Q: IFR Circling in VMC Conditions

[SmokingHole]

404

“SHALL” doesn’t mean “MUST”. It is simply the present of “SHOULD”

Hmmm, don't think so. Two different words
eg
'I shall prove you wrong' - I intend to prove you wrong (future tense actually)

'I should prove you wrong' - It is my duty or obligation to prove you wrong.

Ever read a Bible? Thou shalt (shall) not commit murder. Pretty sure that's a requirement.

Ok thread drift over

[AerocatS2A]

The legal meaning of "shall" is not necessarily the same as the everyday meaning.

Normally documents that use words like "shall", "should", "must" etc, have some instructions as to what is meant by each word. I didn't find anything like that in the CARs. However I've seen other legal documents where "shall" is used where some discretion is appropriate, i.e., it does not mean "must." Of couurse this is all moot now that it's been pointed out that the current regs say "must."

[404 Titan]

werbil

OK I will grant you that my CAR’s are not current. They don’t need to be as I haven’t flown an Aus registered aircraft in seven years. One must ask though why they changed it from “SHALL” to “MUST”?

Now getting back to the debate. DAPS are part of the AIP. CAR 166 para 4 states you can join the circuit on base for a runway if CASA has given approval and the approval is in the AIP. If there is an IAL chart for a particular non-controlled airport, this constitutes CASA’s approval being published in the AIP and such makes is perfectly acceptable and legal to conduct this approach in VMC and if required join the circuit on base to land.

CAR 166 para 4

(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.


AIP GEN 0.1

3. AIP AUSTRALIA – DOCUMENTS INVOLVED

3.1 AIP Australia is provided through the medium of the following documents and charts:
• AIP Book
• En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA)
• Departure and Approach Procedures (East and West) – (DAPS EAST & DAPS WEST)
• AIP Supplement (SUP)
• NOTAM
• Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC)
• Terminal Area Chart (TAC)
• En Route Chart (High and Low) – (ERC-H & ERC-L)
• Planning Chart Australia (PCA)
• Visual Navigation Chart (VNC)
• Designated Airspace Handbook – DAH

3.2 All the documents and charts identified at para 3.1 comprise the Integrated AIP Package. The primary document is the AIP Book which is supplemented by the other documents and charts.

[404 Titan]

SmokingHole

Don’t confuse what you think the meaning of the word is and what the legal system thinks it means. Quite often they are different. Hence most peoples inability to comprehend the contents of a legal document.

[SmokingHole]

here'y'go 404

[In many requirement specifications, the words shall and will have special meaning. Most requirement specifications use the word shall to denote a requirement. The word will is reserved for a statement of fact. However, some documents deviate from this convention and use the words shall, will, and should to denote the strength of the requirement. Well-written requirement specifications define these words near the beginning of the document.

You said

If there is an IAL chart for a particular non-controlled airport, this constitutes CASA’s approval being published in the AIP and such makes is perfectly acceptable and legal to conduct this approach in VMC and if required join the circuit on base to land.

That's your opinion buddy. Not a reg.

[Chimbu chuckles]

night does not affect the definition of VMC

I would argue that it does...are you legally VFR/in VMC at night with no visible horizon...obscured by either total darkness, rain, smoke haze or a combination? There is a section of the CARs that addresses effective visibility that references glare etc. There used to be words (still?) that said "Navigate with reference to the ground or water"...that, in my view, means 'navigate' in the total sense...as in remain upright.

You might still have 5k vis and be clear of cloud but if you have no real horizon you're not in VMC you're in IMC irrespective of the other VMC qualifiers.

I think perhaps some posters are letting the word MUST completely overpower the words UNLESS and do not apply if...

There are more than adequate 'outs' that a sensible pilot would very rarely be in a position where he MUST fly 3 legs...particularly at night.

And then there is the giving way bit...in my view I have right of way over aircraft on base once I am inside 5nm from the threshold having made the appropriate radio call at 5nm. No way do I need to 'give way' to an aircraft on base or 'any other aircraft established in the circuit' when I am on 3nm final any more than I would if I simply turned base/final as number 1 in the circuit.

Then there is good airmanship and common sense and my ultimate responsibility to myself and pax as PIC...nothing in the CARs overides my decision provided I can justify that decision.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

For the senario given,

"You have completed an instrument approach at a non-controlled aerodrome at night.
Conditions: SKC and GT10km vis (ie VMC)
The approach positions you on an a long obleque base.
Are you permitted to complete a circling approach off the instrument approach to join final, or are you required to complete the three legs of the circuit due to the prevailing VMC conditions. Ie in this case join upwind at normal circuit altitude."

I still cannot imagine circumstances in which I would not just intercept finals and land.

Traffic? Surely I would have sorted that out by radio before commencing the Appr or during if necessary. Given that I am in VMC at night it is unlikely that someone will suddenly pop up in the circuit unannounced that I would not have seen.

Black holes? How can that be any more of an issue to me at night in VMC than it would be in reduced vis (ie non-VFR), unless of course I am making the mistake of operating in that no-man's-land between VFR and IFR - now that WILL get you killed. I think the black hole effect is less of an issue these days for a pilot who is paying attention. GPS puts a DME at every aerodrome and allows you to cross reference your altitude/position at any point during the approach and landing.

Regs? Ahhh! Just goes to prove that too much knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I just cannot see that climbing back to circuit height and flying 6 legs of a circuit is a sensible thing to do in these circumstances.

..... and given that I would be on the GPS RNAV Appr anyway, its all theoretical!

Dr

[404 Titan]

SmokingHole

However, some documents deviate from this convention and use the words shall, will, and should to denote the strength of the requirement.

The way they have used most of these words would suggest this is exactly what they have done.

Well-written requirement specifications define these words near the beginning of the document.

Who ever said the CAR’s were well written. It is one of the worst pieces of law I have read.

That's your opinion buddy. Not a reg.

Yes it is Reg. It is clearly written in CAR 166 Paragraph 4 for all to see. It is also a legal fact that the DAPS are part of the AIP which have been written by CASA. If they have been written by CASA, they have been approved by CASA. If you are having trouble joining the dots here, ask yourself this question, how do flying schools legally conduct IFR training at non-controlled aerodromes in VMC to the minima and land (and please don’t tell me it is simulated IMC. It is still being conducted in VMC) and how do pilots in the bush keep themselves current when for most of the year there isn’t a cloud in the sky?

[werbil]

CC,

I am putting forward what is legal, not what is sensible. VMC is very specifically defined and the definition is distance from cloud and the distance that you an see an object with adequate illumination from. To fly under the VFR below 2000AGL you must be able to navigate solely by reference to the ground or water, but this does not define VMC.

CAR 166 (3) is very specific about who has to give way when an aircraft is conducting a straight in approach:

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft may carry out a straight-in approach to a non-controlled aerodrome only if:

.....

(e) the pilot gives way to any other aircraft established and flying in the circuit pattern at the aerodrome.

Mind you a pilot in the circuit through good airmanship should adjust his/her pattern to let an aircraft on a straight in approach land, but it is not a legal requirement. IMHO deciding that you have right of way in blatant contravention to the regulations is extremely dangerous.

Then there is good airmanship and common sense and my ultimate responsibility to myself and pax as PIC...nothing in the CARs overides my decision provided I can justify that decision.

I agree with the first half 200% , just be honest and prepared to cop it on the chin if you choose to break the rules and CASA decides to pay a visit.

FTDK

Regs? Ahhh! Just goes to prove that too much knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Love it. You have no arguement from me as I believe that following the regs is far more dangerous in this case.

404Titan

You are still required to comply with Australian regs when you fly in Aus airspace - granted if you are not flying Aus registered aircraft it is unlikely you will be operating at a non controlled aerodrome.

I would love to be proven wrong - please show me a reference anywhere in any part of the AIP that specifically permits it.

If there is an IAL chart for a particular non-controlled airport, this constitutes CASA’s approval being published in the AIP and such makes is perfectly acceptable and legal to conduct this approach in VMC and if required join the circuit on base to land.

I doubt any lawyer or court (in Australia) would agree with you - except of course if the chart says no circling or you may join the circuit as you see fit in VMC.

how do flying schools legally conduct IFR training at non-controlled aerodromes in VMC to the minima and land (and please don’t tell me it is simulated IMC. It is still being conducted in VMC) and how do pilots in the bush keep themselves current when for most of the year there isn’t a cloud in the sky?

Simple - they break the law.

[haughtney1]

Simple - they break the law

So now you are saying that CASA in the same breath approve reg's on the basis of clearly ambiguous and poorly written rules...and yet in the same sentence..are happy to allow flying schools and bush pilots to flagrantly operate outside the law?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

So what is the argument behind this Reg?

It has to be traffic related only, as far as I can see, as the senario as described is identical to the position you are in (admittedly at a greater altitude) when you come into Townsville from Cairns and they put you on 07. You arrive obliquely to a left base leg for 07.

I don't fly much at night but I found myself in this exact situation on Wednesday evening. I always find it a challenge to judge height/distance at night from that position or on a straight-in approach, and rely on the GPS to try to put myself in the right place at a comfortable height from which to complete the final approach and landing. At an aerodrome like Townsville where they put stuff up to Dash 8 size onto 07 (and charge me $13 every time I land) you would think that Papi would not go astray on that runway. The other night re-inforced to me how difficult it can be to judge height/distance at night on approach to an runway that I have landed on hundreds of time, and illustrated just how easily you could be way too low on finals.

If there is some inherent safety issue for flying 3 legs of a circuit at night in VMC, other than traffic, then why not do it at TL?

APOLOGIES for minor thread drift, but I found this exchange kinda amusing .....

This was not an issue for me the other night cause, courtesy of a "Maintain maximum speed to the field" request from TL Approach (is 190 over the ground fast enough for you?), and being mindful of the top of the green arc and engine cooling issue, and being reminded of how f*cking difficult it is to find that runway among the lights - I arrived on a close base leg at about 3000'. As I finally identified the runway - just under my nose:

TL Tower: XXX, confirm you can land from that position?
Me: Ahhhh, XXX affirmative.

Fortunately I already had the power way back, so a quick level off, speed back, gear down, 10o flap had me roll out on a short final at 750' - the gear is a great speed brake in the Bo. I touched down about 200 m in.

TL Tower: XXX, my apologies. You looked high from here! Must have been an illusion.

Its probably a good thing they don't let me fly jets. I assume a 1000 fpm descent on base leg wouldn't qualify as a stable approach.

Dr

[haughtney1]

Its probably a good thing they don't let me fly jets. I assume a 1000 fpm descent on base leg wouldn't qualify as a stable approach.

Fork mate.....if I was dishing out jet jobs..you'd be on the list...only if ya let me fly the Fork that is

[404 Titan]

werbil

I would love to be proven wrong - please show me a reference anywhere in any part of the AIP that specifically permits it.

With any legislation it is a case of joining the dots. CASA has given approval in accordance with CAR 166 paragraph 4 by publishing a IAL chart for a particular AD in the DAPS which is part of the AIP. Casa have also given a blanket “opt out” approval (for lack of a better expression) in AIP ENR 1.1 para 64.2 by use of the word “should”. While my interpretation of the word “shall” was incorrect if the same rules apply to the CAR’s, AIP GEN 0.1 para 6.4 clearly states the exact meaning of the word “should”.

I doubt any lawyer or court (in Australia) would agree with you - except of course if the chart says no circling or you may join the circuit as you see fit in VMC.

Where does it say on an IAL chart that the procedure can only be flown in IMC? I’ve never seen that. CAR 166 clearly states if 3 or 4 are applicable. Paragraph 3 isn’t applicable to this debate but paragraph 4 clearly is.

Simple - they break the law.

Rubbish. They are complying exactly with CAR 166 paragraph 4 and the relevant IAL chart approved by CASA in the AIP.

166 Operating in vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome

(1) For this regulation and regulation 166A, an aircraft is in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome if it is within:
(a) airspace other than controlled airspace; and
(b) a horizontal distance of 10 miles from the aerodrome; and
(c) a height above the aerodrome reference point of the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome.

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome must:
(a) maintain a look-out for other aerodrome traffic to avoid collision; and
(b) ensure that the aircraft does not cause a danger to other aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome; and
(c) conform with, or avoid, the circuit pattern; and
(d) unless subregulation (3) or (4) applies — when approaching the aerodrome to land, join the circuit pattern for the direction in which landing is to be undertaken on the upwind, crosswind or downwind leg; and
Note A circuit pattern has upwind, cross-wind, down-wind, base and final legs.
(e) after joining the circuit pattern for a landing or after taking off:
(i) if CASA has directed for the aerodrome that all turns be made in a particular direction — make all turns in compliance with CASA’s directions; or
(ii) if subparagraph (i) does not apply and visual signals are displayed at the aerodrome indicating a direction to make all turns — make all turns in compliance with the visual signals; or
(iii) in any other case — make all turns to the left; and
(f) to the extent practicable, land and take off into the wind; and
(g) before landing, descend in a straight line starting at least 500 metres from the threshold of the landing runway and at a distance common to the ordinary course of navigation for the aircraft type; and
(h) after take-off, maintain the same track from the take-off until the aircraft is 500 feet above the terrain unless a change to the track is necessary for terrain avoidance.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft may carry out a straight-in approach to a non-controlled aerodrome only if:
(a) the aircraft is equipped with serviceable radio; and
(b) the pilot broadcasts the intention to do so on the VHF frequency in use at the aerodrome; and
(c) before starting the approach, the pilot determines wind direction and runways in use; and
(d) the pilot carries out all manoeuvring, to establish the aircraft on final approach, at least 5 miles from the threshold of the landing runway intended to be used; and
(e) the pilot gives way to any other aircraft established and flying in the circuit pattern at the aerodrome.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(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.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(5) Paragraphs (2) (d) and (3) (b), (c) and (d) do not apply if:
(a) the pilot is conducting an instrument approach in I.M.C.; and
(b) the instrument approach procedure positions the aircraft to join the circuit other than on the upwind, cross-wind or down-wind leg of the circuit pattern.

(6) A pilot in command may operate an aircraft in the vicinity of an uncontrolled aerodrome that is designated under regulation 166A only if:
(a) the aircraft has a serviceable VHF radio; or
(b) the operation is authorised in writing by CASA.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(7) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not take the aircraft off from, or land the aircraft on, a part of a non-controlled aerodrome outside the landing area of the aerodrome.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(8) An offence against subregulation (2), (3), (4), (6) or (7) is an offence of strict liability.

AIP GEN 0.1

4.6 Throughout the AIP the term “should” implies that all users are encouraged to conform with the applicable procedure. The verbs “must” and “shall” are synonymous and mean that the applicable procedure is mandatory and supported by regulations or orders. The word “must” is preferred over “shall” and is used almost exclusively throughout the AIP Book.

AIP ENR 1.1

64.2 An aircraft approaching a non-towered aerodrome for landing should join the circuit in accordance with para 64.5 unless it is:
a. following an instrument approach procedure in IMC; or
b. conducting a visual circling procedure in IMC after completion of an instrument approach procedure; or
c. conducting a straight-in approach in accordance with 64.6

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"...only if ya let me fly the Fork that is "

Any time mate. You know where to find me!

Dr

[werbil]

404Titan,

I do not believe that that an IAL chart constitutes approval for CAR166 (4) as CAR 166 (5) specifically refers to flying an approach in IMC, and all approaches are required to be published in AIP. Once again AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 says you should join in the appropriate manner (3 legs or straight in outside 5nm), it does not say you may join the circuit on base in IMC. The fact that AIP says you should does not on its own allow you to do otherwise when CAR says you must.

To fix the problem, all industry has to do is to is:
(a) get parliament to remove the words "in IMC" from CAR 166 (5), or
(b) get parliament to add the words "or at night" to CAR 166 (5), or
(c) get parliament to repeals CAR 166 (2) (d), or
(d) get CASA to add AIP 1.1 64.2A (or similar) "An aircraft conducting an instrument approach may join base in VMC", or
(e) get CASA to add AIP 1.1 64.2A (or similar) "An aircraft conducting an instrument approach may join base at night in VMC".

(d) & (e) would be easier to implement (no requirement to table before parliament), and (d) would cover training / recency issues raised as well.

Personally, I would rather see (c), but that is another topic not for this thread.

FTDK,

I concur, it has to be traffic related. CAR 166 does not apply to controlled aerodromes.

[404 Titan]

werbil

I do not believe that that an IAL chart constitutes approval for CAR166 (4) as CAR 166 (5) specifically refers to flying an approach in IMC, and all approaches are required to be published in AIP.

You will have to point out to us the exact reference that specifies an IAL in the DAPS which is a part of the AIP isn’t written approval from CASA to conduct the IFR procedure in VMC and join the circuit base for landing. I can't find one.

The point I am trying to make is that the parliament has authorised CASA that it can ignore the rest of CAR 166 if paragraph 4 is complied with. Therefore if you comply with paragraph 4 you can ignore the rest of CAR 166. AS I have said, unless you can show us that an IAL doesn’t comply with the intent of the legislation, I’m afraid it would stand up in a court of law.

Once again AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 says you should join in the appropriate manner (3 legs or straight in outside 5nm), it does not say you may join the circuit on base in IMC. The fact that AIP says you should does not on its own allow you to do otherwise when CAR says you must.

As for the word “should” in AIP ENR 1.1 64.2, lets just replace it with the word “encourage”. This is after all what CASA said it means in AIP GEN 0.1 4.6.

AIP ENR 1.1

64.2 An aircraft approaching a non-towered aerodrome for landing is encouraged to join the circuit in accordance with para 64.5 unless it is:
a. following an instrument approach procedure in IMC; or
b. conducting a visual circling procedure in IMC after completion of an instrument approach procedure; or
c. conducting a straight-in approach in accordance with 64.6

AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 also legally fulfils the requirements of CAR 166 paragraph 4 i.e. you can ignore the rest of CAR 166. Being “encouraged” to do something is to be “advised” to do it. I would very strongly doubt CASA would advise someone to do three legs of the circuit if they have just done an approach in VMC at night and the Mapt places them on an oblique base for a safe landing.

You have got to look at the "intent" of the legislation rather than just the words. Once you do this it becomes clear what CASA is trying to do.

[Jet_A_Knight]

You might still have 5k vis and be clear of cloud but if you have no real horizon you're not in VMC you're in IMC irrespective of the other VMC qualifiers.

As usual, Chimbu, well said

[werbil]

404Titan.

I am not at all convinced that an IAL procedure on its own means that "CASA has given approval to do so" for the purposes of CAR 166 (4).

CAR 166(4) requires CASA to (a) approve and (b) publish the approval in AIP. The lack of a specific disapproval is not approval.

Even if in AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 you replace should with encourage, or may, or even with must it doesn't alter my argument.

As to intent, I believe the reason for CAR 166 is to reduce the risk of collision in the circuit by requiring aircraft arriving at an uncontrolled aerodrome in VMC to either fly 3 legs of the circuit or join a straight in approach outside 5nm. I personally think that given some of the posted scenarios (ie night) it is stupid.

CASA can easily amend the AIP and to make it legal.


Jet_A_Knight.

The ability to see the horizon is not part of the definition of VMC - refer to CAR 2:

2 Interpretation
(1) In these Regulations, unless the contrary intention appears:
.....
I.M.C. is the symbol used to designate meteorological conditions other than those designated by the symbol “V.M.C.”.
.....
V.M.C. is the symbol used to designate meteorological conditions in which the flight visibility and distances from cloud during a flight are equal to, or greater than, the applicable distances determined by CASA under subregulation 172 (2).

I have never seen a requirement for VMC published by CASA that includes the requirement to have a "real horizon". ENR 1.2 2 does not even mention the word.

Mind you I do agree with you and CC that even though you can legally be VFR in VMC without a horizon, for all intents and purposes you are actually IFR.

[Chimbu chuckles]

What about CAR 174(4)

Determination of visibility for V.F.R. flights
(1) Flight visibility shall be determined by the pilot in command from the
cockpit of the aircraft while in flight.
(3) Subject to regulation 257, the pilot in command of an aircraft
operating under the Visual Flight Rules is responsible for determining
the visibility for the take-off and landing of the aircraft.
(4) In determining visibility for the purposes of this regulation, the pilot in command shall take into account the meteorological conditions, sunglare and any other condition that may limit his or her effective vision through his or her windscreen.

So if you have no natural horizon are you complying with the VFR?

Non instrument rated pilots are not trained, nor permitted, to fly solely by reference to the flight instruments. Thus I would suggest that a natural visual horizon is a requirement for VMC...big emphasis on the V.

What happened to CAR174 (2)

[404 Titan]

werbil

I am not at all convinced that an IAL procedure on its own means that "CASA has given approval to do so" for the purposes of CAR 166 (4). CAR 166(4) requires CASA to (a) approve and (b) publish the approval in AIP. The lack of a specific disapproval is not approval.

I really don’t know how to make this any simpler? By having an IAL designed, CASA through ASA has approved a procedure. Having it published in the DAPS which is part of the AIP is fulfilling the second part of the requirement.

Even if in AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 you replace should with encourage, or may, or even with must it doesn't alter my argument.

I’m sorry but it does. As CASA have fulfilled the requirements of CAR 166 para 4, they have shifted the legal responsibility from the CAR’s to the AIP’s. As AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 says “should” i.e. “encourage”, it removes the legal burden from having to comply with CAR 166.

As to intent, I believe the reason for CAR 166 is to reduce the risk of collision in the circuit by requiring aircraft arriving at an uncontrolled aerodrome in VMC to either fly 3 legs of the circuit or join a straight in approach outside 5nm. I personally think that given some of the posted scenarios (ie night) it is stupid.

The intent of CAR 166 or more specifically CAR 166 para 4 is to give CASA the ability where required to grant a blanket dispensation as they have done here or a one off dispensation.

CASA can easily amend the AIP and to make it legal.

Yes they could amend it and the CAR’s. But in the end though they won’t because the way it is now it is legal. If it wasn’t CASA would have to take action against pilots on a very regular basis because under the CAR’s there is no scope for ignoring a breach.

Chimbu chuckles

Agree 100%.