lionel wrote:
They seemed unsure/confused why I asked, and answered “no, no, you are cleared for direct approach and fullstop landing”.
I guess that by “direct approach” they meant “straight-in approach”, i.e. an approach without racetrack/base turn/procedure turn.
It does not mean the same as a “straight-in landing”, i.e. a landing without circling.
So my interpretation is that they said nothing at all about circling or not circling. But they should have used standard phraseology.
Exactly.
skydriller wrote:
Out of interest what would you have done if when you popped up on the A/A frequency there was circuit traffic?
There was. They announced themselves some-place-downwind (not sure any more exactly where), then base, then final. I didn’t see them. I gave regular updates giving my time to touchdown. Meaning they turned final in front of me, knowing full well I was on a straight-in IFR approach.
When getting close, I started to get worried and said something like “preceding traffic on final, I don’t see you; where are you?”; my memory is not certain any more, but I think they answered something like “we have touched down, about to leave the runway” and shortly thereafter, they said “runway vacated”. Reassured, I continued my approach.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I guess that by “direct approach” they meant “straight-in approach”, i.e. an approach without racetrack/base turn/procedure turn.
Sorry for my approximate translation not using the actual correct phraseology in English; radio was in French.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It does not mean the same as a “straight-in landing”, i.e. a landing without circling.So my interpretation is that they said nothing at all about circling or not circling.
No. Just no. I specifically asked “may I continue my straight-in approach to touchdown/landing/fullstop” (not sure which exact word I used) “or do I need to break off my approach for a circuit?”. They answered “No, no, you are cleared for straight-in approach and then a fullstop (landing)” (“Non, non, vous êtes autorisés pour une approche directe et puis un complet” in French). This cannot possibly mean “I’m not telling you anything about landing”. If they had intended the latter, they would have:
Now, indeed, it is not normal that they gave the impression of clearing me all the way to landing. They are not in a position to clear me for landing. Possibly they just applied “in their mind” the “ATC or AFIS present” procedure of “IFR on approach has priority over VFR in the circuit”.
If you want to play with theories, you can examine the one that this was a trainee that made a plain mistake, and got pulled off her position by her supervisor, which is why I heard another voice after that. But he didn’t “correct” her mistake either, which is a point against the plausibility of this theory.
lionel wrote:
“Non, non, vous êtes autorisés pour une approche directe et puis un complet”
So does “approche directe” mean “straight-in approach” or “straight-in landing”?
In any case, ATC can’t change the rules for you. According to the AIP, France has a rule that every instrument approach at an airport without ATS must end with a circuit —nothing an approach controller says can change that.
Airborne_Again wrote:
So does “approche directe” mean “straight-in approach” or “straight-in landing”?
“Approche” means “approach”. But the full clause is “straight-in approach AND THEN fullstop landing”. You also have to read it in the context of my question.
An ‘approche directe’ is when the final approach could lead to a straight in landing or a landing within 30 degrees of that approach, if I remember correctly. But a cleared for the approach is not a landing clearance or approval. This would normally be given by the ATS on the airfield in the absence of which you need to give yourself approval. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not, in the absence of the visual circle to land you have carried out due diligence in the event of an accident. It would do you no good to say that the approach ATS said it was okay.
It is true that
but a pilot getting a clearance like Lionel got could never be prosecuted – in any country which has a functioning justice system. This principle has been tested well in the UK aviation sphere, with some hilarious examples which I better not write about 
Short answer is going against ATC instructions will get you in troubles for sure, while following ATC instructions is grey: you have to make own PIC judgement, while you may not get an ATC reminder it is still a pilot call to make
Try requesting VFR direct over congested area, into terrain or in weather, something like “your own navigation”, “your own terrain clearance” or “remain vmc” should ring a bell that ATC have their hands clean and they leave it to you…
The other way around is far more complicated when you are asked by ATC but you are not happy with it?
I recall we have runway line up clearance after an airliner landed, we asked for “wake turbulence delay” the answer was “shut up and line up” we were ready to refuse takeoff clerance but turns out ATC did ask the airliner to slowly backtrack runway, while ATC seems on top of it I am still thinking what to do if we had an imediate clearance to takeoff?
FYI, we still waited more than 3min wake separation: it was for night circuits with not much night vision after you have seen A320 landing lights face to face…
gallois wrote:
The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not, in the absence of the visual circle to land you have carried out due diligence
Yes, I have. I was in radio contact with other traffic, we gave each other position reports and I assured separation by making sure preceding traffic had landed, and vacated the runway, before I continued my approach beyond something like 2 nmi final (sorry, again, my memory is not perfect on the exact point where I did that). I assumed he didn’t lie.
On the subject of putative non-radio (and thus I assume non-transponding) traffic, well, if there had been an AFIS agent without access to primary radar (and I don’t think Laval AFIS has primary radar…), he would have had to rely on the same detection method than me to spot it and warn me: human eyes.
IMO, the balance of security was in the direction of doing the straight-in landing.
