LeSving wrote:
You were cleared to base, you haven’t received a clearance to final or to land. It should be obvious what she meant.
To me, it wouldn’t have been obvious. When they don’t want you to turn final on your own, they usually say “xyz join base, stand by for final”. Around here. Different elsewhere… One more reason not to fly VFR 
what_next wrote:
LeSving wrote: You were cleared to base, you haven’t received a clearance to final or to land. It should be obvious what she meant.To me, it wouldn’t have been obvious.
Agreed.
We don’t need to discuss that a seperate clearance to land is in order. But you usually wouldn’t expect getting seperate clearances per leg of the traffic pattern, would you? @LeSving, would you seriously by default “overshoot” the base leg (indefinitely?) if not specifically cleared to turn final?
It is very common at Biggin Hill to be told to report before turning onto the next leg of the circuit. But it is always very specific, no-one is ever left in doubt.
LeSving wrote:
You were cleared to base, you haven’t received a clearance to final or to land. It should be obvious what she meant.
I don’t think that is what she meant she just wanted a heads up that you were on base. I would still turn final even if she didn’t acknowledge. This disagreement is why it was a bad instruction.
what_next wrote:
To me, it wouldn’t have been obvious
I don’t disagree with that. In a cockpit you should get clearances that are free from nonsensical/misleading phrases, but that is not always the case. In hindsight, it is obvious that unless you are actually cleared to final/landing, then you shouldn’t proceed until you get an explicit clearance. Just think of it in a court. Did you receive a clearance? if the answer is “no” – end of story, case closed, you will have to pay 3 bill in damages
Patrick wrote:
would you seriously by default “overshoot” the base leg (indefinitely?) if not specifically cleared to turn final?
The normal way in any non-towered environment would be to make a low approach well off center of the runway and a go around. You could also hold it on final, but that isn’t normally done in a towered environment. If you had told her that you were on base when you were there, you would probably receive a new clearance to go around (considering she didn’t know exactly how things turned out, and that is why she wanted you to report – on base)
I think there are differences in this area according to whether ATC think the pilot is a local (and are talking to him in the local language) or a visitor (perhaps speaking English outside the UK).
Where I am based, there is an informal VRP called “the tunnels”. It is used on almost every inbound from the east, but they would not issue it to a foreign visitor who is evidently struggling with the language because he would likely never find it (to find it you have to know the A27 and follow it) and it isn’t on the VFR charts either.
When dealing with locals, ATC can do a lot more and assume a lot more. They commonly use non aviation phrases, etc. And, I find, UK ATC are normally excellent compared to many others abroad.
In the UK, generally you are told to report on final, and then you can get a landing clearance. It is extremely rare to get a landing clearance before reporting final; I have had it in unusual conditions e.g. a tight low level circuit under low cloud and the place quiet as a graveyard.
And if flying a tight circuit there is no base leg anyway 
so one calls something like “turning final” when 90 degrees to the runway.
I once MOR’d Liverpool for using such a non-existent VRP (“Superstore”?) and then kept repeating it because the controller didn’t realise that it wasn’t published, and I had no idea where it was, communication broke down, which caused major mayhem.
I was once told by ATC for a uk airport in class G to “join upwind of the downwind leg” that one stumped me. especial considering that the weather had made a turn for the worse and was marginal VFR.
Peter wrote:
In the UK, generally you are told to report on final, and then you can get a landing clearance. It is extremely rare to get a landing clearance before reporting final
I’ve been getting landing clearances on base quite often at airports such as EDLP/Paderborn which are towered/have a control zone/have some airline traffic but are usually very quite. So when no one else is in the circuit and there is no incoming IFR traffic, the controllers tend to issue a landing clearance early on. I don’t see why they shouldn’t, either – they could, after all, still revoke the clearance if something unforeseen happened?
I would suppose that Belgium is oriented towards France concerning many procedures in aviation. In France, the law (Annexe I à l’Arrêté du 17 juillet 1992 relatif aux procédures générales de circulation aérienne pour l’utilisation des aérodromes par les aéronefs – https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006080008&dateTexte=20170314) states that on uncontrolled aerodromes, you have to join at the beginning of downwind, at circuit height. This is also what was taught to me and what I do.
On controlled aerodromes, this is not applicable and you are supposed to follow the clearances that you received.
4.2. Règles d’intégration dans la circulation d’aérodrome.
4.2.1. Aérodrome contrôlé.
Lorsque l’aérodrome est contrôlé l’aéronef doit s’intégrer dans la circulation d’aérodrome conformément aux clairances.
4.2.2. Aérodrome non contrôlé.
4.2.2.1. Après avoir pris connaissance des paramètres en radiotéléphonie conformément aux dispositions du paragraphe 4.1.2 a, ou après les avoir évalués lui-même conformément aux dispositions du paragraphe 4.1.3, et avoir observé la position des autres aéronefs évoluant dans la circulation d’aérodrome, le pilote commandant de bord doit venir s’intégrer en début de vent arrière à la hauteur du circuit d’aérodrome en assurant une séparation visuelle avec les aéronefs déjà engagés dans la circulation d’aérodrome et en leur laissant la priorité de passage.
I can see where the confusion comes from (from the rules for uncontrolled aerodromes), but when in doubt I would always fly the most direct track that conforms to an ATC instruction. I have had similar clearances for example at Toulouse, but there you will be so far away from the beginning of the downwind leg and so close to the track of the downwind when you get the instruction to join that it would not even occur to you to want to basically turn away, fly in the other direction for a few minutes and then do a 180.
Also, to me “downwind” means the whole leg, from the beginning to the end, and doesn’t imply any point on this leg. That is why my interpretation of “join downwind” would be “when you intercept the track of the downwind leg, turn onto it”. It is like “join <VOR> radial 180”, you’d intercept it where you cross it and not fly to the VOR first.
On uncontrolled fields, I always specify where on downwind I am when I call, e.g. “beginning of downwind / en début de vent-arrière”, “abeam tower / travers tour”, “middle of downwind / milieu de vent-arrière”).
Edit: I found this Belgian website which states the same rules as laid out in the French Arrêté above for joining a circuit.
