VFR Traffic pattern - Official Law Source

[Breakthesilence]

Hi guys,

we all started our flying school studying on different books, notes etc. and got instructor teaching how to fly and comply with the rules.
It's often bypassed where some rules are contained and their reference documents.

What I struggle to find is an official reference (i.e. ICAO) where a standard VFR traffic pattern entry/exits are indicated.
We all know that when leaving after departure, we should take a 45° track on the circuit side, the same applies when joining the downwind, it should be intercepted with a 45° angle.

I'm wondering if this is just a "best practice" or if it's clearly stated somewhere (I checked the ICAO Doc 4444 but nothing found there).

PS: Not FAA rules, I'm looking for ICAO or EU regulations.

Do you have any suggestion about it?

Many thanks!

BTS

[BEagle]

We all know that when leaving after departure, we should take a 45° track on the circuit side, the same applies when joining the downwind, it should be intercepted with a 45° angle.

Not so in the UK!

[Jhieminga]

BTS, please note that if you're looking for an 'official law source', ICAO is never going to be the answer. The agreements set out in the various ICAO Annexes and Docs only obtain any legality upon them being referenced or copied into national laws.
Having said that... ICAO Annex 2 'Rules of the Air' does mention an Aerodrome Traffic Circuit but does not define it, which leaves room for the national laws to define their version. I would suggest looking at the ENR part of your national AIP, it's probably in there. The Dutch AIP covers it under ENR 1.2 Visual Flight Rules.

[Whopity]

As Beagle says thats not universal by any means. ICAO only provides recomendations not Law. This diagram produced by CASA in Australia provides some guidance on how the rest of the World do it.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/645x450/sp_142_2_1024x1024_2x_b57ab4359c94c2b73769869773d177979beccb 60.jpg

[chevvron]

Breakthesilence:
In order to get a more definitve answer to your query, you'll need to reveal more of your profile; a good starting point is 'what country are you referring to'?
Different countries have different interpretations of ICAO SARPs; you refer to '45 deg joins and leavers' whereas in the UK, a VFR overhead join is usually (but not always) the norm.

[TheOddOne]

Several UK aerodromes specifically state that overhead joins should not be made, usually because of other incompatible aerodrome activities such as parachuting or glider winch launching. Other aerodromes don't want you joining from specific directions due to conflicts with other nearby aerodromes or noise sensitive areas. It's always best to call your intended destination for a detailed brief - you should always call ahead anyway to make sure they're even open. Many people deride the 'PPR' principle but in our case it saved someone trying to turn up when the whole aerodrome was closed for a surface event. It had also been NOTAM'd, but, hey, who reads those?!

TOO

ps I actually like the idea of the 45 deg join to the downwind, as is popular with our Transatlantic cousins, as an alternative to the deadside join to the crosswind, which I also really like.

[chevvron]

I actually like the idea of the 45 deg join to the downwind, as is popular with our Transatlantic cousins,
When I first checked out at Denham, I was taught to do it this way due to the fact you had to maintain not above 1,000ft QNH in the circuit because of traffic in/out of Northolt. Unfortunately the position of the join was disputable; some used to join at the beginning of the downwind leg, others would join anywhere downwind leading to numerous instances of people cutting in ahead of you.

[scifi]

I think some airfields in the UK have different heights for their circuits, caused by local high terrain, or nearby airspace.
Our club recently did away with the 'Centre-Line Join' in favour of the 'Overhead Join'.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I think some airfields in the UK have different heights for their circuits, caused by local high terrain, or nearby airspace.
Makes sense, yes. I'd daresay this is not even limited to the UK.

Answering the original question: there is no general legal regulation on traffic patterns, and there can never be one, given the huge variation in local conditions. The last and most decisive rule is what the aerodrome operator decides, and this is one more good reason for a gentle phone call before take-off. (incomprehensible to me that some object to it, it only brings advantages). Failing local regulations, or the lack or unavailability of them, icao recommended practices are the best thing to go by.

[meleagertoo]

I think it's a good idea for pilots to be aware that there are many different ways to skin the same cat and having read NOTAMS and PPR advice to judge the situation on the day and act accordingly.Why not join direct downwind, base leg or long finals if all is quiet oy you can slot in comfortably rather than faffing around with all that overhead stuff in an empty circuit? Be practical, not blindly habit/procedure bound!With the cross-country circuits flown at so many airfields nowadays you can easily slot in with alleged 'circuit' traffic somewhere in the next county...

[scifi]

Quote... 'Why not join direct downwind, base leg or long finals'... Well we are supposed to view the signals square, before joining the circuit, to make sure we are going to use the correct runway... The wind might have changed, since your PPR. a few hours ago. However, I must admit, the longest final I ever did was about 15 miles, but I was in contact with the field via radio from 25 miles out.

[TheOddOne]

Signals square? We abandoned that some time ago as there is no one to make sure it is set correctly. An incorrect signals square is more dangerous than not having one. The wind sleeve(s) will give you what you need to know.

TOO

ps why is it mis-named a ''sock'? If it was closed at one end, like a sock, it wouldn't work, it looks like a sleeve, so call it one. The NOTAM office are happy with the term!

[megan]

why is it mis-named a ''sock'? If it was closed at one end, like a sock, it wouldn't work, it looks like a sleeve, so call it oneThe FAA uses the terms "wind sock" and "wind cone" interchangeably

.http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5345-27D/150_5345_27d.pdf

PS: I've got a draw full of socks that by your definition should be renamed sleeves. :p

[Jhieminga]

When the hole is visible with your shoes on the sock/sleeve needs to be replaced!