ATF Procedures

[Rookie50]

Aux
Please don't take this wrong but:
According to TC you are 100% absolutely wrong with this statement

Please don't take this wrong Fleet16b but according to TC enforcement you are 100% wrong with your statements. I'm still digging around trying to find the copy but it clearly stated that a straight in avoids the circuit provided you are not getting in anyone's way. I know it's frustrating but it's just the way it is. If you do a straight in, and there is no one in the circuit, TC cannot say you broke any rules by claiming that someone could have been in the circuit. Enforcement knows it won't wash. If someone is in the circuit and you cut them off, then you have broken the CARs, but unless that aircraft in the circuit exists ...

Guys
I don't take any of this wrong and please realize the statements are not mine butTCs
where as all you guys are giving just your opinions
You don't like what TCi is telling me ? Well what can I say? .

Also if anyone is stupid enough to be doing IFR approaches at an ATF facility
I don't think it's a wise decision
Maybe safe up north somewhere but not smart here in S Ontario where it gets busy

--

If I have to do an IFR approach to return to my ATF home base, the ceiling vis is that low, VFR's likely have no business being in the circuit at all, let alone a NORDO, and I'm coming straight in regardless, move. Thread comments getting ridiculous.

Loads of IFR approaches happen at ATF 's in southern Ontario, we are not all fair weather Sunday flyers.

[fleet16b]

Guys
I started this thread because some of our local COPA members were of mixed opinion as to the
interpretation of CAR 602.96
The only thing I have found from all of this is that Transport Canada is telling me one thing and almost everyone else is saying something else . Sometimes the complete opposite of what TC is telling me.
I am not a CPL or an IFR rated pilot , I dont have Jet time , I'm just a 4000 hr + PPL with 30 yrs of flying experience.
Obviously , from responses some of you are CPL/IFR pilots (or at least I hope you are) and some of you have valid points and make great arguments for what you believe. Some of them I actually agree with but I have kept my personal opinions out of this.
Within the last two weeks , I have sought out two separate TC Reps in an attempt to get real clarification
about ATF Procedures and have reported it here. Both were pretty consistent in their interpretation.
So how can there be so many other interpretations ?
As I have stated early the CAR is pretty vague and that is most likely the reason
Where to go from here with this thread? I don't know as its seems to go round and round.
I think the best thing for everyone would be to consult their local TC Rep and see what they tell you
(as I did). Ultimately right or wrong its their call.
Thank you all for the participation in this discussion its been both interesting and an eye opener.
Hopefully nobody goes away with hurt feelings .

[CpnCrunch]

You can just send an email to your regional office from this list:

https://tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opss ... ns-139.htm

[JohnnyHotRocks]

When you asked TC, did you specifically ask about aircraft on an ifr approach in vmc weather?

[fleet16b]

When you asked TC, did you specifically ask about aircraft on an ifr approach in vmc weather?

Johnny
No I did not ask that specifically only if straight in approaches are legal and was told that YES in a MF zone but NO in an ATF zone . TC did not elaborate as to any special circumstances that voided that.
If TC is in my office tomorrow I will ask that question and report here

[JohnnyHotRocks]

Looking forward to the reply
Thanks
John

[7ECA]

Funny how at uncontrolled airports you can do pretty much anything, as long as you don't piss anyone off - or should that be conform to the circuit...

At Chilliwack, when it was an ATF and now as an MF, I've done all sorts of things. Low passes, left hand turns off of runway 07 (right hand circuit), right hand turns off of runway 25 (left hand circuit), straight in landings, etc...

Broadcast your intentions, and try as much as possible to work with the traffic in the circuit - if there is any.

[fleet16b]

Ok Guys you are not going to like this but here it is
The TC Rep is in today and I just sat with him.
I asked: Is it legal to carry out straight in IFR approaches at an ATF Aerodrome - practice or in actual conditions
The answer he gave was "NO IT IS ILLEGAL and extremely dangerous" .
"It is legal at MF Facilities but definitely not at allowed ATF Facilities."
He explained that an IFR aircraft on long final will have no way of knowing it anyone NORDO is entering or is in the circuit and that the person in the circuit may not know about the IFR approach especially if its coming straight in which would be unexpected due to not being allowed .
He further acknowledged that many pilots c/out this practice but that doe not make it legal.


IMHO I think that someone fighting weather would be making the right decision to come straight in IFR but what would happen IF there was a NORDO VFR pilot that got caught in below min conditions, he is not going to expect to see a straight in IFR aircraft because he has been taught that its not allowed at an ATF .
Neither of you are going to be aware of each other.
So while some of you are doing or know people that do straight in VFR or IFR at an ATF you are in the wrong.
I tend to agree with some of what he stated but please remember this is from TC not me so please no flaming.

[wud2nuq]

If "IT IS ILLEGAL and extremely dangerous" why are there published CAP procedures for doing exactly that? Why would these procedures not be withdrawn in favour of circling-only approaches?

[fleet16b]

If "IT IS ILLEGAL and extremely dangerous" why are there published CAP procedures for doing exactly that? Why would these procedures not be withdrawn in favour of circling-only approaches?

Can you contact TC and ask that question and then post the answer here on this thread ?

[photofly]

If "IT IS ILLEGAL and extremely dangerous" why are there published CAP procedures for doing exactly that? Why would these procedures not be withdrawn in favour of circling-only approaches?

If you're on the approach and you break out into VMC underneath at an altitude which makes it likely or possible that the circuit is in use, you break off and join the circuit. If you don't break out, continue on the straight in to minimums.

Some people here seem to be saying that they're flying aircraft which are too dangerous to fly a traffic pattern; they absolutely have to fly straight in or else they'll collide with terrain or some such danger.

I still think the the TC guy was confusing his own opinion with what the law says.

[Rookie50]

If "IT IS ILLEGAL and extremely dangerous" why are there published CAP procedures for doing exactly that? Why would these procedures not be withdrawn in favour of circling-only approaches?

If you're on the approach and you break out into VMC underneath at an altitude which makes it likely or possible that the circuit is in use, you break off and join the circuit. If you don't break out, continue on the straight in to minimums.

Some people here seem to be saying that they're flying aircraft which are too dangerous to fly a traffic pattern; they absolutely have to fly straight in or else they'll collide with terrain or some such danger.

I still think the the TC guy was confusing his own opinion with what the law says.

PF,

Asking again, how would you legally do this to join the circuit for 32 CZBA after breaking out on the RNAV? You haven't cancelled IFR.

[photofly]

I'm sorry - I don't understand the question. Why would cancelling IFR make any difference? In the absence of a tower, your approach clearance includes the option to circle to land on any runway that the wind and traffic conditions - which only you, as the pilot, are in a position to judge - dictate. Why would it be illegal?

[fleet16b]

If "IT IS ILLEGAL and extremely dangerous" why are there published CAP procedures for doing exactly that? Why would these procedures not be withdrawn in favour of circling-only approaches?

If you're on the approach and you break out into VMC underneath at an altitude which makes it likely or possible that the circuit is in use, you break off and join the circuit. If you don't break out, continue on the straight in to minimums.

Some people here seem to be saying that they're flying aircraft which are too dangerous to fly a traffic pattern; they absolutely have to fly straight in or else they'll collide with terrain or some such danger.

I still think the the TC guy was confusing his own opinion with what the law says.

I don't think so
He seemed quite sure and had the CAR up on his computer
I know some of you don't like what you reading and have been doing straighten approaches fir sometime but he and I have had numerous discussions now and he is quite aware of the concerns posted here.
It seems like a case of everyone does it so it must be legal

[photofly]

Unfortunately, his being sure isn't commensurate with his being right.

Of course that goes for me too

Most TC inspectors don't get to make the call -they have a special enforcement department. And anyway it's the members' opinion at the appeal that counts.

[Rookie50]

I'm sorry - I don't understand the question. Why would cancelling IFR make any difference? In the absence of a tower, your approach clearance includes the option to circle to land on any runway that the wind and traffic conditions - which only you, as the pilot, are in a position to judge - dictate. Why would it be illegal?

Because there is no circling to the west at Burlington, due to terrain.

Look this thread is all about what is supposedly legal -- meaning circling to join is required -- I'm curious how that would be satisfied at ZBA to land RWY 32 from the by the reg's answer. Look at the plate.

No circling to the west East side is full of Nordos on downwind. (unlikely). How then is it legally done?

[photofly]

Cancel the IFR and do a regular VFR overhead join. If you don't want to do that and existing VFR traffic makes the instrument approach unsafe due to conflicts, execute the missed approach procedure and notify ATC accordingly, just like you would for a vehicle on the runway. An approach clearance doesn't guarantee you a safe landing.

[Rookie50]

Cancel the IFR and do a regular VFR overhead join. If you don't want to do that and existing VFR traffic makes the instrument approach unsafe due to conflicts, execute the missed approach procedure and notify ATC accordingly, just like you would for a vehicle on the runway. An approach clearance doesn't guarantee you a safe landing.

I'm obviously making the point how ridiculous I think stating a straight in arrival is somehow "illegal" truly is in IMC conditions. Please.....

Even by that logic a missed approach, being "straight in" would create potential (cough cough) conflicts with all those NORDO planes up on that 800 foot ceiling day. So a "legal" solution at ZBA is by definition, not possible due to the circling ban.

In reality at ZBA I always cancel IFR in VMC conditions and join the pattern, however if too low from an IMC approach, which is rare, cancelling may not be heard by Toronto. But then if that's the case no one else is there, that's for sure. ZBA is busy as a hornets nest when nice and dead as a doornail when it's remotely not, even MVFR. Imagine many ATFs are the same.

That's why the statement no IFR approaches should be allowed at ATF's is really silly. The conflicts in reality do not exist, there is almost zero chance any NORDO pilot would be stupid enough to go up on a day with ceilings right at pattern altitude -- certainly not at ZBA with that hunk of rock just to the west.

[photofly]

Have a look at TC AIM RAC 4.5.2. This is the section which describes the standard traffic pattern. It says, explicitly:

"The following procedures apply to all aircraft operating at aerodromes where airport control service is not provided except those aircraft following a standard instrument approach procedure." {my emphasis}

It goes on to say "Some pilots operating under VFR at many sites prefer to give commercial IFR and larger type of aircraft priority. This practice, however, is a personal airmanship courtesy, and it should be noted that these aircraft do not establish any priority over other aircraft operating VFR at that aerodrome".

That is about explicit as you can get in saying that IFR traffic is not expected to conform to the traffic pattern but should expect to give way to traffic in the pattern if necessary.

Which is what some of us have been saying. Fleet16b should point this out to his TC guy.

[fleet16b]

Have a look at TC AIM RAC 4.5.2. This is the section which describes the standard traffic pattern. It says, explicitly:

"The following procedures apply to all aircraft operating at aerodromes where airport control service is not provided except those aircraft following a standard instrument approach procedure." {my emphasis}

It goes on to say "Some pilots operating under VFR at many sites prefer to give commercial IFR and larger type of aircraft priority. This practice, however, is a personal airmanship courtesy, and it should be noted that these aircraft do not establish any priority over other aircraft operating VFR at that aerodrome".

That is about explicit as you can get in saying that IFR traffic is not expected to conform to the traffic pattern but should expect to give way to traffic in the pattern if necessary.

Which is what some of us have been saying. Fleet16b should point this out to his TC guy.

Photofly

First off if you have been following this thread thru out ? I have spoken to two different TC people at two different locations (one being head office) that are not aware that I am talking to the other/
Both said the same thing and both looked in TC AIM RAC sections while we discussed .
AIM RAC are suggested practices/methods that for most part you are not violated for but if you contravene a CAR, then as you know you may be violated .
I opened this thread to discuss the enforced rules (CARS) and that is where they are coming from.
We can quote TC AIM RAC all day long to bolster what we want to believe but in the end we MUST fly in accordance to CARs unless of course its not safely possible
Again, both of these guys were adamant that straight in IFR is not allowed at ATF Aerodromes
I really dont know what else I can say, its like everyone only wants to believe what they want to believe .

[photofly]

Yes, I've followed the thread from the start. I am unable to put a plain English meaning-of-the-words interpretation an any CAR that would forbid a straight in instrument approach at an ATF. It has nothing to do with what I want to believe - trust me that there are a great many inconvenient CARS that are higher on my personal "I'd like to disbelieve" list.

Moreover, the only people I have to convince, in the long run, is the member at the tribunal, and his or her three colleagues at the appeal, and the federal judge. If, having followed my on the spot judgement of good airmanship, I later have to argue in those three arenas, I'll be happy to take my chances there.

[fleet16b]

I'm obviously making the point how ridiculous I think stating a straight in arrival is somehow "illegal" truly is in IMC conditions. Please.....

Even by that logic a missed approach, being "straight in" would create potential (cough cough) conflicts with all those NORDO planes up on that 800 foot ceiling day. So a "legal" solution at ZBA is by definition, not possible due to the circling ban.


That's why the statement no IFR approaches should be allowed at ATF's is really silly. The conflicts in reality do not exist, there is almost zero chance any NORDO pilot would be stupid enough to go up on a day with ceilings right at pattern altitude -- certainly not at ZBA with that hunk of rock just to the west.

This may or may not help with your ZBA concern
From CAR 602.96
(c) make all turns to the left when operating within the aerodrome traffic circuit, except where right turns are specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or where otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;

TC did not say IFR approaches SHOULD NOT be allowed but TC is saying they ARE NOT allowed So why is everyone so unclear ? I learned that rule over 30 yrs ago.
And you statement above is disconcerting , agreed I doubt a NORDO pilot would go flying in IFR conditions but there is every chance that a VFR pilot could be in the circuit during poor conditions by mistake . Fly VFR enough and you like many others will eventually get caught in those conditions . It happens all the time. Alway expect the unexpected and assume there are other aircraft in the circuit if you fly into an ATF Aerodrome.

[fleet16b]

Yes, I've followed the thread from the start. I am unable to put a plain English meaning-of-the-words interpretation an any CAR that would forbid a straight in instrument approach at an ATF. It has nothing to do with what I want to believe - trust me that there are a great many inconvenient CARS that are higher on my personal "I'd like to disbelieve" list.

Moreover, the only people I have to convince, in the long run, is the member at the tribunal, and his or her three colleagues at the appeal, and the federal judge. If, having followed my on the spot judgement of good airmanship, I later have to argue in those three arenas, I'll be happy to take my chances there.

Photo
Not to be overly dramatic as I agree with what you are saying but remember you may also have to answer someone's surviving family if you kill their loved one while c/out an illegal act .
That is all their lawyer has to hear to drag you into civil court

[Rookie50]

I'm obviously making the point how ridiculous I think stating a straight in arrival is somehow "illegal" truly is in IMC conditions. Please.....

Even by that logic a missed approach, being "straight in" would create potential (cough cough) conflicts with all those NORDO planes up on that 800 foot ceiling day. So a "legal" solution at ZBA is by definition, not possible due to the circling ban.


That's why the statement no IFR approaches should be allowed at ATF's is really silly. The conflicts in reality do not exist, there is almost zero chance any NORDO pilot would be stupid enough to go up on a day with ceilings right at pattern altitude -- certainly not at ZBA with that hunk of rock just to the west.

This may or may not help with your ZBA concern
From CAR 602.96
(c) make all turns to the left when operating within the aerodrome traffic circuit, except where right turns are specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or where otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;

TC did not say IFR approaches SHOULD NOT be allowed but TC is saying they ARE NOT allowed So why is everyone so unclear ? I learned that rule over 30 yrs ago.
And you statement above is disconcerting , agreed I doubt a NORDO pilot would go flying in IFR conditions but there is every chance that a VFR pilot could be in the circuit during poor conditions by mistake . Fly VFR enough and you like many others will eventually get caught in those conditions . It happens all the time. Alway expect the unexpected and assume there are other aircraft in the circuit if you fly into an ATF Aerodrome.

Fleet 16,

Look at the ZBA plate, assume a 700 foot ceiling, and tell me then legally how you would approach and land runway 32. Can't cancel IFR in the air. You break out. How do you join the pattern to land?

[photofly]

Photo
Not to be overly dramatic as I agree with what you are saying but remember you may also have to answer someone's surviving family if you kill their loved one while c/out an illegal act .
That is all their lawyer has to hear to drag you into civil court

I think if that were the outcome we would have departed good airmanship some time previously.