Right of way question

A

airheadpenguin

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
495
Location
New Hampshire
Display Name
Display name:
airheadpenguin
This happened the other night, tower closed, VMC, and I'm curious what was right. I was cleared for the VOR-A into KASH and told to squalk 1200 at the MAP, at the same time another pilot was cleared onto the ILS-14 at KASH. I get to the MAP, at 900 MSL and the other pilot reports on the ILS-14 at CHERN. Both intending to land 14.

I was midfield on the left downwind at this point with the other pilot 4 miles out and higher than me. Who had the right of way here?
 
airheadpenguin said:
This happened the other night, tower closed, VMC, and I'm curious what was right. I was cleared for the VOR-A into KASH and told to squalk 1200 at the MAP, at the same time another pilot was cleared onto the ILS-14 at KASH. I get to the MAP, at 900 MSL and the other pilot reports on the ILS-14 at CHERN. Both intending to land 14.

I was midfield on the left downwind at this point with the other pilot 4 miles out and higher than me. Who had the right of way here?
Click to expand...

If right-of-way is an issue the other guy had it. If you can complete your pattern and land without interfering with the other guy then right-of-way is not an issue.
 
That's what I thought and did a right 270 into the base to give him time to pass. I just remembered something about the plane at the lower altitude having RoW and was curious since at that point I was and was in a position to land, though it would have forced him to break off the approach.
 
airheadpenguin said:
That's what I thought and did a right 270 into the base to give him time to pass. I just remembered something about the plane at the lower altitude having RoW and was curious since at that point I was and was in a position to land, though it would have forced him to break off the approach.
Click to expand...

The aircraft on final has the right-of-way.


§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.


You might want to review this regulation also:


§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.

(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; and...
 
Last edited:
airheadpenguin said:
That's what I thought and did a right 270 into the base to give him time to pass.
Click to expand...
Well done.

I just remembered something about the plane at the lower altitude having RoW and was curious since at that point I was and was in a position to land, though it would have forced him to break off the approach.
Click to expand...
The relevant reg is 91.113(g):
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Click to expand...
So, since the other plane was on final for 14, and you were not, the other plane had the right of way if there was a conflict. As Steven said, if you could complete your landing without the plane on final having to go around, you could have landed. Otherwise, your turn to get behind the other plane was correct.

...and I see Steven posed the reg while I was typing.
 
Ron, would you considering turning base in front of anyone on final as cutting in front? For instance, I'm ready to turn base and someone just reported FAF at 5 miles inbound. Would I be in violation to land in front of him?
 
Note that in the aviation world, there's no stand-on vessel. Both are required to take action to avoid each other if they can.
 
There might be a question as to whether a right 270 to base was appropriate without an operating tower as you might come afoul of 91.126 which mandates left turns if that is the standard pattern at the airport. An alternative is to extend downwind until the other aircraft is abeam your left wing and then turn left onto base to follow
 
I can see the reasoning for a right 270 in this instance.

1- it gave him the option of leaving the pattern if necessary (I had to do this before when a pattern conflict happened to me)
2- after assessing the situation at about the 135* point, he continued the turn in VMC conditions
3- he had the best view for situational awareness and could make a decision to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic

I see how 91.126 'letter of law' was violated, however is it more about procedures or safety??? The manuever could have been completed (and was) safely. By the same logic he could have made a split-ess break (altitude and aircraft capabilities notwithstanding), which is NOT a left turn.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I can see the reasoning for a right 270 in this instance.

1- it gave him the option of leaving the pattern if necessary (I had to do this before when a pattern conflict happened to me)
2- after assessing the situation at about the 135* point, he continued the turn in VMC conditions
3- he had the best view for situational awareness and could make a decision to facilitate the orderly flow of traffic

I see how 91.126 'letter of law' was violated, however is it more about procedures or safety??? The manuever could have been completed (and was) safely. By the same logic he could have made a split-ess break (altitude and aircraft capabilities notwithstanding), which is NOT a left turn.
Click to expand...

Extending downwind is a normal maneuver in the pattern to fit in with traffic.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Not in the area where I fly.
Click to expand...
What airport would not permit an aircraft on downwind to extend about 2 NM past the threshold before turning base? The other aircraft reported a 4 NM final and the OP was mid field. Assuming the aircraft on final is the same ground speed as the one on downwind, they should pass abeam one another with a very minor downwind leg extension.
 
Velocity173 said:
Ron, would you considering turning base in front of anyone on final as cutting in front? For instance, I'm ready to turn base and someone just reported FAF at 5 miles inbound. Would I be in violation to land in front of him?
Click to expand...
There's no canned answer -- it's all situations. The critical question is whether the plane on final is forced to alter its approach or go around by the plane turning in front of it. If yes, the plane in front has violated 91.113(g). If not, there's no issue. So, if that plane on 5-mile final is a Learjet and you're flying a 150 turning a 1 mile base, you are probably going to be in violation-- unless you're so slow you end up turning final behind him. If you're flying the Lear and it's a 150 on 5-mile final, you'll probably be drinking coffee in the FBO before the 150 gets to the runway and nobody will care.
 
flyingron said:
Note that in the aviation world, there's no stand-on vessel. Both are required to take action to avoid each other if they can.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly correct until it reaches the point where the PIC of the aircraft with the right of way feels the other aircraft doesn't see him/her or otherwise isn't doing what 91.113 requires. At,that point, an emergency situation exists and per 91.3(b), the PIC of the aircraft with the right of way is allowed to do whatever it takes to avoid a collision. If you have the right of way but then maneuver so the other aircraft's collision avoidance maneuver is negated, then you could be found in violation of 91.111(a).
 
John Collins said:
What airport would not permit an aircraft on downwind to extend about 2 NM past the threshold before turning base? The other aircraft reported a 4 NM final and the OP was mid field. Assuming the aircraft on final is the same ground speed as the one on downwind, they should pass abeam one another with a very minor downwind leg extension.
Click to expand...

One that is bordered by the FRZ on one side, prohibited airspace on the extended downwind course on the other side all under a Bravo. Or how about one, bordering Surface Bravo on the extended downwind course inside the FRZ.
 
Ron Levy said:
There's no canned answer -- it's all situations. The critical question is whether the plane on final is forced to alter its approach or go around by the plane turning in front of it. If yes, the plane in front has violated 91.113(g). If not, there's no issue. So, if that plane on 5-mile final is a Learjet and you're flying a 150 turning a 1 mile base, you are probably going to be in violation-- unless you're so slow you end up turning final behind him. If you're flying the Lear and it's a 150 on 5-mile final, you'll probably be drinking coffee in the FBO before the 150 gets to the runway and nobody will care.
Click to expand...

Does this change when you take instrument approaches out of the picture?

It ****es me off when someone calls a 7 mile final into a busy uncontrolled airport instead of entering the pattern properly, making all of the aircraft in the pattern (helicopters in right pattern, airplanes in left pattern) extend downwinds.
 
Jaybird180 said:
One that is bordered by the FRZ on one side, prohibited airspace on the extended downwind course on the other side all under a Bravo. Or how about one, bordering Surface Bravo on the extended downwind course inside the FRZ.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the ID. You really don't need to keep it secret.
 
John Collins said:
What airport would not permit an aircraft on downwind to extend about 2 NM past the threshold before turning base?
Click to expand...
Jaybird's home field -- Freeway (W00), which sits in a notch in the FRZ. Extending the downwind for 36 by 2 miles would put you in the FRZ, but a left 270 (it's right traffic only to keep you out of the FRZ) will keep you out. That's a very special case, but there may be other airports adjacent to B-space or the like where extending downwind isn't an option.
 
I run into this a lot with the jumper plane at my field. I usually almost always let them go first, even if I am in the right. The jumper club I paying them by the hour. The sooner they get on the ground the more jumps they can get in.

The jumper plane pilots don't mess around in the pattern. Chop and drop. A couple of times when they were out of fuel! :lol: :eek:

Allegedly. :D
 
Last edited:
bqmassey said:
Does this change when you take instrument approaches out of the picture?

It ****es me off when someone calls a 7 mile final into a busy uncontrolled airport instead of entering the pattern properly, making all of the aircraft in the pattern (helicopters in right pattern, airplanes in left pattern) extend downwinds.
Click to expand...

A 7 mile downwind indicates that even at high speed, the aircraft is several minutes from the runway and you can turn in front without being in violation.
 
John Collins said:
Thanks for the ID. You really don't need to keep it secret.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of W00 and VKX. VKX is one of the MD3 airports restricted inside the FRZ, closed since 9/11. We JUST got FAA approval for pattern work at the MD3 as of 5/31 on a trial basis.
 
bqmassey said:
Does this change when you take instrument approaches out of the picture?
Click to expand...
No. The regulation does not differentiate between VFR and IFR operations.
It ****es me off when someone calls a 7 mile final into a busy uncontrolled airport instead of entering the pattern properly, making all of the aircraft in the pattern (helicopters in right pattern, airplanes in left pattern) extend downwinds.
Click to expand...
Calling 7-mile final does not force everyone on downwind to extend downwind. Those who can turn in front without affecting the straight-in's approach can legally do so. The rest, however, must follow that straight-in traffic. If you're one of the planes which must extend, it may annoy you that you have to do that, but that is the law on point. But if you're about to turn base for a 3/4-mile final, there is no need to extend behind someone 7 miles out, especially if it's a slow-mover rather than a Learjet or something like that. Just make sure you're clear of the runway before that straight-in aircraft gets there.

For more discussion on the law on point, see Administrator v. Fekete, and note that he got an Emergency Revocation for (among other things) deliberately turning his C-150 in front of a Citation on straight-in knowing the Citation would be forced to go around. The FAA and NTSB were not amused by this pilot's "chronic pattern of gross disregard for the Federal Aviation Regulations governing rights-of-way at uncontrolled airports and gross disregard for the foreseeable consequences [of his] unsafe actions." Don't be that pilot.
 
Last edited:
John Collins said:
A 7 mile downwind indicates that even at high speed, the aircraft is several minutes from the runway and you can turn in front without being in violation.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Unless they are flying a P-51 Mustang. Yes, this happened to me this weekend. It is amazing how fast those things are. :yes:
 
John Collins said:
A 7 mile downwind indicates that even at high speed, the aircraft is several minutes from the runway and you can turn in front without being in violation.
Click to expand...

Unwise if you don't have eyes on the traffic. A 7 mile callout is never 7 miles.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I was speaking of W00 and VKX. VKX is one of the MD3 airports restricted inside the FRZ, closed since 9/11. We JUST got FAA approval for pattern work at the MD3 as of 5/31 on a trial basis.
Click to expand...

There are some 5000+ public use airports in the US. The examples don't apply, because there isn't going to be an aircraft on an extended final for an ILS at either of these airports and every aircraft will have to be in the pattern. If you must perform a delaying turn, you can overfly the airport at pattern altitude in the correct direction and follow 91.126.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Unwise if you don't have eyes on the traffic. A 7 mile callout is never 7 miles.
Click to expand...

Unless it is at night, you won't see any GA traffic that is further than 2 or 3 SM. You have to look for traffic at all times, but if the approach area is clear and you are communicating with the other traffic, you should be able to work it out. What is always more difficult is NORDO traffic that may be in the airspace.
 
John Collins said:
There are some 5000+ public use airports in the US. The examples don't apply, because there isn't going to be an aircraft on an extended final for an ILS at either of these airports and every aircraft will have to be in the pattern.
Click to expand...
Well, it might not be an ILS, but W00 has an approach to 36 which includes a straight-in option.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/06997R36.PDF
And there can be aircraft in the pattern at W00 while someone is on that approach.
 
John Collins said:
There are some 5000+ public use airports in the US. The examples don't apply, because there isn't going to be an aircraft on an extended final for an ILS at either of these airports and every aircraft will have to be in the pattern. If you must perform a delaying turn, you can overfly the airport at pattern altitude in the correct direction and follow 91.126.
Click to expand...

I've had it happen. Tangled with a Saratoga that I couldn't see and wasn't giving standard radio callouts. I was doing pattern work and at first he insisted on a straight in to the opposite runway.

I'm tight in at threshold and had just reduced power to decend and crank it over to base leg when he called final. I had no eyes on this guy until I exited the patten and returned and saw him taxiing. By the time I got on the ground to give him words, he was ghost and I have no idea where he parked that plane.

This also happened to be the day I discovered we had engine issues. It was overhauled after that flight, so yes I had an urgent situation going too.
 
bqmassey said:
Does this change when you take instrument approaches out of the picture?
Click to expand...

No.

It ****es me off when someone calls a 7 mile final into a busy uncontrolled airport instead of entering the pattern properly, making all of the aircraft in the pattern (helicopters in right pattern, airplanes in left pattern) extend downwinds.
Click to expand...

There's nothing improper about entering the pattern on final.
 
Before you turn in front of that Cessna 150 reporting a 5 mile final think about this. How did he come up with the 5 mile distance, eyeball? Also, if he goes around, because he PERCEIVED it necessary, even though it wasn't, you just became the victim and are guilty. Maybe talking to that pilot and coordinating would be a good thing. Food for thought.
Denis
 
My frustration is that they're using, whether intentional or not, the "final" to indicate that the approach is now theirs and they have the right-of-way.

I fly out of Bend, and airport with a busy helicopter flight school, a fixed wing flight school, an aircraft manufacturer, glider operations, and a lot of recreational flyers. It's very busy. I'd guess that on many days there are over 200 operations, with one runway and no tower. Everyone gets along surprisingly well and there often both left and right patterns going on with three or four aircraft. Occasionally though, someone calls a 5-8 mile final and now everyone has to try to figure out where this persons at, how fast they are, whether or not we'll be cutting them off.

Just like you don't use lower altitudes to demand right-of-way over someone that truly is on final, it's unfair, in my opinion, to call the 7 miles remaining on your trip a "final" to demand right-of-way over people who are using the pattern properly. It's not the straight-in that bothers me as much as it is calling yourself "on final". I'd much prefer they announce their position, and wait to call final until they're closer to the airport and can verify they won't be interrupting the flow of traffic.
 
John Collins said:
So Ron, are you claiming that one can ignore 91.126 when this situation arises at this airport?
Click to expand...
I'd say potential entry into the FRZ in order to avoid violating 91.113(g) and a possible mid-air collision constitutes the emergency exception in 91.3(b), allowing you to turn whichever way you need to avoid both a collision and an unauthorized entry into the FRZ (both potentially fatal mistakes). I'd say the same if you were about to bump into Class B airspace, too, given the Chief Counsel letter which said you could not extend enter Class B airspace even if a controller outside the B-space vectored you that way (see the Doremire interpretation).
 
denisd said:
Before you turn in front of that Cessna 150 reporting a 5 mile final think about this. How did he come up with the 5 mile distance, eyeball? Also, if he goes around, because he PERCEIVED it necessary, even though it wasn't, you just became the victim and are guilty. Maybe talking to that pilot and coordinating would be a good thing. Food for thought.
Denis
Click to expand...
Probably a good idea not to do it without visual contact, but I also think it's reasonable for a pilot to rely on the other pilot's report. If the C-150 is really much closer and thus forced to go around, I'd think that would be on the C-150 pilot's head, not the pilot who relied on what the C-150 told him/her.
 
bqmassey said:
My frustration is that they're using, whether intentional or not, the "final" to indicate that the approach is now theirs and they have the right-of-way.
Click to expand...
They do have right-of-way as discussed above, but the runway is not theirs to control. If there are pilots at your airport who are acting otherwise, maybe they need to have the FSDO re-educate them on what the rules really are.

I fly out of Bend, and airport with a busy helicopter flight school, a fixed wing flight school, an aircraft manufacturer, glider operations, and a lot of recreational flyers. It's very busy. I'd guess that on many days there are over 200 operations, with one runway and no tower. Everyone gets along surprisingly well and there often both left and right patterns going on with three or four aircraft. Occasionally though, someone calls a 5-8 mile final and now everyone has to try to figure out where this persons at, how fast they are, whether or not we'll be cutting them off.
Click to expand...
If they call 5-mile final, there's nothing to figure out. You just work on that basis, knowing the distance and the relative speed of their type and yours, and make a sound decision what to do. That's what the "command" part of PIC is all about.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'd say potential entry into the FRZ in order to avoid violating 91.113(g) and a possible mid-air collision constitutes the emergency exception in 91.3(b), allowing you to turn whichever way you need to avoid both a collision and an unauthorized entry into the FRZ (both potentially fatal mistakes). I'd say the same if you were about to bump into Class B airspace, too, given the Chief Counsel letter which said you could not extend enter Class B airspace even if a controller outside the B-space vectored you that way (see the Doremire interpretation).
Click to expand...

How is that ruling in any way consistent with the other CC interpretation thread on 'VFR traffic requirement to obey ATC'?
 
Ron Levy said:
I'd say potential entry into the FRZ in order to avoid violating 91.113(g) and a possible mid-air collision constitutes the emergency exception in 91.3(b), allowing you to turn whichever way you need to avoid both a collision and an unauthorized entry into the FRZ (both potentially fatal mistakes). I'd say the same if you were about to bump into Class B airspace, too, given the Chief Counsel letter which said you could not extend enter Class B airspace even if a controller outside the B-space vectored you that way (see the Doremire interpretation).
Click to expand...

Given that a turn in the pattern direction over the airport is an option and a safe one at that, I think that claiming 91.3 would be a stretch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top