Question on Aircraft convergence (91.113)

[francisco collazos]

Hey guys thanks in advance for your answers...

I've been flying solo getting ready for my check ride and to be honest I have become much more vigilant after the watsonville crash. The other day I was flying around the airport and a couple of things came to mind with relation to crash avoidance.
The reg says if two aircrafts of same category are converging then the one to the right has the right of way and if they are head on then each will yield to the right. The issue I came across is a couple of times I would be converging with an aircraft that in a way that both of us were to each others way (right). Is this considered head on? Or is converging meaning both airplane are following the same path and will converge into each other like side to side. That seems more like being overtaken.
There was once instance where we were approaching in a way that it made more sense to veer to the left.
I want to make sure I do the correct thing. Honestly, I would worry more about entering the pattern but the more I fly the more I worry about running into people. I want to be as safe as possible.

 

[Daleandee]

What did your CFI teach you to do?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Head on is opposite direction. Both alter course to the right, and see the other airplane pass by on their left.

Other than head-on or overtaking, generally speaking you alter course in whatever direction makes the most sense. An exception being the Watsonville scenario, where the 152 went around, altering course to the right (most likely because he was taught that to avoid an aircraft taking off) and ended up in the path of the 340 that was also altering course to the right for avoidance.

 

[francisco collazos]

Thank you that makes a lot of sense. I'm just more focused on that "When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way."
Seems like unless they are coming from the same direction, they are either always on each others' right or on each others left.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Thank you that makes a lot of sense. I'm just more focused on that "When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way."
Seems like unless they are coming from the same direction, they are either always on each others' right or on each others left.

There is no strict definition of “nearly head-on”, so some judgment is required. I would be fairly confident that 90 degrees isn’t “nearly head-on”, and there’s definitely someone to the right who has the right of way. Somewhere in the vicinity of 135 degrees from each other, you could probably make a case either way, so, like preventing the Watsonville accident, common sense and courtesy would help a lot.

 

[Jim_R]

I'm just more focused on that "When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way."
Seems like unless they are coming from the same direction, they are either always on each others' right or on each others left.

Your state probably already has a rule like this for roads. When two cars on crossing roads reach a 4-way stop, the car on the right has the right of way and should be allowed to proceed first. So, if you pull up to a stop sign at the same time as another car, if you have to angle your eyes to the right to see them, (s)he has the right of way. If you have to angle your eyes to the left, then *you* are in the car on the right and should be allowed to proceed first.

Now, imagine those two streets don't meet at right angles. There's still always going to be a car on the right and a car on the left. If you change the angle so much that the streets overlap each other and become just one street, then the cars are approaching head-on to each other (or one is following the other).

When the traffic is to your right and you are required to give them the right of way, then a deviation to the right is suggested is because it keeps the converging plane in view as you maneuver to make you pass behind the traffic. A maneuver to the left would keep you in front of the converging plane, and it also puts that traffic behind you where you may lose sight of it, so that you then have to trust them to avoid you instead of you being able to maintain visual separation.

If you are so close to the traffic that a maneuver to the right is not possible or advisable, then "do what you gotta do" to avoid a collision.

 

[MauleSkinner]

When the traffic is to your right and you are required to give them the right of way, then a deviation to the right is suggested is because it keeps the converging plane in view as you maneuver to make you pass behind the traffic. A maneuver to the left would keep you in front of the converging plane, and it also puts that traffic behind you where you may lose sight of it, so that you then have to trust them to avoid you instead of you being able to maintain visual separation.

Note that climbing or descending is acceptable as well.

 

[Jim_R]

Note that climbing or descending is acceptable as well.

Of course. And when doing so you should consider whether wings will limit visibility during/after the maneuver, for either you or the other plane.