Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What is expected by the controller when he issues a "join downwind"

LeSving wrote:

you will still be expected to join downwind from the midpoint if you say “… joining downwind”.

In the Netherlands. And other countries with similar regulations. Again, no one has been able to dig out the Belgian regulations yet…

Browsing quickly through Peter’s wealth of documents I found this example here of a national difference to ICAO rules regarding joining a visual traffic pattern. In this case Slovakia (the relevant documents for other countries can be found by searching for " Supplement to Annex 2 ")

I think the Slovakian way of solving that problem it is very smart because the pilot has to communicate his intended position for joining the circuit, thereby removing all possible misunderstandings:

3.2.5 Additional provision. When approaching an aerodrome where AFIS is provided, the pilot of an aircraft
equipped with a radio shall, on appropriate frequency (assigned for a particular aerodrome or, if no
frequency is assigned, on a frequency published for general aviation flights), report:
a) when entering the aerodrome information zone – aircraft position;
b) intended position for joining into an aerodrome traffic circuit;
c) additional information (if required);
d) final; and
e) runway vacation.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Timothy wrote:

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.

Yes, of course, but this doesn’t differ between class C and D, does it?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Yes, of course, but this doesn’t differ between class C and D, does it?

Well, I guess not, but in Class C there is the concept of separation of VFR traffic, albeit against IFR, so had the aircraft taking off and turning right been IFR (was it? I didn’t notice) then the controller would have been more proscriptive about the track to be followed.

EGKB Biggin Hill

LeSving wrote:

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”

I partially agree. I would have called “joining mid downwind” in order to avoid any confusion not just “downwind” as by my training I would expect someone calling “downwind” being at the" beginning of the downwind" not the middle.
In a AFIS/RMZ situation (although theoretical as you are supposed to overfly the runway to identify the landing direction from the signalling area) I would have called “inbound from the south, turning right to join beginning of right-hand downwind”

Seems that my initial question is not that odd taking the number of reactions into account. For sure next time I sense something odd I will ask for clarification.

Seems that misunderstandings can happen quickly and have disastrous consequences

Last Edited by jfw at 13 Mar 19:15
jfw
Belgium: EBGB (Grimbergen, Brussels) - EBNM (Namur), Belgium

I had only used mid-downwind in the US. I was taught " join downwind" meant join at start of downwind leg, and have always done so. I have only flown in UK, Ireland, and US. A very educational thread.
PS. I once had “join crosswind”, from an ATC.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Maoraigh wrote:

PS. I once had “join crosswind”, from an ATC.

At my home base, the most often heard joining instruction for VFR arrivals is “join base”/“join right base”. When they ask me to join downwind, I always (i.e. since I started flying there in 1988) joined downwind midfield – or mid-downwind – and no ATC person has ever complained, so I guess this is what they expect.

EDDS - Stuttgart

I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that unless airport ATC has radar and uses it, its better to have uniform standardized procedures and pilots communicating directly to each other until they understand than it is to have a relatively blind ATC middle man who directs traffic in non-standard ways using imprecisely coded language. The extra body doesn’t help.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 13 Mar 19:52

jfw wrote:

Seems that my initial question is not that odd taking the number of reactions into account.

Not at all!

what_next wrote:

At my home base, the most often heard joining instruction for VFR arrivals is “join base”/“join right base”.

I’ve had two similarly confusing incidents when joining traffic patterns at controlled airfields.

At LEGR/Granada, I entered the control zone on a direct towards base. The controller asked me something along the lines of “enter base, report established”. I entered base, then turned final and then reported established because the term “established”, in my mind, would mean established on some kind of runway trajectory, as in ILS in IFR flight or maybe final in VFR (though I think it’s not common VFR terminology in the first place). The controller then had to revoke a line-up/take-off clearance that she had just issued to departing traffic because she only then realized I was already on final and I got a telling-off by her. I didn’t argue with her on frequency and apologized, but in hindsight, I thought it would not have been a waste of worlds for her to define what segment of the pattern I should call “established” on.

Another time, at EDLN/Mönchengladbach, I entered the control zone on a track that lead me abeam base and my clearance was “join traffic pattern”. It seemed natural to me to join base, rather than zig-zagging to enter the beginning of downwind or the like – but turns out, that’s what the controller had expected me to do…

Always better to double-check these things…

Last Edited by Patrick at 13 Mar 20:08
Hungriger Wolf (EDHF), Germany

Silvaire wrote:

I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that unless airport ATC has radar and uses it, its better to have uniform standardized procedures and pilots communicating directly to each other until they understand than it is to have a relatively blind ATC middle man who directs traffic in non-standard ways using imprecisely coded language. The extra body doesn’t help.

This is one of the key arguments against over-reliance on “Flugleiter” in Germany. They don’t have radar anyways, often don’t even sit in some kind of tower where they can see the traffic, so their ability to help with spacing is limited at best.

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

Patrick wrote:

I didn’t argue with her on frequency and apologized, but in hindsight, I thought it would not have been a waste of worlds for her to define what segment of the pattern I should call “established” on.

You were cleared to base, you haven’t received a clearance to final or to land. It should be obvious what she meant. But these things happen. The ATC use slightly misleading or nonsensical wording from time to time. In this circumstances I just focus on the actual clearance given, and answer the clearance without the nonsensical stuff. I nearly hit a dash 8 due to something similar.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top