Q: IFR Circling in VMC Conditions
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boggabilla
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Typo.
Let me rephrase.
166
2(d) fly three legs bla bla bla
unless
(3) doing a straight in
(4) joining base with CASA's approval
(5a) doing instrument approach in IMC
Of course you can, but as per thread's original question - can I join finals from a circling approach in VMC?
haughtney - are you still doing your special vfr octa
Let me rephrase.
166
2(d) fly three legs bla bla bla
unless
(3) doing a straight in
(4) joining base with CASA's approval
(5a) doing instrument approach in IMC
Why can't you do a night visual straight in approach here?
haughtney - are you still doing your special vfr octa
Grandpa Aerotart
can I join finals from a circling approach in VMC?
Just because you have decided to track visually via the IAL procedure, day or night, to position yourself on final doesn't mean you cannot also conform to the AIP straight in approach criteria and just fecking land.
Furthermore I would suggest that if the IAL procedure 'positions you on base' then you have been blessed by CASA to then turn left and land.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boggabilla
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMG did you actually read the fecking thread question?
(well obviously you have finally)
Why would you complete an approach then go back out to 5miles for a straight in
(well obviously you have finally)
The approach positions you on an a long obleque base.
Are you permitted to complete a circling approach off the instrument approach (not in IMC) to join final
Are you permitted to complete a circling approach off the instrument approach (not in IMC) to join final
Grandpa Aerotart
I wouldn't...I'd just turn final off 'long oblique base' and land.
If the terrain/obstacles were such as to preclude that then i'd circle.
Like I said...if you want to land you have no choice.
And I think we moved on from the original question when you started making statements like,
Which I suggested was a load of old cock.
If the terrain/obstacles were such as to preclude that then i'd circle.
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
Are you permitted to complete a circling approach off the instrument approach to join final
And I think we moved on from the original question when you started making statements like,
So even at night IF VMC EXISTS you are required to join and fly three legs of the circuit EVEN IF YOU HAVE CONDUCTED AN INSTRUMENT APPROACH THAT POSITIONS YOU ON FINAL.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boggabilla
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said...if you want to land you have no choice.
Quote:
So even at night IF VMC EXISTS you are required to join and fly three legs of the circuit EVEN IF YOU HAVE CONDUCTED AN INSTRUMENT APPROACH THAT POSITIONS YOU ON FINAL.
Think you'll find this was someone else's material earlier.
Last edited by SmokingHole; 22nd Sep 2007 at 05:50.
Grandpa Aerotart
Now that is better...of course you can...don't know why you would but
Which you used to prove your point...unsuccessfully I might add...werbil was incorrect too.
...don't know why you would butWhich you used to prove your point...unsuccessfully I might add...werbil was incorrect too.
Grandpa Aerotart
What legal stupidity?
Yes CASA is guilty of that from time to time...but in this case, and often in these types of IFR so called 'grey areas' it's mostly a reading comprehension issue...and a lack of ability to apply rule A to situation B.
And yes that does tend to come with experience.
Yes CASA is guilty of that from time to time...but in this case, and often in these types of IFR so called 'grey areas' it's mostly a reading comprehension issue...and a lack of ability to apply rule A to situation B.
And yes that does tend to come with experience.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha ha ha this is classic, I reckon SH and CC should meet down by the docks and sort it out sailor to sailor. They both agree anyway
Does anyone know if the three leg rule actually makes Aus circuits safer anyway?
Are there any statistics about circuit mid-airs that suggest this?
Are there any other countries that have the rule?
Does anyone know if the three leg rule actually makes Aus circuits safer anyway?
Are there any statistics about circuit mid-airs that suggest this?
Are there any other countries that have the rule?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
CC and all,
CAR's are the legislation. AIP does not override the CAR's unless the CAR's provide for it.
If you perform all maneuvering outside 5nm to establish on final, providing you make the radio calls there is no question - it is legal. But once you maneuver inside 5nm to establish on final that is a different question.
Whilst not legally trained, I suspect that in court of law you would find that conducting an instrument approach procedure is not approval to join base in VMC. My reasons are sub reg 5 is specific to instrument approaches - completing instrument approach and in IMC. Sub reg 4 permits joining base leg to land only if: CASA has given approval to do so; and details of the approval have been published in AIP. If you can find something in the AIP (including DAPS and ERSA) that says you can I would pleased to see it. The fact the AIP says you SHOULD fly at least 3 legs is not approval to join wherever.
What is an "instrument approach conducted in IMC"? I would suggest that if you encounter IMC at any point after the IAF you are conducting the instrument approach in IMC. IMC is defined as not VMC. VMC is specifically defined (>5km vis, clear of cloud below A030 or 1,000AGL, otherwise 1,500m horizontally / 1,0000 ft vertically from cloud). An approach is commenced at the IAF and concludes when you land. CAR 166(5) allows you to skip the three legs if the approach is conducted in IMC - they don't say if you are in IMC at MDA (or circuit height) you can skip the three legs. Can anyone find a hole with this interpretation (from a legal perspective)?
And lastly, night does not affect the definition of VMC. So unless you encounter IMC after the IAF legally you are required to fly three legs (unless you join final outside 5nm). Stupid, but the law nonetheless.
W
PS I will add "except when established on final outside 5nm" to my earlier post to make the statement correct.
CAR's are the legislation. AIP does not override the CAR's unless the CAR's provide for it.
If you perform all maneuvering outside 5nm to establish on final, providing you make the radio calls there is no question - it is legal.
But once you maneuver inside 5nm to establish on final that is a different question.Whilst not legally trained, I suspect that in court of law you would find that conducting an instrument approach procedure is not approval to join base in VMC. My reasons are sub reg 5 is specific to instrument approaches - completing instrument approach and in IMC. Sub reg 4 permits joining base leg to land only if: CASA has given approval to do so; and details of the approval have been published in AIP. If you can find something in the AIP (including DAPS and ERSA) that says you can I would pleased to see it. The fact the AIP says you SHOULD fly at least 3 legs is not approval to join wherever.
What is an "instrument approach conducted in IMC"? I would suggest that if you encounter IMC at any point after the IAF you are conducting the instrument approach in IMC. IMC is defined as not VMC. VMC is specifically defined (>5km vis, clear of cloud below A030 or 1,000AGL, otherwise 1,500m horizontally / 1,0000 ft vertically from cloud). An approach is commenced at the IAF and concludes when you land. CAR 166(5) allows you to skip the three legs if the approach is conducted in IMC - they don't say if you are in IMC at MDA (or circuit height) you can skip the three legs. Can anyone find a hole with this interpretation (from a legal perspective)?
And lastly, night does not affect the definition of VMC. So unless you encounter IMC after the IAF legally you are required to fly three legs (unless you join final outside 5nm). Stupid, but the law nonetheless.
W
PS I will add "except when established on final outside 5nm" to my earlier post to make the statement correct.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think my answer would also be tempered by the presence or absence of a VASIS/PAPI, especially for the "black hole" runways. If in VMC and no VASIS/PAPI, I would try to avoid the "smoking hole short of the runway syndrome" by completing three legs of a circuit. There's been anough in the crash comics over the years on this.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
CJAM, CW et all,
I have made the case before that one aspect of the three legs of the circuit requirement is counter productive to safety - that it increases traffic density in the circuit area by increasing the amount of time and the proportion of total flying time that aircraft spend in the circuit area. For operations in the vicinity of an aerodrome, the risk / rate of collisions per movement IMHO is far, far more important than the risk / rate of collisions per 100,000 hours flown in that area.
I do not advocate a "free for all" in the circuit, I believe that any changes to the rules must require anyone joining on base or final in VMC to give way to aircraft in the circuit (aircraft on downwind has priority over aircraft on joining base or final, aircraft on base has priority over aircraft joining on final).
How unique is the three legs rule? Does anyone know which other countries have it or have added or removed it it recent history? Have any scientific studies been performed as to the actual effects on safety of the rule, both positive and negative?
And why not fix up radio communications at non controlled aerodromes. Make the basic calls mandatory for ALL radio equipped aircraft everywhere - taxi, airborne/departure, inbound/transiting and joining circuit. Other calls to be made if traffic situation warrants. Other pilots to respond with position if possible conflict.
W
PS CW a personal attack is calling someone a "child" or a
. I questioned your arguments that you posted on another thread and asked for a response, OK so I loaded the question a bit. Your reply was personal and you didn't answer the question asked. As to
the question wasn't what is sensible, but what is legal. I'll ask again, are you arguing that it is OK for IFR pilots to decide which rules apply to them but not for ag pilots?
I have made the case before that one aspect of the three legs of the circuit requirement is counter productive to safety - that it increases traffic density in the circuit area by increasing the amount of time and the proportion of total flying time that aircraft spend in the circuit area. For operations in the vicinity of an aerodrome, the risk / rate of collisions per movement IMHO is far, far more important than the risk / rate of collisions per 100,000 hours flown in that area.
I do not advocate a "free for all" in the circuit, I believe that any changes to the rules must require anyone joining on base or final in VMC to give way to aircraft in the circuit (aircraft on downwind has priority over aircraft on joining base or final, aircraft on base has priority over aircraft joining on final).
How unique is the three legs rule? Does anyone know which other countries have it or have added or removed it it recent history? Have any scientific studies been performed as to the actual effects on safety of the rule, both positive and negative?
And why not fix up radio communications at non controlled aerodromes. Make the basic calls mandatory for ALL radio equipped aircraft everywhere - taxi, airborne/departure, inbound/transiting and joining circuit. Other calls to be made if traffic situation warrants. Other pilots to respond with position if possible conflict.
W
PS CW a personal attack is calling someone a "child" or a
. I questioned your arguments that you posted on another thread and asked for a response, OK so I loaded the question a bit. Your reply was personal and you didn't answer the question asked. As to
rules are fine but common sense must prevail
I’m going to through a spanner in here because it needs to be thrown in. To all that thing CC is wrong, think again. When you read any legal document, one should note carefully the words used because they will have a direct bearing on its intent. The word “SHOULD” for instance does NOT imply that one “MUST” follow a particular course or action. It simply implies the PREFERRED way of doing it. When you see the words “MUST” or “REQUIRED” then you HAVE to do it the way described. Now reread the CAR’s, CAO’s and AIP again.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
404Titan,
CAR 166 uses the word MUST.
AIP ENR 1.1-64 tells you how you SHOULD join the circuit, it does not say you MAY join how you like.
CAR are regulations passed by parliament, AIP is an information publication.
CAR 166 uses the word MUST.
AIP ENR 1.1-64 tells you how you SHOULD join the circuit, it does not say you MAY join how you like.
CAR are regulations passed by parliament, AIP is an information publication.
Last edited by werbil; 22nd Sep 2007 at 09:38. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boggabilla
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC said:
Exactly, the rules are clear but there are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Yep, thought about it, read the regs. You remain wrong.
it's mostly a reading comprehension issue...and a lack of ability to apply rule A to situation B.
To all that thing CC is wrong, think again.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
How unique is the three legs rule? Does anyone know which other countries have it or have added or removed it it recent history?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJAM: "I don't land straight in because the rnav approach is 90 degrees to the only landing vector and the only option is to circle to land, or carry out the miss."
The runway must look short and wide at the MAPt then.
Which airfield are you talking about?
The runway must look short and wide at the MAPt then.
Which airfield are you talking about?
I agree it is a very stupid rule.
At some aerodromes it forces you to either make a ridiculously short downwind leg from a position that would normally be base so you can say you flew three legs, or you have to fly across common departure tracks to get onto the 45 to join the circuit in accordance with the NAS.
At some aerodromes it forces you to either make a ridiculously short downwind leg from a position that would normally be base so you can say you flew three legs, or you have to fly across common departure tracks to get onto the 45 to join the circuit in accordance with the NAS.
werbil
Where does it say “MUST”? As CC has said, reading the regs is a comprehension exercise. “SHALL” doesn’t mean “MUST”. It is simply the present of “SHOULD”. “SHOULD” or “SHALL” is used to express determination where “WILL” or “MUST” will be used to express emphatic determination, i.e. a “REQUIREMENT”. Have a close look throughout the CAR’s and AIP. All these words are used in a particular way for a reason. Usually the reason is because it is impossible to legislate for every particular scenario or event, like what is the safest thing to do or IFR currency when in some parts of the country you don’t see a cloud for six months of the year.
E.g.
166 Operation on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft which is being operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(a) observe other aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding collision;
(b) conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
(c) when approaching an aerodrome, other than a controlled aerodrome, for the purpose of landing, join the pattern of traffic in use for the landing direction in the up-wind, cross-wind or down-wind leg, as the case may be;
(d) make all turns to the left when approaching for a landing or after taking-off, unless:
(i) CASA has directed otherwise for a particular aerodrome; or
(ii) air traffic control directs otherwise, either by radio, visual signal or signals displayed in the signal square;
(e) land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;
(f) before landing, descend in a straight line commencing at such a distance from the perimeter of an aerodrome as is common to the ordinary course of navigation for the aircraft type concerned, the commencement of that straight line not being nearer the perimeter of an aerodrome than 500 metres; and
(g) after take-off, not alter heading from the take-off heading at a height less than 500 feet above the terrain unless air traffic control directs the alteration or unless the alteration is necessary due to the terrain.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) (c) do not apply to an aircraft conducting an instrument approach in I.M.C. if the instrument approach procedure requires the aircraft to join the pattern of traffic at any other point.
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall not take the aircraft off from, or land the aircraft on, a part of the aerodrome outside the landing area of the aerodrome.
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft which is being operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(a) observe other aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding collision;
(b) conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
(c) when approaching an aerodrome, other than a controlled aerodrome, for the purpose of landing, join the pattern of traffic in use for the landing direction in the up-wind, cross-wind or down-wind leg, as the case may be;
(d) make all turns to the left when approaching for a landing or after taking-off, unless:
(i) CASA has directed otherwise for a particular aerodrome; or
(ii) air traffic control directs otherwise, either by radio, visual signal or signals displayed in the signal square;
(e) land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;
(f) before landing, descend in a straight line commencing at such a distance from the perimeter of an aerodrome as is common to the ordinary course of navigation for the aircraft type concerned, the commencement of that straight line not being nearer the perimeter of an aerodrome than 500 metres; and
(g) after take-off, not alter heading from the take-off heading at a height less than 500 feet above the terrain unless air traffic control directs the alteration or unless the alteration is necessary due to the terrain.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) (c) do not apply to an aircraft conducting an instrument approach in I.M.C. if the instrument approach procedure requires the aircraft to join the pattern of traffic at any other point.
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall not take the aircraft off from, or land the aircraft on, a part of the aerodrome outside the landing area of the aerodrome.
E.g.
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:
AIP ENR 1.1-64.3
The runway to be used must be:
An aircraft approaching a non-towered aerodrome for landing should join the circuit in accordance with para 64.5 unless it is:
AIP ENR 1.1-64.3
The runway to be used must be:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
404Titan,
CAR 166 says MUST in the CURRENT VERSION of CAR1988 as posted in post #42 - you can check it out on the web at http://casa.gov.au/download/act_regs/1988.pdf if you don't believe me.
That must be a very old copy of the regs you are referring to - it doesn't even mention straight in approaches.I trust you fly with more current charts.
CAR 166 says MUST in the CURRENT VERSION of CAR1988 as posted in post #42 - you can check it out on the web at http://casa.gov.au/download/act_regs/1988.pdf if you don't believe me.
That must be a very old copy of the regs you are referring to - it doesn't even mention straight in approaches.
I trust you fly with more current charts.