In Spain if you’re instructed to join downwind, it is mid-downwind, doubtless.
But as others have said, I have no clue what’s done in Belgium.
First of all the aim of the threat is to exchange point of views not to get and endless argument 
I thank you for your views on this topic. I must admit that the confusion probably is caused by the fact that during my training it was underlined that “downwind” is always “begin of downwind” .
LeSving wrote:
You shall use the green routes, and follow the arrows
I agree except that the arrows stop at SA….
But you are right that in order to get to begin of downwind you cross the exit path (from airfield to SE) which could have raised some questions in my mind and requested to ATC what they expected.
I also understand that there is a consensus that you should join the downwind from where you are (in my case join mid right-hand downwind).
what_next wrote:
Now I was unable (and I don’t really care enough) to browse through the Belgian AIP deeply enough to locate their preferred traffic pattern joining instructions.
I have been looking at the BE AIP and could not find any preferred traffic pattern joining instructions. If fellow Belgian pilots can locate any element please let me know 
jfw wrote:
First of all the aim of the threat is to exchange point of views not to get and endless argument
The problem is that every exception from an agreed rule (in this case the ones set by ICAO many decades ago) must necessarily lead to endless arguments. The best example I guess is the infamous British “standard overhead join”. And I think raising these topics is important because it will remind pilots that not everything is the same everywhere and some degree of preparation is required for flights abroad.
jfw wrote:
I have been looking at the BE AIP and could not find any preferred traffic pattern joining instructions.
If it is not in the Belgian AIP, then standard ICAO procedures apply. Which are difficult enough to find on the internet in their most current version (so far I had no success, Wikipedia does not help either because it makes quite a mess of the topic).
Peter wrote:
I have it captured on a private site however – check your email W_N.
Thanks Peter! Will look into it when I have more time – that’s quite some megabytes of documents…
boscomantico wrote:
but remember it’s class D
I think that this is quite an important point that has not been really acknowledged in the ensuing discussion.
Under VFR in airspace inferior to C (and D=E=F=G in this context), you are not constrained to a magenta line route. It is your responsibility to see and avoid other traffic, and the controller has a responsibility to give you information about that traffic (did he?) and no more.
You have been told to join downwind, so you should follow the normal rules of the air for VFR circuit joins. If you felt more comfortable with a slightly longer downwind leg, maybe to lose some speed, or do you checks, then kinking a little towards the right does no harm (though not as much as to make it a turn opposite the circuit direction, but then, you could argue that turning at the midpoint would have been opposite to the circuit.)
But my point is that VFR in Class D is still VFR and every time we treat it like an IFR procedure with precise tracks to be followed, we are adding to a general perception that Class D is really Class C or Class B.
We must work with the controllers, but part of that co-operation is for them to understand their power and responsibilities within Class D.
As we in the UK gradually get to the point where all airspace south of the Wash and the Humber is becoming Class D (Southend, Farnborough, now Oxford and Exeter…Popham will want it next :-( ), we need to ensure that everyone knows and understands what Class D is and, more importantly, what it isn’t.
The French get it.
The ICAO docs can be found here
Here
I’ve spent a while looking though them, and can’t find any reference to a particular joining method to be used. I had remembered seeing the UK overhead join described in an ICAO document before, but can’t find any reference to that….so probably misremembering it.
Having said that, the Dutch proceedure seems to be in contravention of Annex 2 part 3.2.5 which requires “all turns to the left, when approaching for landing or after taking off, unless otherwise instructed”.
Being honest, I would not have joined mid-downwind, but earlier. Not as far west at the op did, but in-line with the runway threshold.
In the absense of an ICAO defination, I suppose it must either be defined in the AIP, or if not, is up to the pilot in an uncontrolled environment, or up to the ATC to specify exactly what they want in a controlled environment.
Timothy wrote:
Under VFR in airspace inferior to C (and D=E=F=G in this context), you are not constrained to a magenta line route.
I beg to differ. In class D as well as class C, VFR traffic require a clearance. I have never seen any document that says that you can deviate from the clearance at will in class D airspace.
The clearance is to enter, and follow the clearance, not to follow a procedural line.
If there were published routes, and you are cleared on one of them, that is a different matter.
Timothy wrote:
I think that this is quite an important point that has not been really acknowledged in the ensuing discussion.
I don’t see what the relevance of that point is in this circumstance. The circuit could have been in G for that matter, at a towered AFIS unit (or non towered but in RMZ). you will still be expected to join downwind from the midpoint if you say “… joining downwind”. You call out (blind or whatever) to tell other pilots what you intend to do, and you better stick to your call-outs, not wander around, or there will be chaos. It is just as important, if not more, in a non towered airfield.
