ATF Procedures

[goingnowherefast]

Now that we've established that a straight in landing from an instrument approach to minimums is safe and legal. What do we do with a Citation breaking out at 1200' with a bunch of 152s in the circuit?

There's no way on this planet a Citation can conform to the circuit that the 152s are conducting. He could break off the IFR approach, join the 152's VFR circuit at 150+ knots by joining overhead and into the downwind, run over about 3 of the 152s, complete and un-stabilized approach, botch the landing and come to a tire popping stop at the far threshold. Or the other option is the next 152 in line could be courteous, use good airmanship and understanding and extend the downwind about 60 seconds, allow the Citation to go first to complete a stabilized approach and normal landing. Whether the 152 has a radio, or is NORDO, both are supposed to be aware that there is the possibility of straight in IFR traffic and use good airmanship to resolve possible conflicts.

Could the 152 not allow the Citation in? Absolutely. It would be rather rude though. It would force the Citation to go around, complete a jet sized circuit, burn more fuel than would even fit in the 152's tanks, then still join a 3 or 4 mile final outside the 152's circuit.

[Rookie50]

Now that we've established that a straight in landing from an instrument approach to minimums is safe and legal. What do we do with a Citation breaking out at 1200' with a bunch of 152s in the circuit?

There's no way on this planet a Citation can conform to the circuit that the 152s are conducting. He could break off the IFR approach, join the 152's VFR circuit at 150+ knots by joining overhead and into the downwind, run over about 3 of the 152s, complete and un-stabilized approach, botch the landing and come to a tire popping stop at the far threshold. Or the other option is the next 152 in line could be courteous, use good airmanship and understanding and extend the downwind about 60 seconds, allow the Citation to go first to complete a stabilized approach and normal landing. Whether the 152 has a radio, or is NORDO, both are supposed to be aware that there is the possibility of straight in IFR traffic and use good airmanship to resolve possible conflicts.

Could the 152 not allow the Citation in? Absolutely. It would be rather rude though. It would force the Citation to go around, complete a jet sized circuit, burn more fuel than would even fit in the 152's tanks, then still join a 3 or 4 mile final outside the 152's circuit.

That's right. What's been missing in this discussion is the responsibility of NORDO et all to also practice wise airmanship and a good lookout. That means although not required -- get out of the citations way. That's exactly what I would do if it was me, NORDO or radio equipped. Causing a Jet to make a sudden low energy course change isn't something wise IMO.

[B208]

At non-MF aerodromes, or when MF
procedures are not invoked, keep a
sharp lookout. NORDO traffic may
also be established in, or be entering,
the circuit without other traffic or
the ground station being aware.
If the aerodrome is equipped
with an instrument approach,
IFR arrivals may also be landing via
straight‑in or circling procedures

I think that answers the question right there. If there is an IF approach with straight in minima then landing off a straight in IF approach is legal. If there is no IF approach, then VFR straight ins are verboten.

EDIT**OOPS, I missed that this had been established a few posts earlier. My mistake.

[CpnCrunch]

At non-MF aerodromes, or when MF
procedures are not invoked, keep a
sharp lookout. NORDO traffic may
also be established in, or be entering,
the circuit without other traffic or
the ground station being aware.
If the aerodrome is equipped
with an instrument approach,
IFR arrivals may also be landing via
straight‑in or circling procedures

I think that answers the question right there. If there is an IF approach with straight in minima then landing off a straight in IF approach is legal. If there is no IF approach, then VFR straight ins are verboten.

EDIT**OOPS, I missed that this had been established a few posts earlier. My mistake.

It doesn't say anything about VFR straight ins being verboten. However it does discredit the TC employee who told fleet16b that IFR straight ins are illegal at ATFs.

[goingnowherefast]

All I can find that's actually in the CARs and actually law is that all turns must be left (or right if specified in the CFS). It never says you have to make any turns. If you aren't required to make any turns, then straight in approaches are legal.

Does this make it smart, or good airmanship? Well, depends on the aircraft type, situation, weather, etc. Sunny day in a 172 with a bunch of other circuit traffic, you'd be safest to join the circuit via the TC poster. Citation or King Air with nobody around, go straight in. The onus is on the NORDO traffic as well as the Citation to keep a lookout and exercise good airmanship. Both know the danger zones, where to expect other traffic, and need to look outside. Sometimes it takes some creative thinking and planning when flying a King Air into an ATF with three 152s in the circuit.

A King Air flying a 140kt circuit doesn't work with 152s flying 90kt circuits. Go straight in? Or go overhead and fly a wide circuit around the 152s and land in a gap between them? Both are legal options and depends on the situation, traffic position, and situational awareness of all the pilots. A 20 hour solo student will have enough going on and may have trouble coping. The King Air crew should perceive this and accommodate. A 1000hr instructor is much more likely to be understanding and accommodating to the King Air.

[CpnCrunch]

I completely agree with you, goingnowherefast. Anyway, I sent a query to TC Pacific region yesterday, so I'll post here when I get a reply (it might take a while).

[Rockie]

if you're following VFR traffic in the circuit at an ATF what practical difference does it make what form of words you use?

Well, if the weather is good enough to have VFR traffic in the circuit and you abandon IFR procedures to revert to VFR, I submit the words you should use are "Cancelling IFR". Otherwise ATC has to protect airspace from the IAF to the Missed Approach termination fix until you tell him you've landed. Another one of those "airmanship" things.

[photofly]

But you haven't abandoned IFR procedures; it is merely the case that IFR procedures match VFR procedures. And it's possible that you're not in radio range of ATC so the question of cancelling or not is irrelevant.

So can you think of any real differences?

[Rockie]

IFR procedures don't match VFR procedures. Circuit procedures are VFR, not IFR. IFR procedures don't mention circuit procedures for a reason. VFR aircraft are required to remain in VMC and there are no procedures, clearances or protected airspace if they can't.

The reason I'm making this distinction is because people were conflating circling procedures with VFR circuit procedures. Do you really confuse Instrument Flight Rules with Visual Flight Rules, or are you just being argumentative because you find it physically painful to agree with anything I say?

[photofly]

Good grief.

Tell me the practical difference between flying a VFR circuit, and following the VFR traffic in the circuit while circling to land. You can't, because there isn't any.

Sure, call it whatever you like. Break out, and fly the frigging circuit and try not to kill anyone. The last thing I give a toss about is the three letters of the rules you think you're following while you do it.

[Rockie]

The last thing I give a toss about is the three letters of the rules you think you're following while you do it.

That's obvious, but there is a difference between those three letters whether you give a toss or not. People who wish to fly under those two different rules need to know the difference.

[photofly]

What is that difference then, and how does it change the way you fly your aircraft to a safe landing, in this scenario?

[fleet16b]

I completely agree with you, goingnowherefast. Anyway, I sent a query to TC Pacific region yesterday, so I'll post here when I get a reply (it might take a while).

Finally !
Someone else actually sending a query to TC
I will be really interested to read the response and compare it to the two queries I made

[fleet16b]

At non-MF aerodromes, or when MF
procedures are not invoked, keep a
sharp lookout. NORDO traffic may
also be established in, or be entering,
the circuit without other traffic or
the ground station being aware.
If the aerodrome is equipped
with an instrument approach,
IFR arrivals may also be landing via
straight‑in or circling procedures

I think that answers the question right there. If there is an IF approach with straight in minima then landing off a straight in IF approach is legal. If there is no IF approach, then VFR straight ins are verboten.

EDIT**OOPS, I missed that this had been established a few posts earlier. My mistake.

It doesn't say anything about VFR straight ins being verboten. However it does discredit the TC employee who told fleet16b that IFR straight ins are illegal at ATFs.

It was actually TC employees , I ask two people at two different locations.
The AIM Poster does shows that VFR straight in are not to be done but its in the flight path diagram , no written statement on the poster

Also it says :
[b]If the aerodrome is equipped
with an instrument approach,
IFR arrivals may also be landing via
straight‑in or circling procedures
So to me that would mean that TC "advise" you not to do a straight in approach IFR or VFR at an ATF Aerodrome unless the facility is IFR equipped (Keep in mind the statement in red is from AIM Poster and is a suggested method not an enforced CAR )

[Rockie]

What is that difference then, and how does it change the way you fly your aircraft to a safe landing, in this scenario?

I cancel IFR, switch to VFR and join the circuit along with the rest of the traffic. Here's where you say "what if you can't contact ATC?", and I say "it doesn't matter". I'm switching to VFR and I won't be switching back. In other words I won't feel compelled to adhere to the IFR circling limitations WRT altitude and lateral limits, and I won't be turning toward the airport while carrying out a missed approach if the VFR pattern forces me outside those limits for any reason. Do you have an instrument rating?


Fleet16b:

Look at the title at the top of the poster. It says "VFR Circuit Procedures", it is not addressing IFR procedures in any way either through direction or recommendation. The reference in the caution box is only to inform VFR pilots that IFR pilots may simultaneously be performing IFR straight in or circling approaches if one exists at that airport. It's information, not direction.

Also you still differentiate between "instrument approach" and "IFR equipped" - they are the same thing. If an airport has an IFR approach it is IFR equipped.

[photofly]

Yes.

In other words you fly the VFR circuit, whether you arrived there VFR or circling to land.VFR or IFR makes no difference.

[Rockie]

Yes.

In other words you fly the VFR circuit, whether you arrived there VFR or circling to land.VFR or IFR makes no difference.

I believe I've said that many times. The issue as I've also said before is that people are conflating a VFR circuit with an IFR circling maneuver and they cannot. They are totally different things done under totally different flight rules. If you can find reference to VFR circuit procedures under the IFR rules, or IFR circling procedures under VFR flight rules be my guest. The procedures are not the same nor are the regulations governing them.

[fleet16b]

Yes.

In other words you fly the VFR circuit, whether you arrived there VFR or circling to land.VFR or IFR makes no difference.

I believe I've said that many times. The issue as I've also said before is that people are conflating a VFR circuit with an IFR circling maneuver and they cannot. They are totally different things done under totally different flight rules. If you can find reference to VFR circuit procedures under the IFR rules, or IFR circling procedures under VFR flight rules be my guest. The procedures are not the same nor are the regulations governing them.

Rockie
CAR 602.96 covers both IFR and VFR in an Controlled and Uncontrolled Aerodrome circuit.
B) and C) basically say that you must enter the IFR traffic must enter the circuit and either follow any aircraft already there or avoid the pattern of aircraft already established in the circuit.
To myself anyway , I take that to mean that if you come straight in IFR whether practicing or for real and there is an aircraft already in the circuit, you have not avoided the pattern but are going against it.
If I am NORDO and caught in min conditions and am turning base to final and observe an IFR aircraft a I/2 mile or more out but on final, I would expect him to overshoot to avoid me due to him not actually being in the pattern .
Now I realize this could be a grey area as everyone can have a different pattern size
Another scenario:
I am radio equipped , making my radio calls and am at an ATF doing circuits on a VFR day and an aircraft decided to come in long final doing IFR Practice
Again he has not "conformed or avoided the pattern already established in the circuit" .
Basically he would be butting inline. If there was a conflict between the two on final , I would expect him to overshoot.
Nowhere in this CAR does it say you are void of this rule ie IFR Circling Rules. This CAR is the circuit procedure for both IFR and VFR there is do distinction between the two . It states this clearly in the first line.



602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.


(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that

(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and


(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.



(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall

(a) observe aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding a collision;


(b) conform to or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;


(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;


(d) where the aerodrome is an airport, comply with any airport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement;


(e) where practicable, land and take off into the wind unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit;


(f) maintain a continuous listening watch on the appropriate frequency for aerodrome control communications or, if this is not possible and an air traffic control unit is in operation at the aerodrome, keep a watch for such instructions as may be issued by visual means by the air traffic control unit; and


(g) where the aerodrome is a controlled aerodrome, obtain from the appropriate air traffic control unit, either by radio communication or by visual signal, clearance to taxi, take off from or land at the aerodrome.



(4) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, no pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet over an aerodrome except for the purpose of landing or taking off or if the aircraft is operated pursuant to subsection (5).

[Rockie]

If I am NORDO and caught in min conditions and am turning base to final and observe an IFR aircraft a I/2 mile or more out but on final, I would expect him to overshoot to avoid me due to him not actually being in the pattern .Now I realize this could be a grey area as everyone can have a different pattern size

Your last line says it. He's on final approach and you are turning in front of him which would be very poor airmanship and probably illegal. Final approach is a valid segment of a VFR pattern is it not?

CAR 602.19

(8) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft that is approaching an aerodrome for the purpose of landing shall give way to any aircraft at a lower altitude that is also approaching the aerodrome for the purpose of landing.


(9) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft at a lower altitude, as described in subsection (8), shall not overtake or cut in front of an aircraft at a higher altitude that is in the final stages of an approach to land.

Nowhere in this CAR does it say you are void of this rule ie IFR Circling Rules. This CAR is the circuit procedure for both IFR and VFR there is do distinction between the two . It states this clearly in the first line.

This first line says IFR and VFR traffic are required to observe and conform to an existing VFR traffic pattern (I added the "VFR" because there is no such thing as an "IFR" traffic pattern) at an uncontrolled airport. Nowhere does it say the VFR traffic pattern is an IFR procedure because it isn't. It is a visual procedure carried out under visual flight rules that IFR airplanes are required to conform to in VMC because they have no priority over VFR airplanes. Instrument flight rules (circling procedure) are different so don't confuse the two.

[fleet16b]

Now that we've established that a straight in landing from an instrument approach to minimums is safe and legal. What do we do with a Citation breaking out at 1200' with a bunch of 152s in the circuit?

There's no way on this planet a Citation can conform to the circuit that the 152s are conducting. He could break off the IFR approach, join the 152's VFR circuit at 150+ knots by joining overhead and into the downwind, run over about 3 of the 152s, complete and un-stabilized approach, botch the landing and come to a tire popping stop at the far threshold. Or the other option is the next 152 in line could be courteous, use good airmanship and understanding and extend the downwind about 60 seconds, allow the Citation to go first to complete a stabilized approach and normal landing. Whether the 152 has a radio, or is NORDO, both are supposed to be aware that there is the possibility of straight in IFR traffic and use good airmanship to resolve possible conflicts.

Could the 152 not allow the Citation in? Absolutely. It would be rather rude though. It would force the Citation to go around, complete a jet sized circuit, burn more fuel than would even fit in the 152's tanks, then still join a 3 or 4 mile final outside the 152's circuit.

The CAR says that he must conform to or avoid the already established pattern
Therefore since he did not conform he must avoid and yes that may mean that he has to abort if a conflict is developing.
I am going to get flamed for this BUT......
This still leads back to what the two TC People are telling me and that is that straight IFR/VFR at an ATF is not allowed
Everyone here keeps saying it is allowed and have stated why they believe so, BUT until you can prove it by showing a CAR that overrules CAR 602.96( which is were people are going to look for the described Uncontrolled Aerodrome IFR/VFR procedures) and specifically says that IFR Straight In Approaches are allowed at an ATF Facility , then CAR 602.96 must be followed.

[Rockie]

Let me ask you a question fleet16b, if there were no other aircraft in the vicinity and there are no aircraft reported or observed in the VFR pattern do you think it would be legal for an aircraft conducting a straight-in IFR approach to land straight in? What about if the weather were below VFR limits but within IFR limits?

If not - why not?

[fleet16b]

If I am NORDO and caught in min conditions and am turning base to final and observe an IFR aircraft a I/2 mile or more out but on final, I would expect him to overshoot to avoid me due to him not actually being in the pattern .Now I realize this could be a grey area as everyone can have a different pattern size

Your last line says it. He's on final approach and you are turning in front of him which would be very poor airmanship and probably illegal. Final approach is a valid segment of a VFR pattern is it not?

But if he is doing a straight in final , he did not conform to or avoid the established pattern so is in reality forcing his way in .
Especially dangerous for everyone is he is not detected

CAR 602.19

(8) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft that is approaching an aerodrome for the purpose of landing shall give way to any aircraft at a lower altitude that is also approaching the aerodrome for the purpose of landing.


(9) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft at a lower altitude, as described in subsection (8), shall not overtake or cut in front of an aircraft at a higher altitude that is in the final stages of an approach to land.

Nowhere in this CAR does it say you are void of this rule ie IFR Circling Rules. This CAR is the circuit procedure for both IFR and VFR there is do distinction between the two . It states this clearly in the first line.

This first line says IFR and VFR traffic are required to observe and conform to an existing VFR traffic pattern (I added the "VFR" because there is no such thing as an "IFR" traffic pattern) at an uncontrolled airport. Nowhere does it say the VFR traffic pattern is an IFR procedure because it isn't. It is a visual procedure carried out under visual flight rules that IFR airplanes are required to conform to in VMC because they have no priority over VFR airplanes. Instrument flight rules (circling procedure) are different so don't confuse the two.

I don't think I am confusing them but the CAR 602.96 lumps them together

[fleet16b]

Let me ask you a question fleet16b, if there were no other aircraft in the vicinity and there are no aircraft reported or observed in the VFR pattern do you think it would be legal for an aircraft conducting a straight-in IFR approach to land straight in? What about if the weather were below VFR limits but within IFR limits?

Rockie
Part of me would say that it would not hurt anyone to do it.
However, there is absolutely NO WAY that the IFR traffic can know for sure that they are the only aircraft in the circuit or even the vicinity . NORDO aircraft are often undetected and any aircraft entering an ATF area can establish a circuit altitude at the height they wish , meaning they could be at 100ft or whatever if the are the one that was there first

[Rockie]

Let me ask you a question fleet16b, if there were no other aircraft in the vicinity and there are no aircraft reported or observed in the VFR pattern do you think it would be legal for an aircraft conducting a straight-in IFR approach to land straight in? What about if the weather were below VFR limits but within IFR limits?

Rockie
Part of me would say that it would not hurt anyone to do it.
However, there is absolutely NO WAY that the IFR traffic can know for sure that they are the only aircraft in the circuit or even the vicinity . NORDO aircraft are often undetected and any aircraft entering an ATF area can establish a circuit altitude at the height they wish , meaning they could be at 100ft or whatever if the are the one that was there first

Not only wouldn't it hurt anybody, it's perfectly legal because as far as the IFR pilot is concerned there are no other aircraft operating in the area as per 602.96 (3)(b). He is not required to revert to a full VFR circuit due to hypothetical NORDO aircraft he may have failed to see.

Your last line says it. He's on final approach and you are turning in front of him which would be very poor airmanship and probably illegal. Final approach is a valid segment of a VFR pattern is it not?

But if he is doing a straight in final , he did not conform to or avoid the established pattern so is in reality forcing his way in .Especially dangerous for everyone is he is not detected

Good luck arguing that in front of a tribunal. In this case you would be the one creating risk by cutting in front because right of way regulations (602.19) are very specific.

I don't think I am confusing them but the CAR 602.96 lumps them together.

No it doesn't. "IFR circling" is not a "VFR traffic pattern", they aren't even in the same set of rules. What 602.96 does is compel IFR aircraft in this case to abandon IFR procedures (straight-in or circling) and comply with VFR pattern procedures if there are other VFR aircraft established in the pattern. IFR circling has completely different criteria than a VFR traffic pattern, and if you're interested I can give you some references to see the difference.

[fleet16b]

Rockie
Very confusing
Maybe because I am not an IFR Pilot and partly because I am obligated to believe TC 's Statements to me
The CAR states that pertains to ALL IFR/VFR operating in the vicinity. That first line does specify VFR Traffic pattern
My take would mean that you are operating and IFR or VFR aircraft in the vicinity so your must adhere to the CAR
On Moday, I will storm the TC Office once again using your description below and get their take on it and will report back here .

No it doesn't. "IFR circling" is not a "VFR traffic pattern", they aren't even in the same set of rules. What 602.96 does is compel IFR aircraft in this case to abandon IFR procedures (straight-in or circling) and comply with VFR pattern procedures if there are other VFR aircraft established in the pattern. IFR circling has completely different criteria than a VFR traffic pattern, and if you're interested I can give you some references to see the difference.