Peter wrote:
So, regardless of weather, and using the radio to check traffic, a joining pilot cannot land straight-in but has to fly around the airport first?
Yes, my understanding IFR vs VFR does make zero difference to this, but the consensus is that IFR may get some priority to join that mini-circuit at discretion of other VFR traffic, the inconvenience for VFR is few orbits or extending legs while for IFR is a whole blown missed approach segment
You can always cancel IFR and have more flexibility on how to join the show but for sure not as number 1 on final 
Using radio to check for traffic, may do when “AD is RT traffic only” but I will not bet on that, I found arrivals to un-controlled airfields interesting: “hard IMC” (that second IFR should not be there), “light IMC” (VFR should not be there) and “busy sunny VMC” (IFR should not be around), so some “sort of visual circuit” does make sense for all weather configurations?
Just a side question: when going on missed approach in a circle to land, which missed approach one has to follow, the one for the approach runway or the one for the landing runway? my gut feeling the former as the latter may not exist and put you in opposition with other IFR traffic but following landing runway is much convenient when things get busy?
As a datapoint, I flew into LFOV yesterday, in absence of any TWR ATC, AFIS, not even an ATIS. The frequency was A/A. The chart said to obtain the QNH from LFRN ATIS, so I did. As per the present discussion, I was planning to see if I could descend radar-vectored below the cloud base (or find holes big enough) and depending on the result either cancel IFR and do a VFR approach (which sounded easier / more sensible to me than this overfly-the-runway and circling stuff, if possible) or do the LPV approach to circling minima.
I was all set up, briefed, charts prepared, (circling) minima programmed, etc based on the expected runway in use based on the wind in LFRN ATIS, when Rennes approach gave me a QNH for LFOV (1 hPa lower than the one for LFRN, so they have some kind of remote reading) and cleared me on the LPV approach. So I asked them if I could continue the approach to touch-down or if I had to do a circuit before landing. They seemed unsure/confused why I asked, and answered “no, no, you are cleared for direct approach and fullstop landing”.
May be they had a webcam over the runway…
Well, I don’t know about France but in the UK a prosecution would be impossible in this situation. You might have to spend 10k+ on a lawyer before the CAA would climb down.
It would be advisable to have recorded the ATC exchange however, because tower recordings are not stored for ever. One airport I know of keeps them for a few weeks only.
A very interesting data point Lionel and thank you for posting it.
Probably they have acess to airport radar data feeds, live webcam and monitoring local frequency (otherwise no way they can pick traffic information of those flying bellow MVA or on runway ground)
Obviously, you are expected to see and avoid other traffic in ground/circuit in class G, tunning local A/A frequency and saying you are on final is good start…
Ibra wrote:
Probably they have acess to airport radar data feeds, live webcam and monitoring local frequency (otherwise no way they can pick traffic information of those flying bellow MVA or on runway ground)
I don’t think so:
Ibra wrote:
Obviously, you are expected to see and avoid other traffic in ground/circuit in class G, tunning local A/A frequency and saying you are on final is good start…
Yes, they told me to switch to the A/A frequency at the IAF or somewhere between the IAF and the IF (turning final). I don’t remember exactly, but the actual switch was delayed somewhat because that’s also the point where they informed me that after landing, I should call them, not the national “close your flightplan” number. So, with the time it took to write down the number, I effectively switched very shortly before the IF.
Note that I was in class G airspace far before I was near the aerodrome. I was as soon as I left the airway, below FL115. Formally, “see and avoid” applied from FL115/leaving the airway, but since FIS has good radar coverage, in practice, they would have helped me avoid other traffic until near the aerodrome.
Good to know, so you got a procedural service with a proper “clear to land” with no one in the tower (the clearance as useful as the one Apollo 11 got on their Moon/Earth landings ;) )
In France you can fly IFR in class G and get an information service. You are still IFR and could legitimely be in IMC (therefore not subject to see and avoid) as long as you are above 3000 feet and in 2 way contact with ATS.
I don’t know why you were cleared for a straight in landing at Laval (LFOV) I have seen no derogations from the usual regulation there, but hey if that’s what ATS said and you were happy, what does it matter:)?
ATC (Approach) simply have no say in what happens in the traffic pattern of some other uncontrolled field. They are not air police and need not bother. As you said they were confused by your question and added that you are cleared for a “direct approach”. Has nothing to do with the subject.
The only moment this regulation may ever play a role is when a pilot does a straight in and this disrupts circuit traffic or even causes an accident with other traffic. The other might be if he lands straight in and damages the aircraft due to say excessive tailwind or a comtaminated runway. In that case, a (very savvy) insurance might raise a point. But this is all very unlikely. Still, it’s a regulation worth reminding.
When using an FIS I sometimes get told “No circuit traffic” or similar, when telling them I’m switching to the destination frequency, this is VFR and at a destination using A/A in French. Presumably you would be told the same thing if IFR? ie if there was gliding or paradropping going on? Other times the FIS might tell me about paradropping or other possible traffic. Out of interest what would you have done if when you popped up on the A/A frequency there was circuit traffic?
Regards, SD..
