Sure; it is a rule. It exists.
But I think “we” don’t know the intention(s) behind this rule.
It is clearly very old, looking at the phrase “when he has already knowledge of the wind and the signals that can be displaced on the signal area and the manoeuvring area.” [ my bold ] Do French airfields really still have (or have had anytime in the past 20 years) those bits of white painted (and mostly rotting) timber, and some guy comes out of the clubhouse, any time of the day, rain or sunshine, to shift them around? Even if yes, I bet 99% of PPL holders don’t know how to read them.
My argument against the proposition that the rule was created to assess traffic is that a lot of aerodrome circuit traffic is simply not visible. People fly all kinds of circuits. Some, especially very low time pilots who dominate the GA scene everywhere, fly massive circuits, where only a 737 would be clearly visible. When joining the circuit, you are supposed to get behind the traffic, but how the hell are you supposed to do that when it is flying a B52 circuit and you can’t even see it? Even if not flying massive circuits, a lot of traffic is not readily visible. But when you have come off the IAP and are aligned with the runway, you can see the whole runway (unless the vis is really poor, and then any circuit traffic is not likely to see the runway either) and you can see if anybody is on it, or is about to taxi onto it, or is on short base. So you are well placed to check that you can land safely, which is what matters.
My argument against the proposition that the rule was created for appreciation of the surface wind and runway condition is that a lot of the time you can get these easily enough from nearby places, from traffic that’s just departed, from traffic which landed recently, or it is just obvious from the local wx, from the wind vector displayed by your avionics on final, etc. Re pireps, we are dealing, de facto, with an FR-only situation anyway.
My guess is that the rule was created for both above reasons, but it doesn’t work for either of them unless the cloudbase is high enough for a normal visual circuit.
Circle to land is a very different thing from a vfr circuit. It depends whether its an MVI (now known as a VPT) or a MVL. The purpose of it is to obtain the parameters you would normally obtain from an ATS service to ensure a safe landing. It is part of the planning process when an airfield applies for one or more instrument approach procedures.From experience I happen to think it does that, you obviously do not. However, does it really matter? Like not transiting controlled airspace without clearance it is a regulation that is unlikely to change in the near future whatever any of us might think. When @Bosmantico opened up this thread IMO it was really a gentle reminder that the rule exists.And if it allows pilots in France to use an IAP and to land and uncontrolled airfields, thereby extending their useful opening times I am all for it.
gallois wrote:
Circle to land … The purpose of it is to obtain the parameters you would normally obtain from an ATS service to ensure a safe landing.
Well, no… The purpose of circle to land is to permit a landing on a runway different from the runway of the approach. As we know from this discussion, France has decided to require circling after instrument approaches to airports without ATS. In that specific situation only, the purpose is indeed to “obtain the parameters”.
(By the way, for some reason France seems to be the country that makes the most use of VPT. It is unusual to find that in other countries.)
@Airborne Again you are quite right of course I should have made clear that I was talking about rule as applied to unmanned towers.
Regarding France having more VPT’s do you think that perhaps France has more IAP’s to only one end of the runway than elsewhere? Or did have, I know a number of airfields which had an ILS or NDB approach to one runway now have an RNAV/GNSS approach to the other yet the MVL or VPT has been maintained.
gallois wrote:
Regarding France having more VPT’s do you think that perhaps France has more IAP’s to only one end of the runway than elsewhere?
I don’t think so — most countries do not use prescribed tracks in this situation but leave to the pilot to determine how to circle.
The regulation linked and discussed has been repealed as of yesterday (2 September 2019) and replaced by https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000038864224
The priority of IFR arrivals (in a VPT procedure or straight-in approach) over VFR arrivals on an AFIS aerodromes is in paragraph 7.1.2 of the appendix (annexe):
(…) lorsqu’un pilote commandant de bord évoluant dans la circulation d’aérodrome a connaissance de la présence d’un aéronef en vol IFR qui effectue une manœuvre à vue sur trajectoire prescrite (VPT) ou une procédure d’approche directe à l’arrivée, il manœuvre son aéronef de façon à ne pas compromettre la poursuite de l’approche et l’atterrissage de l’aéronef en vol IFR.
And actually, @gallois, there was a similar rule in the “old” regulation, for uncontrolled aerodromes (not AFIS!) in paragraph 3.4 of Appendix (Annexe) I:
Sur un aérodrome non contrôlé, un aéronef appartenant à la circulation d’aérodrome qui connaît la présence d’un aéronef en vol IFR à l’arrivée doit, à moins d’entente préalable entre les commandants de bord, manoeuvrer de façon à ne pas compromettre la poursuite de l’approche et l’atterrissage de l’aéronef en vol IFR. Cette disposition ne s’applique que si l’aéronef en vol IFR effectue une approche finale aux instruments pour un atterrissage direct sur la piste en service ou lorsque l’approche finale est suivie d’une manoeuvre à vue imposée (MVI).
But even more so, what has been discussed here was what an IFR aircraft conducting an instrument approach at an airfield whose ATS unit is not active must do.
This is in 7.2.1.3. I don’t remeber exactly what (or if anything) changed over the previous version, but this one here is very clear:
- à l’arrivée, prend connaissance du calage altimétrique QNH d’une station désignée suivant une procédure agréée par l’autorité de l’aviation civile territorialement compétente, exécute une procédure d’approche publiée puis exécute une manœuvre à vue de manière à procéder à l’examen de l’aérodrome. Cet examen doit notamment porter sur l’aire à signaux, la manche à air, l’état de la surface de l’aire de manœuvre afin de déterminer la piste ou l’aire d’atterrissage à utiliser et s’assurer que l’usage de l’aérodrome ne présente pas de danger apparent. Si les conditions météorologiques le permettent, le pilote commandant de bord interrompt sa descente de manière à effectuer la manœuvre à vue au-dessus du plus haut des circuits d’aérodrome. Dans tous les cas, il effectue la manœuvre à vue à une altitude compatible avec les minimums opérationnels associés à la procédure d’approche réalisée
So, it says that the overhead/circling maneuvre is to examine the aerodrome (signals square, windsock, runway, aprons from above) in order to determine which runway to use and to make sure there are no dangers. It is thus clear that this is not your typical IFR “circling” maneuver (where one would NOT usually go overhead).
It also says that if weather conditions permit, the overhead maneuver shall be above the circuit altitude, but in any case, no lower than the published approach minima.
[…] but in any case, no lower than the published approach minima.
Helpful thread. My takeaway is that, in France, one cannot descend below circling minima on the final approach segment unless there is ATS on the field.
