Non controlled airfield circuit entry

[littlechook]

Can someone please assist? I have been trying to find out an authoritative source for circuit entry procedures to CTAF and CTAF(R) airfields. I have discovered CAR166 which authorises straight in approaches, joining on cross wind, down wind and on base, but cannot find any reference to midfield cross wind joins or joining the circuit at 45 degrees to the downwind leg which if memory serves me correctly were introduced a few years ago and which were publicized by a free DVD. Am I being a little cynical here or are we being encouraged (directed) by CASA to use procedures which are not in fact covered by regulation? If that is the case are we being set up for a huge lawsuit should we be involved in an accident joining the circuit midfield crosswind or at 45 degrees to downwind?

[DH 200']

The AIP covers it. Suggest you read ENR 1.1 - 86

[AerocatS2A]

Para 64.5.1 "Circuit Entry" is what you need to read. Note that the 45 degree mid-downwind join is recommended only, if traffic dictates you do something else then do something else (is anyone actually doing the 45 degree join?)

[Lodown]

I wouldn't worry too much about a lawsuit for an accident in the circuit. If you have a bingle, chances are you'll be promising to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in person.

[100.above]

While where on topic what goose changed the radio procedures to a call at 1/3 instead of 3/5. Seems silly as a 1 mile finial your already in harms way. :ugh:

[gutso-blundo]

CAR states you can join on the base leg at certain aerodromes:

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft may join the circuit pattern
at a non-controlled aerodrome on the base leg, for the direction
in which landing is to be undertaken, only if:
(a) CASA has given approval to do so; and
(b) details of the approval have been published in AIP.


Anyone know where the approvals are written? Or is it in a sup?

[bentleg]

Anyone know where the approvals are written?

That's the type of thing I would expect to read in ERSA. For example at Camden during CTAF hours an upwind entry at 1800 is mandated (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YSCN_19-Nov-2009.pdf).

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I have discovered CAR166 which authorises straight in approaches, joining on cross wind, down wind and on base

Yes, but as the previous couple of posts have stated, I think it's important to reiterate, JOINING BASE IS NOT A STANDARD PROCEDURE.

While the AIP states the recommended join procedures are mid-field x-wind and downwind (yes, straight in is an option), as long as the old rule of three legs minimum is followed you are legal.
The benefit of following recommended procedures is that there are only two points in the circuit where you would expect to see aircraft joining the circuit.
If everyone actually follows these recommendations (instead of doing everything but, just because they can:ugh:) there is a lot less scope for conflict. Doesn't mean you can drop lookouts though.
Just ask my student the other week when an early join on DW missed us by about 20 metres. No radio heard, just my insistence on a pre-downwind lookout that meant we spotted him in time (barely).:mad:
Vertical avoidance (yep, that pretty much describes the attitude attained) and an incident report followed.

[VH-XXX]

Don't get too familiar with the joins, they will likely be changing soon and joining on base will be part of the changes.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Yeah, can't wait till I go head on with someone who decides to do a straight-in appch against the cct direction.:hmm:

The 3nm final join has its good points though.

Also be interesting to see how many low timers screw up the approaches until they get some experience (read as judgement) under their belt. Hopefully, go-arounds should be the worst result, not an overcooked landing and overrun.

Personally I don't see a problem with the joins we have now.

[Zoomy]

Actually, joining on base would have to be one of the safest.

Brilliant view of the entire circuit and on the ground and out of the way sooner. This procedure should be brought in asap.:ok:

[VH-XXX]

Brilliant view of the entire circuit and on the ground and out of the way sooner. This procedure should be brought in asap.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Thanks to campaigning by fellow Pruner Dick Smith, hopefully you will be able to join on base very soon hence my earlier post.

Hopefully Dick comes back here, he's busy today talking about slowing down the Australian population explosion.

[AerocatS2A]

Base joins will be good, it's something I miss from my NZ flying (that and the scenery ;).)

[j3pipercub]

What other things do you miss?

Baaaaaaaaa

j3

P.S. Its Aussie day eve and it would be un-patriotic NOT to take the piss outta K1W1S... :)

[Fragnasty]

That's the type of thing I would expect to read in ERSA. For example at Camden during CTAF hours an upwind entry at 1800 is mandated.

What if you get there at 1700? Is there a designated holding area until the place opens an hour later? What about winter when it's dark at 1800? Surely this is not fair for our Day VFR bretheren...

[MikeTangoEcho]

I read it as 1800ft.. :confused:

[eocvictim]

Well I think that depend on whether its 1700 EST local, EDST or UTC.

[bentleg]

Well I think that depend on whether its 1700 EST local, EDST or UTC.


If you took the trouble to read the link (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YSCN_19-Nov-2009.pdf)I provided you would see at para 11 g (ii) Join the circuit on upwind at 1800FT

[DrMatt]

I think that was a joke. :)

[Aerohooligan]

Seriously, THANKYOU for providing that reference, and may I draw attention for everyone to the fact that it MANDATES circuits and t/off and ldg be conducted on the MOST INTO WIND RUNWAY!!! It is really starting to **** me that somepilots think they are immune to this RULE and it has a tendency to ruin everyones' day. Oddly enough it seems to be turbine drivers quite often...ie PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

Rant complete, resume normal functions people. :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AIP ENR 63-64 (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/aip/enr/1_1_1-116.pdf)

Littlechook...its all there. If the AIP says its so and provided ERSA says its so for particular aerodrome then you are legally covered to do a 45 on the live and be legal. A 45 entry has right of way over aircraft entering from the dead side. A 45 entry must give way to aircraft already on downwind.

Personally, I can see grief in any changes that allow a straight in approach to be established on the centreline no later than 500m to be open slather for any direction 45D either side of runway direction. How do you make a call for a straight in approach from 10nm 3nm and 1nm out if you have an intention to be established on the final leg 500m out from threshold. The 5nm rule at least puts you on a steady approach that will allow other pilots to extend the centreline and find you.

Dick's campaign falls over when there are other aircraft in the circuit. His premise is built around the croppy and station owner being able to legally land at their own field with a minimum of requirments...it doesn't hold water at a busy field.

[AussieNick]

OZ, i really doubt that croppy/station owner is going to be doing the proper circuit procedure as mandated in the AIP at their own field when the possibility of another 'foreign' aircraft been around is a very remote chance.

I too have noticed the tendency for some pilots to take a straight in approach that takes them into the direction of aircraft all ready established in the pattern, and those who have called their taxi intentions for the same runway

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AussieNick...I wouldn't be surprised. However, Dick argued that LEGALLY they had to do three legs as a minimum for any circuit as per the old rules. Hence the change...he never argued for RPT to openslather approaches just a consequence of arguing for the croppy/station aircraft.

[Fragnasty]

If you took the trouble to read the link I provided you would see at para 11 g (ii)

Well why not be accurate and put it in your post in the first place? Mind you, we wouldn't have had our bit of fun if you had, so thanks for leaving it out.

And no fun for anyone if it's 1800 UTC....

[VH-XXX]

Dick's campaign falls over when there are other aircraft in the circuit. His premise is built around the croppy and station owner being able to legally land at their own field with a minimum of requirments...it doesn't hold water at a busy field.

The "campaign" you speak of is based not on a cattle station but operations in the USA considered to be best practice and Australia is obliged to follow unless the safety and practicality are compromised.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Yes XXX, But could you imagine Dick making the argument stick by saying "Expect RPT to blast in to your CTAF...straight-in and downwind without a "by your leave"...how far do you think the argument would have proceded before being knocked in the nether regions by the towling hat brigade that do now enjoy the legality of their traditional practices.

It was all politics and how the argument was aimed to get the right support. Anyway, it is only a training issue. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with straight-ins or 45 live entry procedures. They are a good idea....provided everyone plays nice about it. ANYWAY, I think I am leading a thread drift. Best to return to topic. AIP OK? ERSA OK? LEGALLY OK!:ok:

[bentleg]

Well why not be accurate and put it in your post in the first place?

Read it AGAIN. For example at Camden during CTAF hours an upwind entry at 1800 is mandated (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YSCN_19-Nov-2009.pdf). However I did leave out "FT" - now you are being pedantic. Glad I provided some fun.

As another issue, more in line with the thread, is there anywhere where base entry is specially allowed?

[Howard Hughes]

Yeah, can't wait till I go head on with someone who decides to do a straight-in appch against the cct direction.
Mate, this goes on all the time at places like Port Macquarie and Wagga, where larger aircraft maybe limited by taxiways! Nothing wrong with joining a five mile final as the circuit traffic turns crosswind!;)

Fairly sure that in the US if joining on base, you need to give way to those already established in the circuit, much like you do if you join final here.:ok:

[Fragnasty]

bentleg,

I have read it AGAIN. (No need to shout old boy). You still haven't differentiated between an altitude and a time. Or the cc rating of my old car for that matter. You might well say I'm being pedantic, and some might use the word 'accurate' instead.

Tragically, aviation is full of accidents where people have applied the TLAR (That Looks About Right) approach, as opposed to an accurate one, especially when they have the right information at their disposal.

So all I'm saying, is for the sake of a small bit of effort, we can all make things as clear as possible, and avoid the possibility of misunderstandings - which are easy to sort out as we sip on a cappucino and browse the web, but a bit more difficult when the fuel's getting low on a dark and stormy night.


And as far as entry to the circuit via the base leg goes, CAR 166, subregulation (4) provides for it as follows:

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft may join the circuit pattern
at a non-controlled aerodrome on the base leg, for the direction
in which landing is to be undertaken, only if:

(a) CASA has given approval to do so; and

(b) details of the approval have been published in AIP.


So there you go. A little bit of effort, and misunderstanding all cleared up. Mind you, I'm not saying any more than gutso-blundo correctly pointed out in link #6 of this thread....


Choice bro'!

[Mr Whippy]

that it MANDATES circuits and t/off and ldg be conducted on the MOST INTO WIND RUNWAY!!!

Aerohooligan, go back and read the AIP closely. An 'operational reason' can justify other than an into wind landing.

Also CAR166(2)(f) says:

to the extent practicable, land and take off into the wind;

So sure it might not always be good airmanship taking off or landing downwind, but it's not MANDATORY. For example, what if you're faced with taking off from a sloped runway with a wind blowing down the hill? Distance calcs might reveal it's more prudent to take off down the hill with the tailwind.

The other side of the coin however is if you prang it downwind you're going to have to have a pretty good justification.

Like most things it's all there in black and white but it's as grey as.