What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

crosswind vs. incoming 45 traffic: who has the right-of-way?

highflight42x

Well Known Member
Here is a situation I encounter a lot at non-towered airports: airplane #1 is on crosswind and either turning or near to turning downwind, and airplane #2 is close-in on the 45 and about to turn downwind. Who should yield to whom? The FAA rules and advisories are not clear on this except that the airplane to the right or below the other has the right-of-way (pls educate me if I missed something in the regs). But, the situation changes rapidly and predictably as both airplanes are near to turning or into their turn to the downwind. When I am airplane #2, many times I have turned off of the 45 and done a 360 to let the crosswind airplane get well ahead on the downwind. And when the situation looked like I could stay ahead of the crosswind-to-downwind airplane by at least several hundred feet, I've made my 45-to-downwind turn in front of the crosswind airplane. And I've been airplane #1 many times as well - the same sort of decisions are required in that position. I have always thought, from training and experience, that the 45 and the crosswind are equally "in the traffic pattern", and it is a judgment call for each pilot to maintain adequate spacing. Can y'all point me to the FAA regs and advisories that will clarify this, or relate your experiences?

thanks!

Steven
1450 RV hours - another one today!
 
My Opinion........

The aircraft on crosswind is in the pattern and has right-of-way. This assumes that this aircraft is beyond the departure end of the runway and not mid-field.

The aircraft on the 45° is entering the pattern and should yield the the aircraft already in the pattern.
 
The aircraft on crosswind is in the pattern and has right-of-way. This assumes that this aircraft is beyond the departure end of the runway and not mid-field.

The aircraft on the 45° is entering the pattern and should yield the the aircraft already in the pattern.

This is what I thought was true, though I am not sure I read it verbatim. When I am entering the pattern with traffic taking off and staying in the pattern, I tend to assume it is a student and that he/she will do something stupid. If I can establish 2 way communication (simply telling him what I intend to do doesn't count), I will work something out. If I can't, I usually break off and do a 360 or some other maneuver before entering the pattern in conflict.

I am based at a non towered airport with a lot of student activity, so have had some scary situations. They sometimes get nervous and either don't make calls or listen to other calls.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Pattern

Mel has it right. FAA recommended pattern entry is 45 downwind. There is no other "recommended entry". Crosswind is certainly in the pattern and gives you the right of way, but crosswind is not the middle of the runway, it is past the departure end in a closed pattern. I think if anything ever came of it, the FAA would find you at fault for not giving way to a 45 entry plane if you were entering on a crosswind over the airport.

That said, I will always use the over the airport, crosswind entry if I am on that side of the airport.
Ed

The aircraft on crosswind is in the pattern and has right-of-way. This assumes that this aircraft is beyond the departure end of the runway and not mid-field.

The aircraft on the 45° is entering the pattern and should yield the the aircraft already in the pattern.
 
Mel has it right. FAA recommended pattern entry is 45 downwind. There is no other "recommended entry". Crosswind is certainly in the pattern and gives you the right of way, but crosswind is not the middle of the runway, it is past the departure end in a closed pattern. I think if anything ever came of it, the FAA would find you at fault for not giving way to a 45 entry plane if you were entering on a crosswind over the airport.
That said, I will always use the over the airport, crosswind entry if I am on that side of the airport.
Ed

I would recommend that if you enter the pattern on crosswind that you do it beyond the departure end of the runway. That will give you a more complete picture of what's happening. And reduces possible conflict with traffic entering on the 45.
 
Last edited:
The genius of the 45 degree entry is that if you're doing it right, there should not be a conflict between it and crosswind traffic. Because, an aircraft that is correctly making the turn from the 45 to downwind is already well ahead of the crosswind traffic.

When you enter the 45, your nose should be pointed at the approach end of the runway such that your turn to down wind will be mid-field at the proper lateral distance for your aircraft, well in front of crosswind traffic.

If that's not how you're making your 45s, I suggest using the "arrival" procedure in ForeFlight to give you some guidance to follow till you get the sight picture.

I really think a big part of the problem is that many CFIs allow their student's to fly such big patterns (in order to give them more time to establish a "stabilized approach") that we have a distorted view of what the pattern should look like.
 
The genius of the 45 degree entry is that if you're doing it right, there should not be a conflict between it and crosswind traffic. Because, an aircraft that is correctly making the turn from the 45 to downwind is already well ahead of the crosswind traffic.

Can we say "it depends"?

I can think of a LOT of variables. If the plane on crosswind is a C-152 or a Cub and you are flying a SF50 jet, and your 45 is not exactly midfield but a little closer to approach end, then you may not have the "right of way" but you can get into the pattern and land without interrupting the other plane. Vice versa, if the plane on the 45 is doing 60 kts and the plane on crosswind is doing 150kts, then the plane on crosswind will have to deviate for the plane on the 45 or it will overtake it if the plane on the 45 joins ahead.

Looking for a hard and fast rule? What I was taught basically boiled down to "will you enter the pattern and land without interrupting anyone else?" If yes, then proceed. If you will cause someone else to deviate from their intended speed or path, then join behind the plane on crosswind. Not much different from the decision to pull into traffic from a stop sign or yield sign in the car.

All that being said, I see lots of cowboys here in CO. There is a glider tow plane that has a hangar near mine who I routinely see cutting everyone off. He always flies a midfield 90 degree approach, then banks 60-75 degrees (might even be close to 90 degrees sometimes) in a 270 degree turn and drops straight onto the runway. I have seen plenty of planes on base or even long final when he does this. I don't think I have seen many people have to go around because of him, but I'm sure it is a bit of a surprise to think you are #1 for landing, turning base to final, and then see this guy spiral down right in front of you out of nowhere.
 
...
All that being said, I see lots of cowboys here in CO. There is a glider tow plane that has a hangar near mine who I routinely see cutting everyone off. He always flies a midfield 90 degree approach, then banks 60-75 degrees (might even be close to 90 degrees sometimes) in a 270 degree turn and drops straight onto the runway. I have seen plenty of planes on base or even long final when he does this. I don't think I have seen many people have to go around because of him, but I'm sure it is a bit of a surprise to think you are #1 for landing, turning base to final, and then see this guy spiral down right in front of you out of nowhere.
The skydiving aircraft pilots are also fun to have in a busy pattern!

To be fair, they are usually very experienced and have a very "ain't nobody got time for that" attitude when it comes to slow aircraft flying a bomber pattern.

Gotta say I didn't know it was "legal" to enter the downwind after overflying the field with a 90°. I've always done the descending teardrop entry. Good to know!
 
Right of Way

I love these discussions

Lots of advisory material and recommendations, only one set of rules defining right of way.

Fundamentally right of way only comes into play during a meeting scenario, or in the moments prior to a mid-air that both pilots have the opportunity to see and avoid.

Crosswind vs 45 entry shouldn't really generate a meeting scenario, perhaps the question is more one of 'interval.'

But let's say the person entering is nearer the departure end of the runway and a head to head pass is assessed. 91.113(e) burdens both aircraft to make room by maneuvering to the right.

If the person entering the pattern is closer to midfield, then as somebody suggested there really isn't a meeting situation with somebody on crosswind. But if we are really talking about somebody turning off crosswind and seeing the conflict then it depends on the pattern direction. Left pattern the aircraft turning off crosswind is burdened, right pattern the entry aircraft is burdened.

91.113(g) is perhaps the most misused of the rules. It is prefaced by 'on final to land or landing.' So its parts wouldn't apply to any other parts of the pattern.

Here is my favorite: At an untowered field there is a meeting situation between an aircraft on base and one performing a straight in. Many pilots/CFIs/even the authors of AC 91-66 claim the aircraft in the pattern has the right of way. (yes, they and I had that discussion and it led to a wording change) "[aircraft] on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight" Even a hot air balloon is burdened to do everything they can to 'give way' to the aircraft on final.

That rule gets people into a twist, and they make up all kinds of unrealistic scenarios to lend 'right of way' to aircraft in the pattern. Right of way isn't 'interpreted' except perhaps by a judge in the aftermath of an unfortunate event, and it certainly isn't or shouldn't be inferred.

I think the OP really spoke to how to take interval in non-towered situations. There aren't any rules for that only guidance.

Here is another favorite tickler (91.126): The only enforceable rule about patterns at non-towered fields is that when approaching to land all turns must be made to the left unless it is marked to make right traffic. My reading so far on FAA decisions about pattern conflicts always fall back on that rule. (circling from an approach is also similarly restricted) 'Approaching to land' is a very different thing from 'on final.' So a right turn from the 45 entry into a standard pattern would very much seem to violate this rule....Anyone want to feast on those entrails?
 
Last edited:
I really think a big part of the problem is that many CFIs allow their student's to fly such big patterns (in order to give them more time to establish a "stabilized approach") that we have a distorted view of what the pattern should look like.

I've never really understood this. If you think about a traffic pattern: you're low altitude, typically in/near a city with less forced landing options. Why are we intentionally teaching students to be out of glide range of the airport?

My last flight review the instructor commented about how tight my pattern was and how that might be confusing or concerning to people flying a "normal" pattern. I told him that during flight testing I experimented until I got a good sight picture as to where if I lost my engine at any point in the pattern I would comfortably make the runway; and that wasn't happening with a 1 or 1.5 mile wide pattern that they have their students run. He seemed to accept this but they're still teaching the bomber patterns with students... If I'm following someone else in the pattern I usually "play nice" to them and follow their track, but it definitely bugs me being out of glide range.

/rant

as for the OP's question: I'm also of the school that if someone already in the area announcing landing intentions would need to slow down or deviate for me with my preferred arrival, I defer to them an make spacing to land behind them. Assuming both planes have radio's the most important thing is communicating what you're doing. If I'm not getting responses, I assume no radio and almost always just defer my arrival to behind them unless I can clearly get down with lots of space/time for them. So I guess I typically give preference to first announced so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Gotta say I didn't know it was "legal" to enter the downwind after overflying the field with a 90°. I've always done the descending teardrop entry. Good to know!

I never said it was legal. Just at a non-towered field no one seems to call him on it.

My hangar is about midfield and I routinely see him go right overhead, maybe 500 agl, perpendicular to the runway, then do a spiral drop right down to the numbers. It is pretty impressive to watch how well he does it. But I also can see a scenario where I'm quoted in an NTSB report as a witness when that 80 degree bank goes wrong.
 
I never said it was legal. Just at a non-towered field no one seems to call him on it.

My hangar is about midfield and I routinely see him go right overhead, maybe 500 agl, perpendicular to the runway, then do a spiral drop right down to the numbers. It is pretty impressive to watch how well he does it. But I also can see a scenario where I'm quoted in an NTSB report as a witness when that 80 degree bank goes wrong.

Assuming the turns were in the proper direction 91.303 would be violated in Class E hinging on whether the aggressive maneuvers were "necessary for normal flight." I have sat on similar panels and the answer is usually no.
 
Last edited:
Interesting perspectives (as expected). To the OP's question, I was taught very early in my flight training to perform a "mid field, crosswind entry" to the downwind. Was a very common procedure used at the airports where I learned to fly. That said, my instuctor also brought up that the crosswind, like the 45, were not "in" the pattern yet... They were both "entries to" the pattern, so it was really a judgement call to see which of the two aircraft was more appropriate for the scenario.

Bottom line: see and avoid and use your judgement to not swap paint.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the turns were in the proper direction 91.303 would be violated in Class E hinging on whether the aggressive maneuvers were "necessary for normal flight." I have sat on similar panels and the answer is usually no.

I would think that for a glider towing operation, that is fairly normal practice.

Dave
 
Interesting perspectives (as expected). To the OP's question, I was taught very early in my flight training to perform a "mid field, crosswind entry" to the downwind. Was a very common procedure used at the airports where I learned to fly. That said, my instuctor also brought up that the crosswind, like the 45, were not "in" the pattern yet... They were both "entries to" the pattern, so it was really a judgement call to see which of the two aircraft was more appropriate for the scenatio.
Bottom line: see and avoid and use your judgement to not swap paint.

If you are talking mid-field, I would agree. However if you enter the crosswind beyond the departure end of the runway, that would put you "in" the pattern just as you would be if you had just taken off.
 
If you are talking mid-field, I would agree. However if you enter the crosswind beyond the departure end of the runway, that would put you "in" the pattern just as you would be if you had just taken off.

Agree, and that is the point he drove home.
 
I've never really understood this. If you think about a traffic pattern: you're low altitude, typically in/near a city with less forced landing options. Why are we intentionally teaching students to be out of glide range of the airport?

My last flight review the instructor commented about how tight my pattern was and how that might be confusing or concerning to people flying a "normal" pattern. I told him that during flight testing I experimented until I got a good sight picture as to where if I lost my engine at any point in the pattern I would comfortably make the runway; and that wasn't happening with a 1 or 1.5 mile wide pattern that they have their students run. He seemed to accept this but they're still teaching the bomber patterns with students... If I'm following someone else in the pattern I usually "play nice" to them and follow their track, but it definitely bugs me being out of glide range.

/rant

as for the OP's question: I'm also of the school that if someone already in the area announcing landing intentions would need to slow down or deviate for me with my preferred arrival, I defer to them an make spacing to land behind them. Assuming both planes have radio's the most important thing is communicating what you're doing. If I'm not getting responses, I assume no radio and almost always just defer my arrival to behind them unless I can clearly get down with lots of space/time for them. So I guess I typically give preference to first announced so to speak.

I don't get it or like it either. However, the FAA has been pushing this "stabilized approach" and 3.5* final approach for some time now. I can see why the CFI's teach it; No one wants to get sideways with the FAA. While it makes a lot of sense for big iron, it seems insane for GA aircraft.

I also do steep and short approaches. Most guys on the field refer to me as the crazy pilot because of this and the fact that I am the only one that will fly when wind is > 25 knots. It would seem we are in the minority.
 
Last edited:
airplane #1 is on crosswind and either turning or near to turning downwind, and airplane #2 is close-in on the 45 and about to turn downwind. Who should yield to whom?
I think the OP's post really answers his own question.

"airplane #1 is on crosswind and either turning or near to turning downwind" - ie. it's clearly in the circuit, and by the description, staying in the circuit.

"airplane #2 is close-in on the 45 and about to turn downwind" - ie. it's not there yet, ergo is not part of the circuit, ergo it yields to the aircraft in the circuit if there is any potential for conflict.
 
cross-wind entries

being beyond the departure end of the runway feels really silly when the runway is 11,000 ft long. Mid-field cross-wind entry starts to make a lot of sense.

I see many 45-entries flown on a heading that aims more at the departure end and produces a very long downwind leg. Heck, I've done it myself.

So the potential for conflicts between these two arrivals exists because of the variability of where the two entries are flown. We are all friends, so work it out with courtesy.
 
'In the Pattern' vs 'Not in the Pattern' and interval

I think there is a guarded mindset over aircraft 'established in the pattern.'

Assuming all suggested calls have been made an aircraft on upwind that would be affected by an aircraft entering the pattern and the new arrival should be aware of each other and not turning unless their paths are clear. Those timing turns should consider interval.

Once inside 3 miles or so the aircraft entering the pattern has very limited options to affect interval. A depart and re-enter at this point is fairly disruptive, so unless that pattern is restrictively full the burden of interval on the newcomer will fall to others. It seems like there is a tendency for some aircraft in the pattern to presume a priority over aircraft they consider 'not in the pattern.' This mindset is detrimental to safe pattern operations, and is very much in the minority when we consider General Aviation writ large.

An aircraft lifting off the runway into the pattern has the greatest impact on its interval with an aircraft entering the pattern by timing the crosswind turn.

If the upwind aircraft starts their crosswind turn before being able to take a proper interval on the aircraft on the 45, then there is a problem with the mutual nature of Non-Towered field operations.

In the situation where there is a single person in the tower burdened with maintaining interval, the instruction would be for the upwind aircraft to delay turn until called or to take visual separation on the aircraft entering the pattern. Here is a professional opinion from a tower supervisor (ATC controller) with 20 years of control:

"Thank you for reaching out to me. I agree the pilots operating in an uncontrolled/non-towered situation should practice what would be expected in a controlled environment. Unfortunately, I do not think everyone knows what would be done due to a lack of situational awareness or lack of experience.

In this case, I would absolutely extend the upwind aircraft in closed traffic upwind further to follow behind the aircraft entering on the 45. This would be the best option for a few reasons. Obviously, the 360, pushing to the left for a downwind that is wider or further away from the runways (i.e. a second downwind) or exiting to re-enter the pattern would be an unnecessary delay for the aircraft on the 45. The aircraft departing after executing the option is still climbing, gaining airspeed, would need to turn twice, and is in a critical phase of flight, while the aircraft on the 45 has a faster airspeed typically and flying straight. The spacing would continue to decrease if the upwind aircraft going much slower turned in front of the faster aircraft on the 45."

ATC prefers to handle aircraft on a 'first come first served' basis and in this scenario the aircraft about to turn downwind from the 45 would be first to land, so the aircraft on crosswind or upwind would be second served.

So where do we get the sense that there is a priority to aircraft 'in the pattern?' ATC doesn't do that, why should we take that opinion in non-towered situations. The upwind aircraft sets its interval on traffic it will follow, right?

Of course there are scenarios where the upwind to crosswind turn gets strung out and the pattern is so full that entering it becomes a real challenge. In those cases the aircraft on upwind is setting interval on the traffic it is following, and trundling blindly in on the 45 is an improper decision.

But I think more often than not the idea that 'I am in the pattern and will make my turns where I always do because I was here first' is the likely reason we infrequently find interval problems.

Same thing happens when an aircraft on downwind turns base and puts their nose in front of an aircraft doing a straight in with the intention of landing, rather than recognizing that nobody 'owns' the pattern position. In this scenario it is the aircraft on downwind that sets up the problem with the timing of the turn to base, the aircraft on the straight in having the right of way.

So what to do when interval timing has fallen out and there is a meeting situation on downwind? The right answer is to follow right of way rules for a converging situation. Here's why: Let's imagine a left pattern with a converging situation on downwind between an aircraft (1) that turned downwind from a crosswind and aircraft (2) that turned downwind from a 45 degree entry. In this situation #1 finds themselves left of #2. If #1 uses the opinion that there is a priority to aircraft in the pattern then an avoidance turn may be delayed. If at the same time #2 uses the rules for a converging situation then an avoidance turn SHOULD be reasonably delayed as it is that aircraft's responsibility to continue or 'stand on' while the burdened aircraft maneuvers clear. This is the dance we do in the grocery store aisle that the right of way rules are written to prevent. Obviously both aircraft must still see and avoid. But why introduce an unwritten expectation that may contradict right of way deconfliction law? Why not just follow the law?
 
Last edited:
. For example, an aircraft on an instrument approach flying on the final approach course to land would follow the requirements dictated by the approach procedure.

This brings up another whole issue. At a local uncontrolled field, a pilot flying under IFR using the approach to runway 26 is mandated to circle to a right base entry, to land on runway 30. But VFR traffic to the same runway is mandated to use a left pattern, a left base to final. e.g., head-on traffic. Let's all be careful, please.
 
I do try to accommodate straight-in traffic as best I can, but straight-in traffic do not have the right of way.

Indeed, an aircraft does not have the right of way simply by having done a straight in. Just in the same way that an aircraft on base does not have the right of way simply by being on base. The key term here is 'on final approach to land' and how they get on final isn't part of the law.

This is the conundrum of using advisory material in the place of codified law. AC 00-2.13 is one of the seminal docs for all the rest that follow in the AC system, and it declares at the outset that ", the contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the public"

The same AC declares that functional rule making will be found in the F.A.R.s

So it is in the FARs and only the FARs that we find rules. Guidance may come from ACs, AOPA, or anyone willing to write an article, but there is only one lawful rule set.

FAR 91.113(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.

If we have a meeting situation between an aircraft on base and one doing a straight in (with the intention to land), then the one doing the straight in (with the intention to land) would be on final while the one on base would not be on final. The aircraft on final has the right of way regardless of how they got there.
 
Last edited:
This brings up another whole issue. At a local uncontrolled field, a pilot flying under IFR using the approach to runway 26 is mandated to circle to a right base entry, to land on runway 30. But VFR traffic to the same runway is mandated to use a left pattern, a left base to final. e.g., head-on traffic. Let's all be careful, please.

That's a great one! What field?
 
I do try to accommodate straight-in traffic as best I can, but straight-in traffic do not have the right of way.

Indeed, an aircraft does not have the right of way simply by having done a straight in. Just in the same way that an aircraft on base does not have the right of way simply by being on base. The key term here is 'on final approach to land' and how they get on final isn't part of the law.

This is the conundrum of using advisory material in the place of codified law. AC 00-2.13 is one of the seminal docs for all the rest that follow in the AC system, and it declares at the outset that ", the contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the public"

The same AC declares that functional rule making will be found in the F.A.R.s

So it is in the FARs and only the FARs that we find rules. Guidance may come from ACs, AOPA, or anyone willing to write an article, but there is only one lawful rule set.

FAR 91.113(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.

If we have a meeting situation between an aircraft on base and one doing a straight in (with the intention to land), then the one doing the straight in (with the intention to land) would be on final while the one on base would not be on final. The aircraft on final has the right of way regardless of how they got there.

I understand your argument but does that mean if I decide to go on final approach 20 miles from the airport with the intend to land everybody else needs to get out of the way? How would they even know 20 miles out that I was on final approach with the intend to land? I mean airplanes without radios are still legal.

That seems silly. I guess there is no reason why FAR's can't be silly ... .

In practice flying over 30 years I never had a case where I thought it was smart to rely on my right of way. E.g. flying gliders in the approach of Newark I had the right of way of all those big guys getting ready to land. I still always got out of their way. Seemed like common sense ... .

Oliver
 
Right of way

" if I decide to go on final approach 20 miles from the airport with the intend to land everybody else needs to get out of the way"

Yes, that is silly but I love it anyway because this example always surfaces!

Right of way rules come into play in a meeting situation when one aircraft or the other, or both must by law maneuver to avoid danger.

So if you could imagine yourself on base 20 miles from an airport vying for the same airspace against an aircraft on final with the intent to land also 20 miles from the airport then yes, you must give way. But nobody else has to unless the airplane on final was 20 miles long.
 
Last edited:
" if I decide to go on final approach 20 miles from the airport with the intend to land everybody else needs to get out of the way"

I love it! This example always surfaces!

Right of way rules come into play in a meeting situation when one aircraft or the other, or both must by law maneuver to avoid danger.

So if you could imagine yourself on base 20 miles from an airport vying for the same airspace against an aircraft on final with the intent to land also 20 miles from the airport then yes, you must give way. But nobody else has to unless the airplane on final was 20 miles long.

Not quite true. If I am on a 20 mile final with intend to land and an entirely unrelated aircraft (e.g. a hot air balloon) is hanging out 18 miles from the airport on my path to the runway the ballon has to yield me. FAR 91.113(g) does not say that the airplane which is not on final has to be in the pattern of the airport in question.

Oliver
 
My opinion is that it is incumbent on us as pilots (and drivers) to follow right of way rules as published. That <generally> makes traffic flow the best because everyone knows what to expect. If there is confusion, work it out with the other guy. Getting all wound up over nebulously defined "rights" isn't a good way to enjoy your Saturday afternoon.
 
"I guess there is no reason why FAR's can't be silly ... .

In practice flying over 30 years I never had a case where I thought it was smart to rely on my right of way. E.g. flying gliders in the approach of Newark I had the right of way of all those big guys getting ready to land. I still always got out of their way. Seemed like common sense ... ."

Well, I don't think you really mean to share that FARs are silly. We all know that many rules even the odious ones in aviation are written in blood.

When options abound we would be foolish to test right of way. But if circumstances ever tie our hands we don't want the other aircraft to think of regulations as silly.
 
This post is about aircraft deconfliction between pattern entry on downwind and those on crosswind. The OP desired information on Right of Way.

I think the FARs on right of way are crystal clear. In discussion sometimes folks view them as muddy and this is what a Safety forum is for. Nobody flying should consider right of way rules and the immediate actions required to be anything other than absolutely clear. God willing we never need them, but in this activity someday our lives may hinge on others knowing what to do.

But the OP was bigger than that and drifted towards a distinction between aircraft in a pattern and those not yet in a pattern which is good fodder for a Safety discussion.
 
Last edited:
Not quite true. If I am on a 20 mile final with intend to land and an entirely unrelated aircraft (e.g. a hot air balloon) is hanging out 18 miles from the airport on my path to the runway the ballon has to yield me. FAR 91.113(g) does not say that the airplane which is not on final has to be in the pattern of the airport in question.

Yes, that is the literal reading of it. I didn't write that only aircraft on base would be burdened.

Maybe silly is the wrong term. English is not my native language but you
don't find this rule dangerous/not well thought through/inconsistent?

How would the hot air balloon pilot even know that s/he has to yield in particular as s/he might not have a radio tuned to a frequency of an airport 18 miles away? S/he would assume that the airplane has to yield.

Oliver
 

Attachments

  • popcorn.gif
    popcorn.gif
    441.1 KB · Views: 395
Last edited:
Maybe silly is the wrong term. English is not my native language but you
don't find this rule dangerous/not well thought through/inconsistent?

How would the hot air balloon pilot even know that s/he has to yield in particular as s/he might not have a radio tuned to a frequency of an airport 18 miles away? S/he would assume that the airplane has to yield.

Oliver


The rules have to be simple enough to know cold. For any simple rule we can devise complicated scenarios that test their integrity. While we can make a logical challenge it isn't a fair test of the rule.

So is there a scenario where a hot air balloon needed to get out of an airplane's path to land and how would they know without comm?

It isn't hard to imagine that if a hot air balloon was drifting into the path of an airplane close to the ground with its gear down, that the balloon would realize it isn't a converging situation and they need to do whatever possible to avoid.

18 miles from an airport? We can make that work, but it would be outside of what 'on final to land' means to most situations. If we must then how about a space shuttle? Do you think the balloon would get what's happening?

Let's turn it around: If an airplane is committed to landing don't you want the balloon to avoid it?
 
Last edited:
...
It isn't hard to imagine that if a hot air balloon was drifting into the path of an airplane close to the ground with its gear down, that the balloon would realize it isn't a converging situation and they need to do whatever possible to avoid.

...

I have actually had this happen as we do get some balloon activity around here on those beautiful, quiet evenings in the summer. Balloon drifting across the final approach path at our small, untowered airport. The guy was on the radio apologizing profusely and asking me if I see him and to not hit him. I confirmed to him that I see him and I would do all I could to avoid a collision. :D He seemed to have felt terrible about it, and I found it delightful.
 
Couldn't this really be summed up as vigilance, courtesy and communication? Watch out of other aircraft, fly courteously as to not create a hazard for others and communicate with other aircraft when there's a potential for conflict?

That seems to me to be the spirit of 91.113 which establishes responsibility and rules for resolving common conflicts. It doesn't (and perhaps can't) address every potential situation, but applying these principles would surely help alleviate those that aren't addressed.
 
Maybe silly is the wrong term. English is not my native language but you
don't find this rule dangerous/not well thought through/inconsistent?

How would the hot air balloon pilot even know that s/he has to yield in particular as s/he might not have a radio tuned to a frequency of an airport 18 miles away? S/he would assume that the airplane has to yield.

Oliver

I don't believe that any reasonable person, including the FAA or a judge, would accept the concept of a 20 mile final. If you are 20 miles from an airport, You are not in the pattern and you are NOT on a final approach. This seems pretty straight forward. Every rule or law requires some type of reasonable thought to exclude this type of thing and keep to the intent of the law. I would not want to be the lawyer trying to defend a guy saying he had a right of way 20 miles from the runway.

Larry
 
The stuff in FAR/AIM amounts to little more than suggestions as there is little/no enforcement. Bottom line, if you run into someone or they run into you, you will likely die. A couple of years later NTSB will rule that you had the right of way.
 
I don't believe that any reasonable person, including the FAA or a judge, would accept the concept of a 20 mile final. If you are 20 miles from an airport, You are not in the pattern and you are NOT on a final approach. This seems pretty straight forward. Every rule or law requires some type of reasonable thought to exclude this type of thing and keep to the intent of the law. I would not want to be the lawyer trying to defend a guy saying he had a right of way 20 miles from the runway.

Larry

The 20 mile number was obviously picked to illustrate a point but following your logic when will I be on final approach? 5 miles, 2 miles, 1 mile, 2000 feet, airport boundary?

That seems to where the ambiguity is originating from. As I agree that it would be difficult to argue for 20miles people seem to have different opinions on what is reasonable.

Oliver
 
Yes, people point to FAR 91.113(g) when trying to justify that traffic on a straight-in approach has the right-of-way. But they are applying their (mis)interpretation of that rule for that situation. The FAA's interpretation, the one that matters, is espoused in the aforementioned AC 90-66B (see post #23 for links and excerpts). The FAA is clear that traffic on a straight-in approach does not have the right-of-way over other traffic in the pattern.

Part of the confusion comes about because an aircraft on a 20 mile, 10 mile, or 5 mile straight-in, is not on "final approach". The final approach leg is the flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.

And I'm done here.


Can you cite where the FAA clearly states that "traffic on a straight-in approach does not have the right-of-way over other traffic in the pattern?"

The referenced 90-66B talks to right of way only six times that I can find. Para 1: That 90-66B is related to right of way but then shows where those rules are found in the FARs, next in para 9.2.1 to say that UAVs do not have right of way vs manned aircraft, then in para 11.11 to declare that it is only FAR 91.113 that may be used to determine right of way, then in para 12.2.1 it reviews gliders being towed, then para 12.3.1 puts shade on ultralights, then in para 12.4.1 the AC contradicts FAR 91.113(g). Again, you can't hang your hat on that contradiction because ACs are self-defined as non-binding. But it is a good example that the authors of ACs sometimes make mistakes or weave in their personal views. I have had long dialogue with the authors of AC 90-66B and FAA legal to get some of this AC's wording straightened out. At one time it did lend to the idea that aircraft in the pattern had a priority over those doing straight ins. That language is now gone, and the AC spells out that while on base you need to be aware of aircraft that may be doing straight ins and use the FARs to deconflict. Notice also that when the AC speaks to making one's intentions clear on the radio it is not speaking to any particular pattern position.

Again, an aircraft cannot have right of way simply by being on a straight in or by being on base leg, or any other part of a pattern. Pattern positions aren't material in any way. But when an aircraft is landing, or on final to land, it has the right of way over all other aircraft. You just can't read that law any other way.

The law applies equally to two airplanes that were both in the pattern: If somebody takes a really deep base and gets on a 2.5 mile final (and intending to land), then they have the right of way over somebody who might be on a much closer base leg that wants to turn at their normal position and create a meeting situation. So how is it different when the aircraft on final came from a straight in? The fact is that it doesn't matter how the aircraft gets on final with the intent to land, it has the right of way over all others be they in the pattern or not. It's not an interpretation, it is what the rule says. Trying to weave meaning into having approached straight in is where the confusion/interpretation lay.
 
Last edited:
The stuff in FAR/AIM amounts to little more than suggestions as there is little/no enforcement. Bottom line, if you run into someone or they run into you, you will likely die. A couple of years later NTSB will rule that you had the right of way.

Try that on during a check ride. I hope for everyone's sake that's not really true in your cockpit, and that you were just fishing for a bite. The laws can and do have a role in post mortems, sure. But they have a much more important role in prevention, which is why knowing them clearly is so very important. A Safety discussion like this that raises awareness and gets even one person to study the FARs and what they truly say is well worth this forum.
 
Last edited:
A person on a LONG final may have the right of way but that doesnt mean the airport is closed to anyone closer to land as long as they dont get in his way. Is it any different than pulling onto a highway or road when you have plenty of time to safely merge?
 
The 20 mile number was obviously picked to illustrate a point but following your logic when will I be on final approach? 5 miles, 2 miles, 1 mile, 2000 feet, airport boundary?

That seems to where the ambiguity is originating from. As I agree that it would be difficult to argue for 20miles people seem to have different opinions on what is reasonable.

Oliver

Kind of why I went the Space Shuttle route. Yes, being on final is purposefully ill-defined because it depends what each aircraft, and even what each pilot needs for their normal operations. It is more what it means rather than how it is geometrically or geographically defined. Aircraft get right of way when busied with the tasks of landing because it is a more critical/less maneuverable phase of flight. And yes, the final phase of landing is different for different aircraft and different operators. And don't get myopic on airplanes, this rule covers all category of aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Try that on during a check ride. I hope for everyone' sake that's not really true in your cockpit. The laws can and do have a role in post mortems, sure. But they have a much more important role in prevention, which is why knowing them clearly is so very important. A Safety discussion like this that raises awareness and gets even one person to study the FARs and what they truly say is well worth this forum.

When was the last time you saw someone written up? I try to follow the rules when I fly but I also tend to yield when I hear a King Air ten mile out on the RNAV approach to 13.
 
A person on a LONG final may have the right of way but that doesnt mean the airport is closed to anyone closer to land as long as they dont get in his way. Is it any different than pulling onto a highway or road when you have plenty of time to safely merge?

Exactly! Right of way only comes in to play in the immediate vicinity of two aircraft about to meet. And it is meant to facilitate deconfliction (prevention)
 
Last edited:
When was the last time you saw someone written up? I try to follow the rules when I fly but I also tend to yield when I hear a King Air ten mile out on the RNAV approach to 13.

Based on the nature of my job I see deviations in process everyday (every workday).
 
I have actually had this happen as we do get some balloon activity around here on those beautiful, quiet evenings in the summer. Balloon drifting across the final approach path at our small, untowered airport. The guy was on the radio apologizing profusely and asking me if I see him and to not hit him. I confirmed to him that I see him and I would do all I could to avoid a collision. :D He seemed to have felt terrible about it, and I found it delightful.

That's a fantastic example of how the FARs are meant to prevent mishaps when everybody is aware of exactly what the FARs say.

It would probably have been hard to miss seeing the balloon. But its operator knew he/she had a duty to make the deconfliction happen so extra radio use followed. The airplane I am sure didn't need the heads up call, but if somehow it did the FAR was there to help make it happen by informing the balloonist that they were in the wrong place.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top