Which Airplane Has The Right Of Way?

Which airplane has the right of way?

  • Blue

  • Orange

Results are only viewable after voting.
Since it is left traffic, you should use the "left hand rule." That tells you everything you need to know.
 
It scares me how many pilots feel that once they are "in the pattern" and because they were there first then they have the ROW. Fortunately, in a game of chicken even the guy with the ROW yields to the guy who thinks he has it.

Problem is - not always.
 
luvflyin said:
Ok. 91.113(d) says what it says. So does 91.111(a). So does 91.13(a). Now that we got the flick, let’s ask the real question. You be blue, wadda ya do.
Click to expand...

Throttle my Mooney back up and get in front of that slow-ass Cessna on the 45 so I don't run 'em over going the rest of the way around the pattern.

jordane93 said:
Well it depends. Which plane is a Cirrus:p
Click to expand...

Neither. The Cirrus is on a straight-in final with its radio tuned to the wrong frequency, so both Blue and Orange will have to give way...
 
dbahn said:
It scares me how many pilots feel that once they are "in the pattern" and because they were there first then they have the ROW. Fortunately, in a game of chicken even the guy with the ROW yields to the guy who thinks he has it.

Problem is - not always.
Click to expand...

Part of the issue is the FAA says one thing and then they say that the plane to the right actually should yield to the airplane already in the pattern. And then writes a CC letter saying something different and contradicting they hung a guys cert for. All 4 are correct according to the FAA and all 4 are wrong according to the FAA. So which is it? The reg, the recommendation, the letter, or the ruling?

If they would demonstrate consistency we wouldn't even have this discussion.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I see nothing that says this is a pattern entry situation. I just see two aircraft crossing, and the orange is the stand on plane and the blue is the give way plane.
Click to expand...

Yeah, was there a deleted post? Seems like a little imaginary discussion took place...

Talk among yourself...
 
EdFred said:
Every single one that says go ahead and make right turns in the pattern even though the regs say left turns. But then they rule making a right turn to final results in certificate action.
Click to expand...

So you ignore the things that say “the FAA does not regulate pattern entry” and then get upset over opinions that tell us right turns to enter the pattern from the 45 are ok.

you aren’t processing all the information and getting upset because you only have half of it. I can tell but I can’t force you to understand.
 
bflynn said:
So you ignore the things that say “the FAA does not regulate pattern entry” and then get upset over opinions that tell us right turns to enter the pattern from the 45 are ok.

you aren’t processing all the information and getting upset because you only have half of it. I can tell but I can’t force you to understand.
Click to expand...

I don't ignore it because while they *say* they don't, they DO regulate it. They busted a guy for making a right turn to final. If they didn't regulate it, then there would have been no certificate action against the guy who entered the pattern how he wanted. The FAA says 4 different things in regards to all of this. They say all of them are right, and that all of them are wrong.

Now who's not understanding?
 
EdFred said:
I don't ignore it because they DO regulate it. They busted a guy for making a right turn to final. If they didn't regulate it, then there would have been no certificate action against the guy who entered the pattern how he wanted. The FAA says 4 different things in regards to all of this. They say all of them are right, and that all of them are wrong.

Now who's not understanding?
Click to expand...

ASRS report. On [date] at [time] I was flying to [airport]. I was [distance and direction] and [left/right] traffic to runway [number] was in use for landing. Entering the traffic pattern via a standard 45 degree entry was the most logical thing to do. After landing it occurred to me I had violated FAR 91.126 (a) (1) by making a [left/right] turn from the 45 to downwind.

Let’s all start filing these. It’s pretty easy to do. https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ . Maybe they will rewrite the mutha freaking FAR and get this over with
 
luvflyin said:
Let’s all start filing these. It’s pretty easy to do. https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ . Maybe they will rewrite the mutha freaking FAR and get this over with
Click to expand...

Rewriting that literally takes an act of congress or something like seven years to get it in the register. The quick, easy, and better solution would be to change the AFH/AIM.
 
IK04 said:
Yeah, was there a deleted post? Seems like a little imaginary discussion took place...

Talk among yourself...
Click to expand...
He was trying to make a point by getting people to answer one way, then adding the runway and having them change their answer. It’s a valid point, even though I don’t really see what the big deal is in general. Look outside and do what you must to not run into someone else. If you don’t want to deal with this, don’t go into busy airports.
 
And WTF does vicinity mean?
EdFred said:
Rewriting that literally takes an act of congress or something like seven years to get it in the register. The quick, easy, and better solution would be to change the AFH/AIM.
Click to expand...

To what? Blank slate. Write it
 
Supposedly vicinity means within 5 miles, but they kind of take the 91.13 stance as they won't really define it.

Blank slate, I would make all entries to legs straight in on one of the corners of the pattern.

RWY 36, std left pattern.
If coming in from the east enter on a crosswind over the end of the runway with 18 painted on it. If trees or other obstructions prevent you from seeing whether a plane was taking off, drift north and...
From the north, straight in to downwind.
From the west, enter on base, or if busy, drift south and...
If coming in from the south, straight in, or straight into an upwind and then fly a full pattern.

If coming in from NW, NE, SE, SW maneuver to set yourself to come in perpendicular/parallel and enter on a corner.

Which is pretty much what I do now.

I would also get rid of the "in the vicinity" and make hard and fast distances for Cat A, B, C, D where the left turn becomes regulation.
 
EdFred said:
I don't ignore it because while they *say* they don't, they DO regulate it. They busted a guy for making a right turn to final. If they didn't regulate it, then there would have been no certificate action against the guy who entered the pattern how he wanted. The FAA says 4 different things in regards to all of this. They say all of them are right, and that all of them are wrong.

Now who's not understanding?
Click to expand...

Still you.

The guys who got busted 1) were commercial flights, 2) initially lied about their distance away from the airport, and 2) made right base to final turns. Yes, they're going to get busted for that. Nobody is going to bust you for making a right turn from the 45 onto downwind.

If this really bothers you, then I'd suggest writing the Chief Counsel and explain how McPherson was wrong and every pilot who flies into a non-towered airport needs to be violated. You've had this explained to you, but you seem to have a mental block from accepting it.
 
bflynn said:
Still you.

The guys who got busted 1) were commercial flights, 2) initially lied about their distance away from the airport, and 2) made right base to final turns. Yes, they're going to get busted for that. Nobody is going to bust you for making a right turn from the 45 onto downwind.

If this really bothers you, then I'd suggest writing the Chief Counsel and explain how McPherson was wrong and every pilot who flies into a non-towered airport needs to be violated. You've had this explained to you, but you seem to have a mental block from accepting it.
Click to expand...

Wrong answer...still.

As I've stated numerous times and you fail to pick up on it: The FAA contradicts itself repeatedly between regulation and preference/suggestion. But be the good little sheep because "that's what my CFI taught me."

We have no less than 4 contradictions from the FAA and you don't pick up on it. Or you just provide excuses for them because everyone needs government coddling and who are we to question them? Which is probably the case because you say they say one thing I provide counter example and you just throw out excuses on their behalf
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Rewriting that literally takes an act of congress or something like seven years to get it in the register. The quick, easy, and better solution would be to change the AFH/AIM.
Click to expand...

Not contesting how long it takes to change the FARs. However, if the FARs contradict themselves why not start the process to correct the FARs? Just because you have corrected the non-regulatory AIM? I don't think so. Do it right!

(Assumes that there is a "right way to do this, here.
 
Skip Miller said:
Not contesting how long it takes to change the FARs. However, if the FARs contradict themselves why not start the process to correct the FARs? Just because you have corrected the non-regulatory AIM? I don't think so. Do it right!

(Assumes that there is a "right way to do this, here.
Click to expand...

The FAR's don't contradict themselves - at least not how I read 91.113 and 91.126. But the FAA does when they start issuing preferences and statements that contradict the FARs.
 
Skip Miller said:
Not contesting how long it takes to change the FARs. However, if the FARs contradict themselves why not start the process to correct the FARs? Just because you have corrected the non-regulatory AIM? I don't think so. Do it right!

(Assumes that there is a "right way to do this, here.
Click to expand...
The contradiction on this subject is between the FARs and non-regulatory documents such as the AIM and advisory circulars, not between one regulation and another.
 
Take it up with the Chief Counsel. I'm sure they are waiting with bated breath for your wisdom.

I'm out.
 
I just cannot believe we are to this point. Well, considering the OP I guess we can. Yes, one airplane has the right away, but are you really going to assume the other guy sees you?
GTF out of the way. Don’t be “dead right”.
 
Kritchlow said:
I just cannot believe we are to this point. Well, considering the OP I guess we can. Yes, one airplane has the right away, but are you really going to assume the other guy sees you?
GTF out of the way. Don’t be “dead right”.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone is suggesting this isn’t the case.

The complaint is that the regs, the pseudo-regs in the form of Chief Cousel letters, the pseudo-pseudo regs in the form of Advisory Circulars, and the not-regs-but-we-can-great-them-as-regs AIM, all have directly contradictory information.

It’s really well past time for FAA to stop that. Regs are regs. The rest need to be trashed unless they are 100% not ever used as regulatory. It’s asinine.

The internet made it clearer and more asinine. Until they were all on a disorganized website without even a table of contents, nobody knew what a Chief Counsel letter was other than the people who received one to a question or the occasional useless Yodice article in the AOPA rag.

ACs, maybe a nearby airport had a nice rack full of them printed up, but nowhere near all of them. Just a few useful ones.

AIM... yep. Non-regulatory but had useful info that wasn’t a reg.

That was the paper distribution days. Now it’s publish piles of useless PDFs like any good massive bureaucracy is wont to do when given six websites, and splatter information everywhere like digital diarrhea and see what gets on some hapless pilot who isn’t subscribed to hundreds of email updates for documents per month on the ONE website that allows this. There’s no email subscriptions or topic settings for Chief Counsel letters.

They need a unified publication. Two really. Regs. And non-regs. That’s IT. And someone to actually organize it by topic. CLICKABLE topic on ONE website.

It’s not going to happen but there’s the rant. Enjoy.
 
denverpilot said:
I don’t think anyone is suggesting this isn’t the case.

The complaint is that the regs, the pseudo-regs in the form of Chief Cousel letters, the pseudo-pseudo regs in the form of Advisory Circulars, and the not-regs-but-we-can-great-them-as-regs AIM, all have directly contradictory information.

It’s really well past time for FAA to stop that. Regs are regs. The rest need to be trashed unless they are 100% not ever used as regulatory. It’s asinine.

The internet made it clearer and more asinine. Until they were all on a disorganized website without even a table of contents, nobody knew what a Chief Counsel letter was other than the people who received one to a question or the occasional useless Yodice article in the AOPA rag.

ACs, maybe a nearby airport had a nice rack full of them printed up, but nowhere near all of them. Just a few useful ones.

AIM... yep. Non-regulatory but had useful info that wasn’t a reg.

That was the paper distribution days. Now it’s publish piles of useless PDFs like any good massive bureaucracy is wont to do when given six websites, and splatter information everywhere like digital diarrhea and see what gets on some hapless pilot who isn’t subscribed to hundreds of email updates for documents per month on the ONE website that allows this. There’s no email subscriptions or topic settings for Chief Counsel letters.

They need a unified publication. Two really. Regs. And non-regs. That’s IT. And someone to actually organize it by topic. CLICKABLE topic on ONE website.

It’s not going to happen but there’s the rant. Enjoy.
Click to expand...
I liked the "digital diarrhea" part the best.
 
denverpilot said:
I don’t think anyone is suggesting this isn’t the case.

The complaint is that the regs, the pseudo-regs in the form of Chief Cousel letters, the pseudo-pseudo regs in the form of Advisory Circulars, and the not-regs-but-we-can-great-them-as-regs AIM, all have directly contradictory information.

It’s really well past time for FAA to stop that. Regs are regs. The rest need to be trashed unless they are 100% not ever used as regulatory. It’s asinine.

The internet made it clearer and more asinine. Until they were all on a disorganized website without even a table of contents, nobody knew what a Chief Counsel letter was other than the people who received one to a question or the occasional useless Yodice article in the AOPA rag.

ACs, maybe a nearby airport had a nice rack full of them printed up, but nowhere near all of them. Just a few useful ones.

AIM... yep. Non-regulatory but had useful info that wasn’t a reg.

That was the paper distribution days. Now it’s publish piles of useless PDFs like any good massive bureaucracy is wont to do when given six websites, and splatter information everywhere like digital diarrhea and see what gets on some hapless pilot who isn’t subscribed to hundreds of email updates for documents per month on the ONE website that allows this. There’s no email subscriptions or topic settings for Chief Counsel letters.

They need a unified publication. Two really. Regs. And non-regs. That’s IT. And someone to actually organize it by topic. CLICKABLE topic on ONE website.

It’s not going to happen but there’s the rant. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Since joining POA and starting flying (in Norway, but here I see a lot of the same problems) I have been kind of amazed at controversy over interpreting regs, for things that any non pilot would assume were written clearly and in stone and that all pilots could follow.

So I wonder, is there no system in place for pilots to point out discrepancies, contradictions, and even mistakes back to the FAA, NASA? Some way to give feedback that they could try and improve the gray areas?
 
This wouldn't be a petition for changing the regs. Just dump the AFH and AIM recommendation.
 
EdFred said:
This wouldn't be a petition for changing the regs. Just dump the AFH and AIM recommendation.
Click to expand...
I was getting to that; see attachment for the procedure to submit comments and corrections on the AIM. (I'll look for a procedure for AFH suggestions next.)
 

Attachments

  • AIM Comments & Corrections.pdf
    26.2 KB · Views: 4
The regulatory conflict is certainly interesting but IDK if it's a common problem in practice, I've never run into it. In the rare cases where there was a potential conflict(and usually because two pilots just couldn't see each other yet) someone always extends a downwind, climbs 500' up, does a 360, or something else along those lines. Seems like most pilots have the good sense to just take the initiative and avoid the conflict before they worry about who has right of way.

The most common traffic I encounter in the traffic pattern is some guy doing touch and gos. The most common resolution is by sheer chance by the time I arrive to enter on whatever leg of the pattern I'm going to enter on, he's somewhere else and we're a mile or more apart so no conflict. If there is conflict or I haven't visually found the other aircraft I'm just going to assume a solo student pilot who doesn't know what he's doing and avoid him by doing something logical. I've noticed the student pilot frequently moves on to another airport when a new aircraft enters the pattern too so maybe we're all sort of thinking along the same lines.
 
EdFred said:
Supposedly vicinity means within 5 miles, but they kind of take the 91.13 stance as they won't really define it.

Blank slate, I would make all entries to legs straight in on one of the corners of the pattern.

RWY 36, std left pattern.
If coming in from the east enter on a crosswind over the end of the runway with 18 painted on it. If trees or other obstructions prevent you from seeing whether a plane was taking off, drift north and...
From the north, straight in to downwind.
From the west, enter on base, or if busy, drift south and...
If coming in from the south, straight in, or straight into an upwind and then fly a full pattern.

If coming in from NW, NE, SE, SW maneuver to set yourself to come in perpendicular/parallel and enter on a corner.

Which is pretty much what I do now.

I would also get rid of the "in the vicinity" and make hard and fast distances for Cat A, B, C, D where the left turn becomes regulation.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Not necessarily the details of what you wrote, but yeah, the vagueness of “vicinity” is the root of the problem.
 
EdFred said:
Rewriting that literally takes an act of congress or something like seven years to get it in the register. The quick, easy, and better solution would be to change the AFH/AIM.
Click to expand...

Not always. FAR changes can be ‘fast tracked.’ 91.126 (d) is an example. When we went to Alphabet Soup airspace, Airport Traffic Area was dropped and the concept of the ATA was merged into Class D. What was ignored is some airports with Control Towers are in Class G airspace. They got that FAR change through in a few months.
 
Last edited:
The right turn to enter the downwind....

Man, that’s really grasping at straws.
Let that one go for heavens sake.
 
Sheesh, 3 pages and y'all still haven't figured out the right answer?
Since the airplanes are flown by pilots (who are arrogant creatures by nature), BOTH airplanes have the right of way.
And since both pilots are so good, they will sort it out when the time comes, no worries.

Now how hard was that?
 
BigBadLou said:
Sheesh, 3 pages and y'all still haven't figured out the right answer?
Since the airplanes are flown by pilots (who are arrogant creatures by nature), BOTH airplanes have the right of way.
And since both pilots are so good, they will sort it out when the time comes, no worries.

Now how hard was that?
Click to expand...

wait...now I’m confused. If there is one thing I’ve learned here, it’s that the OTHER pilot is an idiot.
Something doesn’t add up....
 
Bill Jennings said:
How I take it:

  1. If you're on the preferred 45* entry, you must yield to traffic on the downwind. Full stop.
  2. If you're on the alternate 45* entry, not only must you yield to traffic on the downwind, you also must yield to traffic on the preferred 45* entry.
Is it really more complex than this???
Click to expand...
No. It’s not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top