Pattern direction, 91.126, and required ground markings

RussR

En-Route
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
4,007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Display Name

Display name:
Russ
Reading 91.126, which discusses pattern directions:

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right;

I find the bolded wording interesting. One of the airports I fly at has right traffic published on the sectional and the A/FD, but no ground markings. Apparently it used to (using Google Earth historical images), but it doesn't now. Likely just an airport maintenance oversight, I'd bet. The exact situation at this airport isn't the question, though.

A student of mine caught this interesting wording. Basically, 91.126 says you turn left unless there are ground markings. There are no ground markings. The sectional and A/FD say turn right.

I suppose what we are wondering is why the specific mention of "ground markings" when of course this information is properly published in the A/FD and sectional chart. Merely a historical anomaly since before published charts and books? It's almost as if a non-standard pattern direction doesn't really apply if there are no ground markings, though that seems silly.
 
Last edited:
(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right;

That wording (highlighted in bold) has always cracked me up. How do I make my 45-degree downwind entry if I am approaching the airport to land from the downwind side? :D

Let this be a lesson to all that the FAA sue is a government body and proves it quite well. :)
 
That wording (highlighted in bold) has always cracked me up. How do I make my 45-degree downwind entry if I am approaching the airport to land from the downwind side? :D

Let this be a lesson to all that the FAA sue is a government body and proves it quite well. :)
Some moron actually asked the Chief Counsel that one. I'm surprised at how polite the answer was.
 
I suppose what we are wondering is why the specific mention of "ground markings" when of course this information is properly published in the A/FD and sectional chart. Merely a historical anomaly since before published charts and books? It's almost as if a non-standard pattern direction doesn't really apply if there are no ground markings, though that seems silly.

Probably merely a historical anomaly since the time regulations mattered. Maybe if airport managers were held accountable for maintaining markings and lighting, like changing the bulbs the instant they burned out (rain, sleet or snow) we'd have a lot less of those damned right-hand patterns.

dtuuri
 
The OP question has come up at my airfield recently. We have a published (sectional and chart supplement) right hand traffic pattern to 17 and a left hand pattern to 35, presumably for noise abatement. There is no segmented circle or visual traffic pattern/direction indicator. I was on a right downwind for 17 approaching right base when another aircraft announced turning left base for 17. We each had each other in sight and there was no safety issue per se as we made the spacing work.

I met the pilot of the other aircraft on the ground and we discussed (amicably) legality. I am of the opinion that the published right traffic to 17 is mandatory and not just a recommendation. The only applicable regulation I could find is 91.126 which mandates left traffic unless there's a visual ground indicator for right traffic--no mention of published information for right traffic trumping the standard left traffic pattern. He made the argument that he actually was more legal flying the left traffic to 17 since there was no visual traffic pattern indicator on the ground showing right traffic. If we had a 141 school at our field, 141.38 mandates there be a visual traffic indicator regardless of whether all traffic is standard, but we have no 141 school, no tower, and no unicom and it's a privately owned, public use, pilot controlled airfield.

I'll still fly right patterns as that's what's on the sectional and chart supplement but what say the legal beagles as to complying with the wording in the regulations?
 
According to 91.127(a), the 91.126 rule applies to class E surface area airports, as well, unless ATC instructs otherwise. And thus it probably applies to class D airports when the tower is closed and the airspace reverts to class E, right? It's interesting for sure, because it means that there are two potentially conflicting sources of information about traffic pattern direction and anytime one of them says right traffic we should assume the possibility of head-on (possibly NORDO, of course, as we should always assume until we hear otherwise) traffic on the base leg.

I have definitely seen an A/FD remain out of date about runway numbers for at least a couple years after reconstruction and renumbering. Is it possible that the examples being discussed above are just cases of outdated data in the A/FD?
 
So if your really bored go look at the wind circle at S49 (Vale, OR) at the corner of runway 10/28 and 18/36 with google earth. Then look at your sectional and AFD and figure out if runway 18 is a right or left hand pattern? Which faa rule applies here?
 
I suppose what we are wondering is why the specific mention of "ground markings" when of course this information is properly published in the A/FD and sectional chart. Merely a historical anomaly since before published charts and books? It's almost as if a non-standard pattern direction doesn't really apply if there are no ground markings, though that seems silly.
What you have found is an airport manager who hasn't done their job. I've found a few other examples over the years and succeeded in having it fixed at one of them.

Contact the airport manager and point out the wording in the FAR and the contradictory information in the A/FD and sectional. He should take action to resolve it one way or the other.

In my opinion, the reason the rule bases the determination soley on the display of approved markings is that there are situations where an airplane can arrive at an airport without a radio and without an A/FD or sectional. The rule has one simple way which (should) determine the applicable required direction of turns.
 
So if your really bored go look at the wind circle at S49 (Vale, OR) at the corner of runway 10/28 and 18/36 with google earth. Then look at your sectional and AFD and figure out if runway 18 is a right or left hand pattern? Which faa rule applies here?
The other left.
 
So if your really bored go look at the wind circle at S49 (Vale, OR) at the corner of runway 10/28 and 18/36 with google earth. Then look at your sectional and AFD and figure out if runway 18 is a right or left hand pattern? Which faa rule applies here?

Straight in [ducks].
 
I think 91.126 (a) applies here. "Unless otherwise authorized or required....."
If push came to shove, I think the cat in the long robe with the big wood hammer would probably say that if the A/FD or the Sectional says make right traffic then it is probably authorized.
 
I think 91.126 (a) applies here. "Unless otherwise authorized or required....."
If push came to shove, I think the cat in the long robe with the big wood hammer would probably say that if the A/FD or the Sectional says make right traffic then it is probably authorized.
...and required.
 
I'm curious as to why you called the person that asked, a moron?
Because, reading the opinion it was incredibly obvious (1) what the answer would be and (2) the asker thought he was being cute. Might not seem that way to others, but it did to me.
 
Last edited:
Because, reading the opinion it was incredibly obvious (1) what the answer would be and (2) the asker thought he was being cute. Might not seem that way to others, but it did to me.

Can you post it, or a link, so that the rest of us can enjoy it?
 
Reading it is not that funny. The very seriousness of the response has me seeing something between the lines that may or may not be there.

Here it is.

Sure do wish the original all letter was appended. Seems someone wrote in a fit of pique, trying to be asinine and "make a point." All that followed was a serious response to a silly question, but it probably won the writer a beer from his buddy . . .
 
Because, reading the opinion it was incredibly obvious (1) what the answer would be and (2) the asker thought he was being cute. Might not seem that way to others, but it did to me.

I don't think it's moronic. I think the motivation in asking the question would not necessarily be "to get an answer" but to see how the FAA reconciles the contradiction, and maybe provoke them into thinking about changing things so there isn't one.
 
I'd like to know what kind of light signal is used to indicate a right pattern. :rolleyes:
 
I'd like to know what kind of light signal is used to indicate a right pattern. :rolleyes:
I have never been able to get an answer on that, either. The best I've heard is that they may have been such a designated light signal many decades ago but, if so, I haven't been able to find anyone who remembers it even when asking about it as far back as the 1990s.
 
Sure do wish the original all letter was appended. Seems someone wrote in a fit of pique, trying to be asinine and "make a point." All that followed was a serious response to a silly question, but it probably won the writer a beer from his buddy . . .
That's exactly the way I read it. Rolled my eyes a lot and sighed too.
 
I don't think it's moronic. I think the motivation in asking the question would not necessarily be "to get an answer" but to see how the FAA reconciles the contradiction, and maybe provoke them into thinking about changing things so there isn't one.
We're close. I saw it as moronic, I guess you saw it merely as a waste of time and resources.
 
I'd like to know what kind of light signal is used to indicate a right pattern. :rolleyes:

Gonna research this 'cause I seem to recall it as being a flashing light, maybe amber. Be right back. So, no luck on what I was thinking. Maybe it was a light in the past.

AIM para 4-3-4 addresses visual indicators, too long to copy & paste here.

FAR 91.126 (b)
 
Last edited:
Gonna research this 'cause I seem to recall it as being a flashing light, maybe amber. Be right back. So, no luck on what I was thinking. Maybe it was a light in the past.

AIM para 4-3-4 addresses visual indicators, too long to copy & paste here.

FAR 91.126 (b)

I find the little "RP" beside the runway length and elevation to be a dead giveaway! This works for paper and electronic sectionals, but I have no glass screen experience (Garmin G500/1000, Aspen, etc.).
 
I find the little "RP" beside the runway length and elevation to be a dead giveaway! This works for paper and electronic sectionals, but I have no glass screen experience (Garmin G500/1000, Aspen, etc.).

Oh yeah, no problem there. I was thinking many years ago there was a flashing amber light to signify RP. Couldn't find it though.
 
I find the little "RP" beside the runway length and elevation to be a dead giveaway! This works for paper and electronic sectionals, but I have no glass screen experience (Garmin G500/1000, Aspen, etc.).
It is for me too. I'm very comfortable that RP on the sectional and the information in the AFD is good enough for "otherwise authorized or required" but the question being raised is still interesting. 91.126 specifically talks about left patterns "unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings." Like most, I've seen the visual markings like these (although I'm, not sure how much help they would be to a pilot who might well be in the pattern before she sees them)
RunwayPatternMarkings.PNG

But I've never seen the light signals.
 
I always thought it was a pattern recommendation. It is not.

AOPA published a story about two pilots who had their licenses suspended for not following the correct pattern. One got a 25 day suspension just for flying an unauthorized right-hand pattern. The second got a 20 day suspension, but he claimed he made a straight-in approach as he turned right into a long final. They determined it wasn't a straight-in approach and it caused another airplane who was flying the correct pattern to have to deviate. "The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern." Interesting story you can read here.
 
I always thought it was a pattern recommendation. It is not.
Unfortunately it shows up in both Part 91 and the AIM...people seem to remember it from the AIM, so the myth that "pattern directing is only advisory" persists.
 
I always thought it was a pattern recommendation. It is not.

AOPA published a story about two pilots who had their licenses suspended for not following the correct pattern. One got a 25 day suspension just for flying an unauthorized right-hand pattern. The second got a 20 day suspension, but he claimed he made a straight-in approach as he turned right into a long final. They determined it wasn't a straight-in approach and it caused another airplane who was flying the correct pattern to have to deviate. "The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern." Interesting story you can read here.
Those are the two Alaska Airlines cases I mentioned earlier. One is linked. There are others.
 
Back
Top