably be a good idea if you wanted more clarification or wanted it from 'the horse's mouth'. As I said, downwind is not categorically defined as being part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phases so it is somewhat ambiguous.

The descent phase comes after the cruise phase!

Not just a TC inspector's house - but that would definitely expedite the processing of your violation!

[CpnCrunch]

Houses are 500' tall? If you're flying over a built up area that has 500' buildings then you will need to be 1000' above them. I've explained myself in previous posts regarding this - I would recommend that you don't take what people say for granted; look it up yourself and satisfy yourself. Talking to a TC inspector at your local office would probably be a good idea if you wanted more clarification or wanted it from 'the horse's mouth'. As I said, downwind is not categorically defined as being part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phases so it is somewhat ambiguous.

The descent phase comes after the cruise phase!

Not just a TC inspector's house - but that would definitely expedite the processing of your violation!

If you look in the CARs it doesn't define "approach" at all, but in standard usage the word "approach" begins when you start your descent for landing (even if you're 100 miles out).

[photofly]

If you say that the downwind leg of the circuit is not part of the "takeoff, approach or landing" phase then you do not have to comply with CAR 602.14 - meaning you could fly 1 cm above someone's house, a boat, a building, etc.

There are stacks at 954'agl two miles on the approach to 26 at CYTZ. Overflying them at 1954' would give you an awkward approach to say the least, but I don't know anyone who stays 2000 feet away. But that's ok, since you're landing, or at least on approach. Why would a downwind with 2nm to run be any different to a 2 mile final?

You could argue then that you're perfectly legal to fly in class G airspace at an airport while flying circuits when the clouds are at 100'. You'd probably fly at say 80' so you're clear of the clouds. And since you're not required to comply with 602.14 as you argue the downwind is part of the takeoff, approach or landing phase, then you'd be legal to fly between buildings in a downtown area while you're on your 'downwind' leg. Are you really going to argue that point with a straight face?

No I wouldn't argue that, but then I wouldn't fly like that either. As you point out, 602.01 is there.

In respect of the TC safety letter article: control zones are quite big; I can easily agree with the requirement to maintain 500agl for five or six of the seven miles across the control zone, and that for those five or six miles until you reach the circuit, you need to be able to land clear in compliance with 602.14. The article doesn't address circuits specifically and I can't put any construction on it that implies a downwind isn't part of "taking off and landing."

As another point, it's entirely accepted that an IFR aircraft can perform a circle to land at below 500', which might well involve a downwind leg. IFR flight involves remaining 1000' above the nearest obstacle within 5 miles except when taking off or landing. Clearly an IFR aircraft that breaks out at 500' minimums and performs a circle to land at 300' agl is "landing", and exempt on that basis. Why would a VFR aircraft at exactly the same place and altitude be considered not to be "landing"?

Similarly, it's difficult to accept that an IFR aircraft on an ILS approach, 300agl at 1nm, can avail itself of the "take-off, approach or landing" exemption from 602.14 while a VFR aircraft at 500' agl 1/2nm abeam the runway cannot.

I'm wary of things written ad-hoc by TC inspectors. Reading the TATC decisions reveals some totally screwy thinking on the part of individual inspectors.

[dr.aero]

If you look in the CARs it doesn't define "approach" at all, but in standard usage the word "approach" begins when you start your descent for landing (even if you're 100 miles out).

Your standard usage of the word approach might mean when you start your descent for landing at 100 miles out, but for most pilots that's called the descent phase of flight.

There are at least 6 phases of flight: takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing. You can break them up further to initial climb, enroute climb, initial approach, final approach, etc.

If you're flying a C152 it might be hard to clearly define all 6 phases.

[dr.aero]

I'm not familiar with CYTZ and so I can't comment on that.

No I wouldn't argue that, but then I wouldn't fly like that either. As you point out, 602.01 is there.

What height would the ceiling have to be at for you, photofly, to fly circuits without violating 602.14 or 602.01 or the VFR or SVFR weather requirements, in the situation and conditions we were talking about?

The rest of your comparison between an IFR aircraft conducting an instrument approach procedure (btw, circling is an IFR procedure and you require a clearance to do so while in controlled airspace) and a VFR aircraft flying circuits shows your lack of understanding of the rules and the reasons behind the rules. The more you start to understand the operation of aircraft while following IFR or VFR, the more the rules make total sense. Trust me, it's not the rules that don't make sense, it's you who doesn't understand the reasoning behind the rules.

Why would a VFR aircraft at exactly the same place and altitude be considered not to be "landing"?

You're "landing" when you're flying level above the ground with cruise power on and flying in the exact opposite direction (downwind) in which you intend to land? Interesting.

[CpnCrunch]

Your standard usage of the word approach might mean when you start your descent for landing at 100 miles out, but for most pilots that's called the descent phase of flight.

There are at least 6 phases of flight: takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing. You can break them up further to initial climb, enroute climb, initial approach, final approach, etc.

If you're flying a C152 it might be hard to clearly define all 6 phases.

Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure the entire circuit would be considered the "approach".

According to your logic your entire base leg would also need to be 1000ft above the top of any buildings within 2000 feet.

[dr.aero]

According to your logic your entire base leg would also need to be 1000ft above the top of any buildings within 2000 feet.

Nope! Base leg is the start of the approach. The end of crosswind is the end of the "takeoff" phase. If you were to break it down further, there would be the takeoff phase to 50 feet and initial climb phase which would end once you join downwind at circuit altitude. TC doesn't break it down like that in the regulation and so the takeoff phase ends once you join downwind at circuit altitude.

You should call a TC inspector and ask them about the questions in this thread.

[Cat Driver]

Dr.aero, when I do circuits at an uncontrolled airport in forty five seconds touch down to touch down and not above 100 feet above the surface and inside of the airport boundries am I in trouble legally?

Also the circuit is not rectanguar and if there is no wind there can not really be a down wind...correct?

[photofly]

The rest of your comparison between an IFR aircraft conducting an instrument approach procedure (btw, circling is an IFR procedure and you require a clearance to do so while in controlled airspace) and a VFR aircraft flying circuits shows your lack of understanding of the rules and the reasons behind the rules.

Ouch. That's a bit harsh, isn't it?

I hold an IR, and I know that a circle to land is part of an instrument approach procedure. 602.14 applies equally to VFR and IFR flights, and isn't about preventing conflicts in the air, it's about making sure that aircraft doesn't present a hazard to those on the ground. On that basis it's hard to see why a flight path that's considered adequately safe for those on the ground when flown on an IFR flight plan and with ATC clearance should present any more or less hazard to those on the ground when flown by an aircraft that is flying under the Visual Flight Rules.

Specifically there's no exemption to 602.14 granted to IFR aircraft that is not available to VFR aircraft, and to draw a distinction for 602.14 between two aircraft a half mile abeam the runway at 300 agl both of which intend to land - merely on the basis that one is on an instrument flight plan, and the other isn't - is pure speciousness.

BTW I wasn't arguing that the regulations don't make sense; on the contrary, they make a lot of sense. What I consider contradictory (and therefore I'm disinclined to accept as a valid interpretation) is the idea that a downwind can't be considered part of "landing" for VFR aircraft.