However, as in the USA, don’t all of these have a remotely located approach controller?
Yes. Back then it was Oakland Approach. The facility was located on the West side of the Oakland airport KOAK. They since moved to Sacramento and are now called NoCal Approach as opposed to SoCal approach.
But that is the case of many approach facilities also in Europe. Aquitaine provide approach control for quite a few airports around Bordeaux, La Rochelle, Bergerac. And Paris Approach are probably located near Orly, and cover quite few airports in the region.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It would, as you would be entering the traffic circuit.
I didn’t say at what height I was crossing, right?
But let’s leave it at that. You are right: You could speak to the tower and not have to comply with its instructions, though I find these situations hard to imagine. In Stephan’s case at least, he was in class G but he was still obliged to comply with the clearance, which was my main point.
Rwy20 wrote:
Plus maybe for an overhead, but in that case I would also comply with his instructions, even if I didn’t constitute aerodrome traffic.
It would, as you would be entering the traffic circuit.
Airborne_Again wrote:
“Aerodrome traffic” is basically traffic on the airport itself or in, entering or leaving the traffic circuit.
Which describes the situations in which I would speak to the TWR. Plus maybe for an overhead, but in that case I would also comply with his instructions, even if I didn’t constitute aerodrome traffic.
However, as in the USA, don’t all of these have a remotely located approach controller?
Rwy20 wrote:
I don’t find a reference to quote here, but I am certain that I learned that as soon as you speak to a TWR, you have to follow his instructions and you must get a clearance for what you are doing. Irrespective of the airspace class that you are in.
Not quite. If the airport has a tower but is in class F/G, then only “aerodrome traffic” is controlled. “Aerodrome traffic” is basically traffic on the airport itself or in, entering or leaving the traffic circuit.
So just speaking to the TWR is not enough.
Rwy20 wrote:
Do you have an example of an untowered airport with a controller? Because I thought that one precludes the other.
Eskilstuna (ESSU) in Sweden. Airport has AFIS. Approach control provided by Västerås (ESOW) TWR/TMC during operating hours.
Do you have an example of an untowered airport with a controller? Because I thought that one precludes the other.
Any airfield in France with an IAP when tower is closed. AFIS fields. If you want specific examples Pontoise (de-Gaulle APP), Troyes (Paris APP), Prunay (Paris APP), Albert-Braye (Lille APP), La Rochelle (Aquitaine APP?)…
Hundreds of non-towered airfields in the US with IAPs, for example Arcada (NOCAL APP?)
In that case, this was an instruction for you to join left downwind. It is not clearly defined where you have to fly it in most cases, you need to adapt your track according to the maneuvering capabilities of your airplane and the circumstances so that you won’t disturb other planes (translated quote from one of my PPL theory books). I would say downwind is when you are on the opposite track to the active runway at circuit height in the vicinity of the aerodrome (maybe no more than 4 nm away). If you cannot achieve that, you would have to tell TWR “unable” and ask him for a clearance that you can abide by. You could of course also make a suggestion for such a clearance.
Certainly right. The good thing on the flight at the beginning of the thread was that TWR didn’t provide any instructions about where to fly to. The only instruction was “call me left downwind”. I guess it was implied that I find my way to the downwind in a sensible manner from where I first called in.
