Air Law Question: Turn onto final
 

Hi guys,

I am sitting my CPL Air Law exam shortly and have been studying with the Bob Tait text book that was issued in December 2008. Obviously there has been a few changes since then. I am seeking clarification with regards to the turn on to final approach.

In the textbook it refers to CAR 166, Part F for the reference that the turn ontoto final must be made before 500 metres from the aerodrome boundary. The latest version of the CARs does not have 'Part F'. Instead, AIP ENR 1.1 p48.5.6 says

" In any case, the turn onto final should be completed by not less that 500ft above aerodrome elevation."

So what I am seeking confirmation on is

1) Has the requirement to be established on final by 500 metres from the aerodrome boundary been dismissed? and
2) The fact that the word 'should' is in the AIP reference does not make it legally binding does it? Obviously we are taught from the start of our training to have turned onto final by reaching 500ft agl.

I would just like to know what correct answer will be in the exam as it is different in the text book practice exams I have done (correct answer in the text is 'by 500 metres from the aerodrome boundary')

Thanks for your help,

Opso

500m from the aerodrome boundary is an old rule. They changed it to 500m from the landing threshold, and then changed it again to what AIP currently says.

Current documents always supersede textbooks from two years ago.

And yes, the word should does mean it's not mandatory. But if you prang while turning final at 100ft, you better have a good reason why you were lower than 500.

Thanks for the reply. Of course I will adhere to what the AIP says - always have. Just wanted to make sure that is what the correct answer on the exam will be as the questions can be know for being a bit 'tricky' with the way they are worded and all.

Bob Tait has recently updated his AirLaw CPL Book and the updates are freely available from his website.

This will help:
Updates and Errata

Scroll to the bottom and download the CPL Airlaw Update. :}

Good luck with that exam :ok:

Presumably the leeway in the "rule" is to allow pilots to do what is safest in a particular set of circumstances. Pilots of some tail-draggers with no flaps and poor forward vis on approach may prefer to fly a curved approach, or terrain considerations may preclude a straight approach from 500'.

Thanks for the heads up major_tom:ok:

I think you'll find 'should' is still legally binding. I can't find the reference at the moment, but always thought it was out there.

I don't think so, "should" is typically distinct from "shall" and "will", but if someone knows better I'm all ears.

From the AIP:

gotta love the ambiguities CASA give lol. I like how in the bob tait IREX he states

That's easy, it just means if you use 10 degrees bank for half the turn you have to use 40 degrees for the rest of it :E.

Folks,

Could I suggest you read the new CAR 166 in its entirety, plus associated advisory material.

It's all on the CASA web site.

Remember that the AIP is generally advisory, unless it references a piece of legislation.

Tootle pip!!

LS is correct, its in the CARs. Good luck with the exam.

In AIP/Jepp, the terms "must", "should" and "recommend/ed" are mostly used.

For example:

* High performance aircraft are recommended to fly a circuit height of 1500 AGL (ATC AU-715),

* Aircraft should not be operated in the circuit at an IAS of more than 200kts (ATC AU-714), and,

* A departing IFR aircraft must establish on the outbound track within 5NM of the aerodrome (ATC AU-715).

The use of language in the legislation, IMHO is one of the things that is very correct.

Once aware of the function of language ( must=must, should=suggestion/good idea etc etc) within the various publications, I believe the information is more easily understood and far less daunting.

The previous CAR 1988 compilation (Start Date 01/10/2009) had the following:

166 (2) (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

I couldn't find any reference to this in the most recent compilation (Start Date 03/06/2010).

ComLaw Management - Series- Civil Aviation Regulations 1988

The Macquarie Dictionary is the reference publication for the terminology in the CAR,CAO and AIP. If it gets hard to understand, start there (although I must admit I can still get lost !!!).

What civilian aircraft type would require that technique?

Pitts Special and Tiger Moth are two. You can make a straight in approach with sideslip but I always found a curved approach to be preferable.

Nadsy,
Could it be, by any chance, just possibly, in all probability, maybe, that you can't find it ----- because it's not there!!

Just read the current regulation ----- and it would seem that you and others do not understand that the new procedures are quite a departure from the previous prescriptive agglomeration spread around the Regs. and AIP ---- and are, and are intended to be, much more flexible.

A37575,
P51D, plenty of civil registered.

Tootle pip!!