Explain like I'm 5 - Mandatory Frequency

[niss]

Most of where I fly is uncontrolled, so I am used to making advisory calls, etc. And I have flown a bit in controlled, so I am fairly comfortable with my interaction with Twr. However, I have never gone to an MF airport, despite one being just up the way from me (Muskoka).

What are the nuances of going into such an airport, and what are some faux pas to look out for?

[CpnCrunch]

Not really much difference to be honest. You just MUST transmit on the radio (rather than it being optional) and make all the standard calls (entering runway/departing, vacated runway, downwind, final, entering/leaving zone). Also you can join straight in or on base.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp1 ... 11541e.pdf

Sometimes you'll just talk to "traffic", and sometimes there will be a person on the radio and you'll talk to "xxx radio".

[Pop n Fresh]

The strange thing I remember compared to Class C was someone acknowledging calls and not giving clearances.

Me, "Somespot radio, Piper Chatterbox just over landmark, at xxxx, inbound to check the winds for landing."
Random person, "Roger." (Might mention traffic, winds and preferred runway. Sometimes just the roger.")


Me, "Somespot radio, Piper Chatterbox crossing field at (elevation plus aprox 1000') to join downwind runway xx."
Them, "Roger."

[cgzro]

- address them as xyz radio.
- call prior to entering manoeuvering area.
- call prio to taking runway
- call on downwind
- call on final
- call before entering zone and give arrival procedure
- call clear of runway
- specialist cannot clear you or give instruction unless you request
Eg xyz radio can you suggest xxxx.

Very useful when specialist has radar and can see all traffic and issue codes.
Very useful when in french english environment as they will translate traffic for you.

[photofly]

For Muskoka, there's a nice person in a room at Timmins. You call them up and they tell you which runway everyone is using, then ask you which runway you want to use. You tell them you want to use the same runway as everyone else, so then they tell everyone else which runway you're going to use, in case they missed it. Then when you're joining the circuit, you'll call and say where you are, and bless me if they don't tell everyone else where you are, in case they missed it. Whenever anyone else says where they are they'll make sure they tell you where the other person is too, in case you missed it.

have you ever accidentally switched on both the subtitles and described audio while watching TV? It's a bit like that.

[ruddersup?]

Priceless Photofly, you've been there too.

[sstaurus]

Don't forget, there's an ATF, MF w/ AAS, and MF w/o AAS (aerodrome advisory service). Only an MF with an active AAS are you technically allowed to join all 5 ways to the circuit.

The calls are all the same, the only real difference is for NORDO aircraft. In an MF, NORDO may not operate unless the AAS is active and has been notified. With an ATF, NORDOs are free to bomb around without any notice!

At least that is my interpretation.

[CpnCrunch]

Don't forget, there's an ATF, MF w/ AAS, and MF w/o AAS (aerodrome advisory service). Only an MF with an active AAS are you technically allowed to join all 5 ways to the circuit.

Yes, you are correct, although all the publications except the RAC say that you can join base and final at a MF with no mention of AAS. Has this changed recently?

[AirFrame]

Don't forget, there's an ATF, MF w/ AAS, and MF w/o AAS (aerodrome advisory service). Only an MF with an active AAS are you technically allowed to join all 5 ways to the circuit.

The calls are all the same...

... and the calls are all *mandatory* for an airplane equipped with a functioning radio.

Little known tidbit that seems to escape many pilots who fly into the local ATF airport listening but not broadcasting, or listening and talking to the adjacent controlled airport instead.

[photofly]

... and the calls are all *mandatory* for an airplane equipped with a functioning radio.

No, they're not. It's not required by the CARs.

TC AIM RAC 4.5.5 says:

"The following reporting
procedures shall be followed by the pilot-in-command
of radio-equipped aircraft at uncontrolled aerodromes
within an MF area and should also be followed by the
pilot-in-command at aerodromes with an ATF"
(my emphasis)

Even the AIM (which isn't in any sense regulatory) only says "should".

TC AIM GEN 1.1.3:

"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."

Don't make shit up.

[PilotDAR]

Also you can join straight in or on base.

Yes, but....

Doing this with no regard for traffic already established in the circuit, nor the rules of right of way, is very rude, and un-airmanship like - and it happens much too often - at Muskoka.

[photofly]

Joining straight in, or on base - and having no regard for traffic in the circuit - are two entirely different things.

You can have no regard for traffic in the circuit and ignore the rules of right of way no matter how you join, and no matter what airport you're at. Only a muppet is going to choose an overhead join at Muskoka when a straight-in makes more sense. You have to fit in with existing traffic in either case.

Luckily, as far as Muskoka is concerned, there's a very nice person at Timmins to make sure that whatever you do happens narrated in triplicate

[AirFrame]

No, they're not. It's not required by the CARs.

Except maybe that catch-all clause that says one shouldn't fly recklessly or negligently. Like not using a radio that you've got on board to listen to and broadcast intent. There's no regulation saying "don't fly into the ground" either, but we all know it's a better choice than the alternative.

[photofly]

Oh dear. Last refuge of someone who wants everyone to do what they say. Claim something is "mandatory", then when called on it, claim not doing it violates 602.01. Additionally, perhaps, let's throw in a reference to flying into the ground.

People - let's not confuse "sensible" with "required by law". Important to know the difference.

Note to anyone who's interested: 602.01 doesn't ban reckless or negligent flying. It imposes a penalty when reckless or negligent flying endangers - or is likely to endanger - life or properly. See the difference?

[CFR]

... People - let's not confuse "sensible" with "required by law". Important to know the difference.

Note to anyone who's interested: 602.01 doesn't ban reckless or negligent flying. It imposes a penalty when reckless or negligent flying endangers - or is likely to endanger - life or properly. See the difference?

Hell even regulators get em wrong! I've had Labour Officers quote "regulation" to me only to be wrong when I show them the correct one, properly interpreted.

[sstaurus]

Photofly is correct but IMO arguing semantics, as anyone with a radio and common sense wouldn't ignore it if they were in an ATF. Even the AIM contradicts itself, as in the section right previous in the RAC, it mentions that "at uncontrolled aerodromes, for which an ATF or MF has been designated, certain reports shall be made by all radio equipped aircraft".

[pelmet]

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the requirement to make contact a full 5 minutes prior to entering the MF area(not 5 minutes prior to landing). This rule was implemented after a midair collision several years back just outside an MF area.

At isolated airports, this is relatively easy but at an MF airport near other airports it can be a bit more difficult as you can be on another frequency until fairly close to the MF area that you will be entering.

Recently, I was on an 8 mile flight from an uncontrolled airport to another airport with an MF. In order to comply with the 5 minute rule, I contacted the FSS at the destination airport just prior to takeoff so that I had complied with the 5 minute rule.

Also, when departing, make sure that you have contacted the FSS, etc prior to taxiing onto a taxiway. The ramp area may be OK without contacting anyone but I have seen CADORS reports and heard FSS get angry when someone taxis from the ramp on to the taxiway without making contact. It may vary from airport to airport but the taxiway leading to the runway is the one I am talking about.

[CpnCrunch]

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the requirement to make contact a full 5 minutes prior to entering the MF area(not 5 minutes prior to landing). This rule was implemented after a midair collision several years back just outside an MF area.

It just says "where circumstances permit" to report 5 minutes before entering the MF. The only requirement is to report before entering the MF.

[eh3fifty]

This poster made by Transport Canada should answer all your questions. It is not difficult. Read the poster.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp1 ... 11541e.pdf

Photofly is correct... ATF calls are NOT mandatory and you don't even need to have a radio at an ATF. For NORDO at a MF you require special procedures, however, an ATF has none.

CpnCrunch is correct as well: CAR 602.101 - "The pilot-in-command of a VFR aircraft arriving at an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall report

(a) before entering the MF area and, where circumstances permit, shall do so at least five minutes before entering the area..."

It's best to just read the regulations. They're incredibly clear and you will avoid all the BS that happens on this forum.

Use some common sense and follow the regulations. That's it. It's not hard.

[CpnCrunch]

That poster isn't terribly clear IMO. I found the RAC AIM to be the best source:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca ... _RAC_E.pdf

[niss]

Ok, this is all shit I do at a UNICOM airport. Am I wrong?

[pelmet]

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the requirement to make contact a full 5 minutes prior to entering the MF area(not 5 minutes prior to landing). This rule was implemented after a midair collision several years back just outside an MF area.

It just says "where circumstances permit" to report 5 minutes before entering the MF. The only requirement is to report before entering the MF.

Thanks Cpn. Good point that circumstances don't always permit the 5 minute thing. But that can be subjective if TC were for some reason to decide to pursue an enforcement action(such as a near miss). Circumstances did permit me to make a call prior to takeoff in the above case. And I didn't have to leave the departure airport ATF quite as early as I might have otherwise. At least my ass was covered and I knew during that takeoff that there was no reported traffic in the arrival airport area.

[photofly]

But that can be subjective if TC were for some reason to decide to pursue an enforcement action(such as a near miss).

It seems unlikely that a near miss is going to be caused by reporting outside the MF but not 5 minutes outside the MF, and if it is then one might suggest someone isn't keeping an adequate lookout.

I don't think even TC is capricious enough to try to nail someone who called only two minutes outside an MF area because they were busy with other pilot tasks.

But then again, fear and surprise are their main weapons...

[AirFrame]

Oh dear. Last refuge of someone who wants everyone to do what they say. Claim something is "mandatory", then when called on it, claim not doing it violates 602.01. Additionally, perhaps, let's throw in a reference to flying into the ground.

Sorry, it was a poor attempt at masking my error by tying the conversation back to the flying under the bridge thread where 602.01 was brought up as a "catch all" when people do things that are non-standard. The reference was apparently too obtuse.

I stand corrected. I was taught many moons ago that it was mandatory if you have a radio, but I never checked the CARs to confirm... I just assumed it was another one of those "gotchas" like the ones TC likes to test your knowledge on when you're doing a written exam. As another poster pointed out, the RAC does say (or at least it used to) that radio equipped aircraft must make calls at an ATF or MF, perhaps that's where I learned it.

In any case, although it says "should" instead of "shall", why wouldn't you?

[eh3fifty]

In any case, although it says "should" instead of "shall", why wouldn't you?

Because you're flying in your Cub and it doesn't have a radio.