Circuits and Phraseology at Uncontrolled Airports

[C.W.E.]

In most cases, landing downwind is a no-no.

What is a wind considered as?

For instance would two MPH be considered a wind and you can not choose to land down wind?

[Donald]

What is a wind considered as?

Ask PDW.

[C.W.E.]

[square]

The pilot has to determine the runway, but It’s not an entirely free choice.

02.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.
.
.
.
(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall
.
.
.
(e) where practicable, land and take off into the wind unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;

In most cases, landing downwind is a no-no.

MFs and ATFs don't have air traffic control units, they're uncontrolled. A FSS is not a controlling agency.

[photofly]

An uncontrolled airport with a class E control zone still has a controlling ATC unit, responsible for clearances in the zone and authorizing special VFR. I guess that would be the “appropriate air traffic control unit” in this case.

[confusedalot]

An uncontrolled airport with a class E control zone still has a controlling ATC unit, responsible for clearances in the zone and authorizing special VFR. I guess that would be the “appropriate air traffic control unit” in this case.

umm.......Have been out of the GA stuff for a while, but almost got into it again, and I seem to think, from what I recently learned, and correct me if I am wrong, that there are lots of aerodromes around with zero ATC input.

[photofly]

That’s true.

Many aerodromes are in uncontrolled airspace and no ATC service is available.

Some other uncontrolled aerodromes - at which VFR pilots have no contact with ATC - have a class E control zone, and when you need a clearance to enter that control zone IFR or special VFR, there’s an ATC unit that has responsibility for that controlled airspace and can give you the clearance or authorization, as the case may be.

I’m going to guess if you really really wanted to land downwind at such an airport, that ATC unit would be the one referred to as “appropriate”.

You would still have to follow the conform to or avoid rule.

[square]

Ok it's controlled VFR traffic when the vis drops below 3 miles. The VFR guys don't really use it much when that wx happens, but when they do they have to hold outside the zone for even scheduled IFR departures.

Clearances are called in from FSS to IFR enroute controllers and relayed through the MF. Sometimes that takes so long that the VFR guys requesting special VFR just file IFR flight plans from outside the zone from what I hear, then you don't have to wait for departing IFR planes. This doesn't really apply to circuit procedures though.

[photofly]

Q: From whom do you get your IFR clearance from at CYPQ, where there is a class E control zone and a MF but no ground station?
A: Toronto Centre. There’s a PAL installed, on 134.25.

Ground station, no ground station, or no MF: every bit of controlled airspace has a controlling agency, even if you don’t speak to that agency directly.

[AirFrame]

Someone quicker on the search would find it faster than I, but isn't there also a regulation that says arriving aircraft must join the established circuit? ie. if there's already someone taking off or landing (or doing circuits) you must follow the direction they're going.

[Schooner69A]

"...arriving aircraft must join the established circuit?"


Yes. Being IFR gives you no precedence on arrival. Here in Vernon, many of the local pilots are quite accommodating to biz jets and the like when they arrive. However, there is always someone who tries to take priority by claiming that they're on an IFR flight plan. Somebody usually speaks up and pretends they're Mrs Brown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JddNDtC-Yrs

[photofly]

All aircraft, IFR and VFR are required to "(b) conform to or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;" - part of the same regulation. You don't have to join the circuit if you can "avoid" it.

[AirFrame]

All aircraft, IFR and VFR are required to "(b) conform to or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;" - part of the same regulation. You don't have to join the circuit if you can "avoid" it.

Does that extend to allowing a straight-in approach to an uncontrolled field, landing opposite direction to the established circuit? By your logic it sounds like you could argue that, but it doesn't strike me as being within the intent of the regulation.

[ahramin]

If the aircraft established in the circuit is on final for 36 and you go straight in for 18, that's not avoiding the circuit as a go around puts you head on. But if they are on downwind and you land and clear in 30 seconds, I could see how you could say you avoided the circuit. The only problem is: How can you be 100 % sure that there isn't a NORDO aircraft on final or taking off that you didn't see?

[dpm]

At a uncontrolled aerodrome, each pilot can determine the appropriate runway for him or herself, can they not?

That's more-or-less correct, but if something went wrong, you'd have to work a bit harder to demonstrate that you were meeting that fuzzy requirement to "exercise good airmanship" if you were deviating from recommended best practices without a compelling reason.

[photofly]

>>At a uncontrolled aerodrome, each pilot can determine the appropriate runway for him or herself, can they not?

They can. But they had bloody well all better come up with the same, correct, answer.

[Oldguystrtn2fly]

It was interesting the other day at the local, uncontrolled drone, two planes in the circuit doing touch and goes and a third taxis from a hangar and proceeds to back track for the runway favouring a take off into the wind against the direction of the two in the circuit. There was no collision or issue, but who was right?

[AirFrame]

It was interesting the other day at the local, uncontrolled drone, two planes in the circuit doing touch and goes and a third taxis from a hangar and proceeds to back track for the runway favouring a take off into the wind against the direction of the two in the circuit. There was no collision or issue, but who was right?

The ones in the circuit had right of way, if that's what you were asking. The aircraft taxiing out could have asked if the circuit traffic would like to change direction to match the wind, but if they decline for any reason the traffic on the ground should be taxiing to take off in line with traffic.

[A346Dude]

The ones in the circuit had right of way, if that's what you were asking. The aircraft taxiing out could have asked if the circuit traffic would like to change direction to match the wind, but if they decline for any reason the traffic on the ground should be taxiing to take off in line with traffic.

So if there's one guy in the circuit for the end with a 15 knot tailwind, and does not want to change for whatever reason, anyone taxiing out has to accept a 15 knot tailwind?

In this case, it is impossible to "conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation" while also "tak(ing) off into the wind unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit". You can argue it is possible to "avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation" while taking off into wind if you take off when it is not a conflict.

If the spirit of the legislation is that a single aircraft who was there first should force you to use an unsafe runway, that is a ridiculous policy. I guess it wouldn't be the first time.

[Schooner69A]

There are many cases of where an aircraft wants to depart using the opposing runway. At our airport, this is usually preceded by a call to the other aircraft to negotiate the departure.

No circuit change required, just some common sense and a willingness to accommodate a fellow flier.

Now, we're not talking about a circuit full of aircraft doing Ts & Gs here... Just one or two to whom the accommodation would not be an imposition...