Familiar story, turns base after straight in calls 3 mile final.

[dbahn]

Personally, I'd like to see the FARs drop the "aircraft at the lower altitude" ROW rule.

How often does that really enter into decision making when approaching to land? Assuming that most aircraft enter the pattern at pattern altitude, and that "most" aircraft descend at a point nearly opposite the runway threshold, then the situation where an aircraft is lower is most likely to occur exactly as it appears to have done in this situation (at the end of the downwind leg and the turn to base) giving the C210 pilots a "false ROW" in cutting in front of an aircraft established on final, just as it likely has done in many other mid-air collisions at non-towered fields.

In nearly 50 years of flying (the majority of which involves non-towered fields) I've never seen the "lower altitude" ROW used except in this deadly circumstance, i.e. cutting in front of an aircraft on final - an act that is specifically prohibited by 91.113.

While no one really likes the "abusive use" of straight in approaches at non-towered fields, there is no place for gladiators there either.

 

[Anthem]

There are no regs on it - however there in that exact AC you quoted is this statement “The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed”.

So while not against - they do note preference for established pattern.

 

[Jim K]

I don't think anyone is saying the straight in Cirrus was in the right in any way. But if someone wants to step on some toes, I'm not about to have a ****ing match about it in the air. The celebrity cfi in the left seat could have said something on the radio. "Cirrus on straight in final, we're established downwind you think we can get in ahead so we don't have to extend downwind"?

Instead they went silent on ctaf and just assumed he probably wouldn't do what he said he was gonna do.

This is my issue. I fly straight ins a lot, but if I see or hear traffic in the pattern, I fly the pattern. We don't have the full audio here, but the way the video is cut, it certainly appears the cirrus was more than willing to accommodate any other traffic. The 210 was silent until the cirrus called a five mile final, then made a vague call about being in the downwind. The cirrus than calls a 3 mile final and the 210 makes a short approach to cut him off. It was a dick move.

I suspect the cirrus saw them on adsb, and determined that he could be down & out of the way by the time the 210 completed their normal pattern. Hence the "oh you cut me off, I guess I'll slow down". Were I in the cirrus I would've gotten the patten and been #2, but I don't think he was wrong in what he did. Miller clearly decided he wasn't going to let this guy get in front of him, and displayed pretty poor airmanship doing so.

 

[dbahn]

There are no regs on it - however there in that exact AC you quoted is this statement “The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed”.

So while not against - they do note preference for established pattern.

How do you conclude that there are "no regs" on it?

This is a REGULATION, not just an advisory or "encouragement":

(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 . . .

 

[Anthem]

How do you conclude that there are "no regs" on it?

This is a REGULATION, not just an advisory or "encouragement":

yes, but there is that tricky "Or" as in does the defintion of "while landing" include traffic in the pattern ? (base or final). I would say yes and I believe its vague on that - but traffic in pattern is what I would also call "while landing". Because traffic in pattern is all setting up for landing - i mean no other real purpose to be in the pattern, right ? So that statement is for all planes "while landing" - in the pattern, straight in or whatever - over planes on the ground, or planes flying over etc.

And as stated earlier, the right of way is for planes at lower altitudes, though that shouldnt be abused. Just like straight in approaches at whatever distance out? otherwise one should always make a 10mi straight in approach call and therefore always be "right" as you could define "final approach" to be any point past the FAF fix which could be 10 miles out. . . . and therefore be on "final approach" and have ROW.

 

[dtuuri]

yes, but there is that tricky "Or" as in does the defintion of "while landing" include traffic in the pattern ? (base or final). ... traffic in pattern is what I would also call "while landing". Because traffic in pattern is all setting up for landing.

Uh, not to me. They are drawing a distinction for surface traffic to also defer to landing traffic, thus the two matching "or"s — one for aircraft in the air and one for those on the ground.

 

[dbahn]

Just like straight in approaches at whatever distance out? otherwise one should always make a 10mi straight in approach call and therefore always be "right" as you could define "final approach" to be any point past the FAF fix which could be 10 miles out. . . . and therefore be on "final approach" and have ROW.

The distance doesn't matter until there's a potential conflict, which doesn't occur when an aircraft on final is 10 miles out on the approach. If you land well ahead of that aircraft and allow him to land behind you that's perfectly legal and acceptable. If you force him to avoid you, it's a violation of 91.113. Here's some case law that helps make that clearer. The pilot had his certificate revoked (not suspended) for cutting in front aircraft on final.

Obviously the governing law is that both pilots are obligated to avoid a collision, but in the case of cutting in front of an aircraft on final even when no collision occurs the FAA can take certificate action. What happens with respect to civil liability in the case of a collision is a another matter.

 

[Palmpilot]

There are no regs on it - however there in that exact AC you quoted is this statement “The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed”.

So while not against - they do note preference for established pattern.

The problem is they contradict themselves.

 

[EdFred]

yes, but there is that tricky "Or" as in does the defintion of "while landing" include traffic in the pattern ? (base or final). I would say yes and I believe its vague on that - but traffic in pattern is what I would also call "while landing". Because traffic in pattern is all setting up for landing - i mean no other real purpose to be in the pattern, right ? So that statement is for all planes "while landing" - in the pattern, straight in or whatever - over planes on the ground, or planes flying over etc.

And as stated earlier, the right of way is for planes at lower altitudes, though that shouldnt be abused. Just like straight in approaches at whatever distance out? otherwise one should always make a 10mi straight in approach call and therefore always be "right" as you could define "final approach" to be any point past the FAF fix which could be 10 miles out. . . . and therefore be on "final approach" and have ROW.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
While landing, like while in the flare, over the numbers, as in no longer on final approach. 45/upwind/crosswind/downwind/base are not "while landing."

Right of way is not JUST for aircraft at lower altitude.

You need some serious remedial training.

 

[Palmpilot]

...And as stated earlier, the right of way is for planes at lower altitudes, though that shouldnt be abused. Just like straight in approaches at whatever distance out? otherwise one should always make a 10mi straight in approach call and therefore always be "right" as you could define "final approach" to be any point past the FAF fix which could be 10 miles out. . . . and therefore be on "final approach" and have ROW.

Right-of-way only matters if the two aircraft are close enough together to cause the one with the right-of-way to take evasive action.

 

[dbahn]

The problem is they contradict themselves.

Yes, and one thing to keep in mind is that if the FAA took action based on their recommendations and "encouragements" in the Advisory Circulars and AIM most pilots would be subject to certificate action on a regular basis. There are hundreds of recommendations that are routinely ignored.

The regulations are a different story, and most conscientious pilots go to great lengths to avoid violating them, as they should.

 

[Anthem]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
While landing, like while in the flare, over the numbers, as in no longer on final approach. 45/upwind/crosswind/downwind/base are not "while landing."

Right of way is not JUST for aircraft at lower altitude.

You need some serious remedial training.

based on your assumption- there is never a reason to respect pattern traffic. just call final 10miles out, 5mi, 3mi, etc . No one in pattern will be ahead of you, and you'll have right of way all the way down going straight in. There is no reason to enter the pattern or acknowledge anyone else. You've established "right of way" because you're on "final" and landing - and therefore no one else has right of way over you. let's all just be first to be "on final" as early as possible. Because there isnt any else that will take precedence regardless.

 

[EdFred]

based on your assumption- there is never a reason to respect pattern traffic. just call final 10miles out, 5mi, 3mi, etc . No one in pattern will be ahead of you, and you'll have right of way all the way down going straight in. There is no reason to enter the pattern or acknowledge anyone else. You've established "right of way" because you're on "final" and landing - and therefore no one else has right of way over you. let's all just be first to be "on final" as early as possible. Because there isnt any else that will take precedence regardless.

That's not at all what I said. You misreading of my post is as bad as the misreading of the regs.

You do realize that if I turn tight base and a plane is on 10 mile final there is no right of way issue, right? Based on your posts, it seems doubtful. Right of way comes into play when there will be a conflict. Similar approach category of aircraft, 10 miles, 5 miles, and 3 miles, hell maybe even 1 mile depending on the aircraft involved there will be no conflict, so the ROW rules won't even apply.

I mean if we want to go full retard using your "established in pattern takes precedence" and I hesitate to call it logic, but will anyway:
If I am on the crosswind, or upwind you have to get out of my way because I'm even more in the pattern than you entering on downwind. I mean, I'm more established than you, so you better get behind me and fly an upwind and crosswind as well. I mean I was in the pattern first so you have to get behind me.

"Mommy someone else is in MY pattern!"

 

[Palmpilot]

based on your assumption- there is never a reason to respect pattern traffic. just call final 10miles out, 5mi, 3mi, etc . No one in pattern will be ahead of you, and you'll have right of way all the way down going straight in. There is no reason to enter the pattern or acknowledge anyone else. You've established "right of way" because you're on "final" and landing - and therefore no one else has right of way over you. let's all just be first to be "on final" as early as possible. Because there isnt any else that will take precedence regardless.

It's not his assumption; it's the position that the FAA has taken in enforcement actions. See the link in Post #47 for an example.

 

[Anthem]

That's not at all what I said. You misreading of my post is as bad as the misreading of the regs.

You do realize that if I turn tight base and a plane is on 10 mile final there is no right of way issue, right? Based on your posts, it seems doubtful. Right of way comes into play when there will be a conflict. Similar approach category of aircraft, 10 miles, 5 miles, and 3 miles, hell maybe even 1 mile depending on the aircraft involved there will be no conflict, so the ROW rules won't even apply.

I mean if we want to go full retard using your "established in pattern takes precedence" and I hesitate to call it logic, but will anyway:
If I am on the crosswind, or upwind you have to get out of my way because I'm even more in the pattern than you entering on downwind. I mean, I'm more established than you, so you better get behind me and fly an upwind and crosswind as well. I mean I was in the pattern first so you have to get behind me.

"Mommy someone else is in MY pattern!"

"lets go full retard" (polically incorrect btw, but your probably too "retarded" to know that). . . The point being made was that you could establish ROW using your method and never not be. You would NEVER have to yield - like ever. There wouldnt be an issue with planes turning in front without any conflict or conflict resolution if proper spacing was established, but even if there was a conflict - what you are saying is that straight in established final would never be in the wrong - like ever. But again, the point I was making is that you would never have to yield EVER, once you made your call that you were on "final". Not that anyone wouldnt be able to establish proper spacing before (or after) you. But by sheer fact that you have "established yourself" on "final" however far out, you have notified everyone and that everyone else needs to yield to you. So lets all race to be on final. . . .

As for the court case - its easy to interpret that however you want. Said pilot violated one notable exception in there - in that he was /higher/ than every other plane he cut off - even the one jet that was also in the pattern with him. You cant fight idiiocy there. So he didnt have right of way regardless, and the case law explicity mentions in every one of those incidents that he was higher than the other plane - which indicates to me, that it seems they are interpeting right of way out of the vagueness as the height of the planes to be the deciding factor (which may also be problematic - but at least that seemed to be their deciding factor).

 

[Anthem]

It's not his assumption; it's the position that the FAA has taken in enforcement actions. See the link in Post #47 for an example.

In that particular case - he was higher and considered to be further back in every one of those instances. Even the one that he cut off in pattern. We arent talking that here. It was plainly obvious that whomever Jason Miller "cut off" was no where near to a collision. He merely "slowed down" and I doubt even did a go around to avoid any potential collission if there was any. Not saying he was right or the cirrus was right as both being alive is right. But I apparently there are some hard and fast feelings that some have that straight in is always right.

 

[Anthem]

I don't think anyone is saying the straight in Cirrus was in the right in any way. But if someone wants to step on some toes, I'm not about to have a ****ing match about it in the air. The celebrity cfi in the left seat could have said something on the radio. "Cirrus on straight in final, we're established downwind you think we can get in ahead so we don't have to extend downwind"?

Instead they went silent on ctaf and just assumed he probably wouldn't do what he said he was gonna do.

Oh but they are. . . see above. . and being quite "retarded" and belligerent about it. . .. lol

 

[Palmpilot]

"lets go full retard" (polically incorrect btw, but your probably too "retarded" to know that). . . The point being made was that you could establish ROW using your method and never not be. You would NEVER have to yield - like ever. There wouldnt be an issue with planes turning in front without any conflict or conflict resolution if proper spacing was established, but even if there was a conflict - what you are saying is that straight in established final would never be in the wrong - like ever. But again, the point I was making is that you would never have to yield EVER, once you made your call that you were on "final". Not that anyone wouldnt be able to establish proper spacing before (or after) you. But by sheer fact that you have "established yourself" on "final" however far out, you have notified everyone and that everyone else needs to yield to you. So lets all race to be on final. . . .

What pilots say on the radio has absolutely no bearing on who has the right-of-way.

As for the court case - its easy to interpret that however you want. Said pilot violated one notable exception in there - in that he was /higher/ than every other plane he cut off - even the one jet that was also in the pattern with him. You cant fight idiiocy there. So he didnt have right of way regardless, and the case law explicity mentions in every one of those incidents that he was higher than the other plane - which indicates to me, that it seems they are interpeting right of way out of the vagueness as the height of the planes to be the deciding factor (which may also be problematic - but at least that seemed to be their deciding factor).

When more than one reason is given for a decision, it's arbitrary to say that one of the reasons counts and the other one doesn't.

 

[Palmpilot]

In that particular case - he was higher and considered to be further back in every one of those instances. Even the one that he cut off in pattern. We arent talking that here. It was plainly obvious that whomever Jason Miller "cut off" was no where near to a collision. He merely "slowed down" and I doubt even did a go around to avoid any potential collission if there was any. Not saying he was right or the cirrus was right as both being alive is right. But I apparently there are some hard and fast feelings that some have that straight in is always right.

I'm not sure whether or not the FAA would consider a need to slow down as an indication that right-of-way was violated. Personally, if I'm on downwind and I'm not sure whether there's room for me to turn base in front of a straight-in, I'm going to play it safe by either asking, or going ahead and extending my downwind.

 

[Palmpilot]

Oh but they are. . . see above. . and being quite "retarded" and belligerent about it. . .. lol

Personal attacks are uncalled for.

 

[Anthem]

When more than one reason is given for a decision, it's arbitrary to say that one of the reasons counts and the other one doesn't.

Uh - what other reason is there if you are basing it on this case law ?

" At the time you turned your aircraft onto final approach for Runway 10, you were in front of and at an altitude approximately 100 feet above the R-22."

" At the time you turned your aircraft onto final approach for Runway 28, you were in front of and at an altitude higher than that of the Citation jet."

Both examples given - these were the reasons cited. I doubt you can say "were in front" as the reason being the problem - since being behind, there wouldnt have been an issue. so the reason giving was that he turned in front of and was at a higher altitude than the other aircraft. What other reason is there that would have been the cause of the revocation in these two cases ?

 

[PaulS]

 

[Anthem]

Personal attacks are uncalled for.

Absolutely. So lets stop the instigation and the repeated attacks. I only re-quoted the term. Previous responses chose the path of insults and personal attacks. Im not commenting on someone needing remedial training. or saying mommy someone is in my pattern, or calling things retarded. . .

If you look at my first, second or even third responses. it was merely posting MY opinion without any salt added to castigate anyone elses position.

 

[EdFred]

"lets go full retard" (polically incorrect btw, but your probably too "retarded" to know that). . . The point being made was that you could establish ROW using your method and never not be. You would NEVER have to yield - like ever. There wouldnt be an issue with planes turning in front without any conflict or conflict resolution if proper spacing was established, but even if there was a conflict - what you are saying is that straight in established final would never be in the wrong - like ever. But again, the point I was making is that you would never have to yield EVER, once you made your call that you were on "final". Not that anyone wouldnt be able to establish proper spacing before (or after) you. But by sheer fact that you have "established yourself" on "final" however far out, you have notified everyone and that everyone else needs to yield to you. So lets all race to be on final. . . .

As for the court case - its easy to interpret that however you want. Said pilot violated one notable exception in there - in that he was /higher/ than every other plane he cut off - even the one jet that was also in the pattern with him. You cant fight idiiocy there. So he didnt have right of way regardless, and the case law explicity mentions in every one of those incidents that he was higher than the other plane - which indicates to me, that it seems they are interpeting right of way out of the vagueness as the height of the planes to be the deciding factor (which may also be problematic - but at least that seemed to be their deciding factor).

You still don't understand, well, anything, based on your posts.

I stand by my first response of you need some serious remedial training, and additionally some sand removal wipes.

I never called anyone retarded. Learn to read, both the posts and the regs.

 

[Palmpilot]

Uh - what other reason is there if you are basing it on this case law ?

" At the time you turned your aircraft onto final approach for Runway 10, you were in front of and at an altitude approximately 100 feet above the R-22."

" At the time you turned your aircraft onto final approach for Runway 28, you were in front of and at an altitude higher than that of the Citation jet."

Both examples given - these were the reasons cited. I doubt you can say "were in front" as the reason being the problem - since being behind, there wouldnt have been an issue. so the reason giving was that he turned in front of and was at a higher altitude than the other aircraft. What other reason is there that would have been the cause of the revocation in these two cases ?

"In front of" and "higher than" are two reasons. "In front of" qualifies as a reason by itself because of the way that 91.113(g) is written. If you think that being on final approach is not sufficient by itself to confer right-of-way, then please explain what this sentence means:

"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."​

 

[Palmpilot]

Absolutely. So lets stop the instigation and the repeated attacks. I only re-quoted the term. Previous responses chose the path of insults and personal attacks. Im not commenting on someone needing remedial training. or saying mommy someone is in my pattern, or calling things retarded. . .

If you look at my first, second or even third responses. it was merely posting MY opinion without any salt added to castigate anyone elses position.

I apologize for overlooking the previous personal attack.

 

[Anthem]

"In front of" and "higher than" are two reasons. "In front of" qualifies as a reason by itself because of the way that 91.113(g) is written. If you think that being on final approach is not sufficient by itself to confer right-of-way, then please explain what this sentence means:

"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."​

Exactly. In front of was the reason. But that reason is a given. Because behind wouldnt be an issue nor would this even have come to light. I guess you could also say there is on top of or below as well. . But its specifically noted to be in front of and above. Which exactly violates the "aircraft at the lower altitude has the right of way" - which is why said pilot was revoked. Not only did he cut in front of, but he was above the other aircraft on final. What Im saying is that - they specifically notated that as the reason. You said - there were other reasons that denoted he did not have ROW. I said - the only reason (that I would say is relevant) was that he turned in front, caused a potential for collision and was cited for multiple ROW violations because of their use of height being above. Is that the only reason ? Probably not - but that was what they could legally cite and did.

 

[Anthem]

I apologize for overlooking the previous personal attack.

and letting it happen again in #64. . . but whose counting. its obvious the standards seem to be different for different people. . . my guess is that if I quoted that exact same text and wrote it deflecting back - you would say I was personally attacking. . but somehow someone can do it repeatedly and guess what ? i must be the problem. . . lol

 

[PaulS]

This whole rule discussion is nice and all, but if you are worried about a rule when heading toward a collision, or you purposefully turn causing a conflict because of rules, you have rocks in your head. Deconflict, even if you are right and the other guy is wrong.

 

[Palmpilot]

Exactly. In front of was the reason. But that reason is a given. Because behind wouldnt be an issue nor would this even have come to light. I guess you could also say there is on top of or below as well. . But its specifically noted to be in front of and above. Which exactly violates the "aircraft at the lower altitude has the right of way" - which is why said pilot was revoked. Not only did he cut in front of, but he was above the other aircraft on final. What Im saying is that - they specifically notated that as the reason. You said - there were other reasons that denoted he did not have ROW. I said - the only reason (that I would say is relevant) was that he turned in front, caused a potential for collision and was cited for multiple ROW violations because of their use of height being above. Is that the only reason ? Probably not - but that was what they could legally cite and did.

1. The reason he was in front of the aircraft on final was that he cut in front it.
2. He was at a higher altitude than the aircraft on final.

That's two reasons why he did not have the right-of-way, not one.

 

[Palmpilot]

and letting it happen again in #64. . . but whose counting. its obvious the standards seem to be different for different people. . . my guess is that if I quoted that exact same text and wrote it deflecting back - you would say I was personally attacking. . but somehow someone can do it repeatedly and guess what ? i must be the problem. . . lol

You seem to be escalating.

 

[EdFred]

and letting it happen again in #64. . . but whose counting. its obvious the standards seem to be different for different people. . . my guess is that if I quoted that exact same text and wrote it deflecting back - you would say I was personally attacking. . but somehow someone can do it repeatedly and guess what ? i must be the problem. . . lol

Based on your posts: I don't think you understand what a personal attack is.

Using non-PC language is not a personal attack. It's a manhole cover, a cockpit, a master drive, etc. Not saying utility access cover, flight deck, or primary drive is not a personal attack. Stating that your position taken full retard (to the extreme) is ridiculous is not an attack on your person. I can call your position stupid, but it's not a personal attack.

You have demonstrated, repeatedly, a misunderstanding of the regulations, posts, and case law. Pointing that out is not a personal attack.

Suggesting you need remedial training because of your misunderstanding of the regulations is not a personal attack.

Saying to someone, "You're (correct usage) a ****ing idiot that doesn't know your (also correct usage here, btw) ass from a hole in the ground and I'm surprised that you were able to pass the written with your case of trisomy and massively underdeveloped cerebral cortex," would be a personal attack. But none of that was said.

Now, step back, breathe, stand up, and shake the sand out of your panties.

 

[PaulS]

Based on your posts: I don't think you understand what a personal attack is.

Using non-PC language is not a personal attack. It's a manhole cover, a cockpit, a master drive, etc. Not saying utility access cover, flight deck, or primary drive is not a personal attack. Stating that your position taken full retard (to the extreme) is ridiculous is not an attack on your person. I can call your position stupid, but it's not a personal attack.

You have demonstrated, repeatedly, a misunderstanding of the regulations, posts, and case law. Pointing that out is not a personal attack.

Suggesting you need remedial training because of your misunderstanding of the regulations is not a personal attack.

Saying to someone, "You're (correct usage) a ****ing idiot that doesn't know your (also correct usage here, btw) *** from a hole in the ground and I'm surprised that you were able to pass the written with your case of trisomy and massively underdeveloped cerebral cortex," would be a personal attack. But none of that was said.

Now, step back, breathe, stand up, and shake the sand out of your panties.

I'm thinking once one is irritated due to sand in their panties, that shaking out the panties but does nothing to root out the offending problem sand. But I could be wrong.

 

[Anthem]

Based on your posts: I don't think you understand what a personal attack is.

Using non-PC language is not a personal attack. It's a manhole cover, a cockpit, a master drive, etc. Not saying utility access cover, flight deck, or primary drive is not a personal attack. Stating that your position taken full retard (to the extreme) is ridiculous is not an attack on your person. I can call your position stupid, but it's not a personal attack.

You have demonstrated, repeatedly, a misunderstanding of the regulations, posts, and case law. Pointing that out is not a personal attack.

Suggesting you need remedial training because of your misunderstanding of the regulations is not a personal attack.

Saying to someone, "You're (correct usage) a ****ing idiot that doesn't know your (also correct usage here, btw) *** from a hole in the ground and I'm surprised that you were able to pass the written with your case of trisomy and massively underdeveloped cerebral cortex," would be a personal attack. But none of that was said.

Now, step back, breathe, stand up, and shake the sand out of your panties.

That wasnt my definition of personal attacks either. However it was brought to my attention that my response indirectly about it was deemed a personal attack and quoted as such. If the indirect reference to an opinion and what it stands is interpreted and defined as a personal attack, then I asked that that same reference be applied equally. It wasnt, and noted as such. So you can apply someone elses definition of personal attack and put it on me, or you can address it with said person on what is or is not a personal attack with him. Again, I was quoted and if that is said definition, I notated it as such. Obviously he seems to know how cantankerous some individuals are and prefers to not take it head on.

So you are correct in that perhaps neither were "personal attacks" and perhaps attacks on position and opinions. And I'm ok with that, but perhaps others arent. And it sure does seem people get all caught up in their panties about it - including not being able to stay within a debate. I'm fairly comfortable in my legal interpretation, and the only hard and fast rule I have about this - is to stay alive. Because not everything is hard and fast, but it appears that some people take it that way. If you want to argue legalese or semantics - sure. Obviously you guys have more time than I do

 

[Brad W]

1. The reason he was in front of the aircraft on final was that he cut in front it.

I think one could argue that he did not cut in front... that he was already in front...being a) established in the pattern, and 2) closer to the runway than the Cirrus

2. He was at a higher altitude than the aircraft on final.

do we know that? I'm not going back to rewatch it but I don't recall that being stated

 

[Brad W]

I sure do wish Eric would post a video showing the roll out and clearing of the active...and how long before the Cirrus landed

 

[Palmpilot]

I think one could argue that he did not cut in front... that he was already in front...being a) established in the pattern, and 2) closer to the runway than the Cirrus


do we know that? I'm not going back to rewatch it but I don't recall that being stated

We were discussing the NTSB disposition of the appeal of an FAA enforcement case, not the incident in the video. Also, I have not seen any regulation that gives the right-of-way to an aircraft based on being established in the pattern.

 

[dbahn]

Also, I have not seen any regulation that gives the right-of-way to an aircraft based on being established in the pattern.

The regulation does exactly the opposite, and gives the aircraft on final the "right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface". I don't know where this "dibs" concept comes from, but it's a deadly misconception.

 

[dbahn]

Which exactly violates the "aircraft at the lower altitude has the right of way" - which is why said pilot was revoked.

In that 1994 case the pilot cutting in front of the aircraft on final was violated for "creating a collision hazard". Note that in that legal decision that in the 5(a) event altitude is not even considered. It merely states that, "You turned inside of a Piper Arrow, identification no. N2841V, when that aircraft was on final approach to the [airport]."

You can't do that at ANY altitude if it creates a collision risk.

 

[Flying Keys]

The Cirrus was there, I found the tail number. He only had an MLAT target (no history of ADS-B at all) and had overflown KMHR a few minutes prior to his target being lost at low altitude as he approached KMCC. The timing roughly foots for his callouts, but no direct evidence of exact position.

As to the 7 mile call from the 210 - if he’d been talking to Norcal, that’s likely about where he’d be given the freq change and gone over to McClellan CTAF.

This occurred about 2 1/2 weeks prior to the Watsonville midair - I have a feeling the 210 would have yielded if WVI had occurred prior and it had been fresh on their minds.