Right of Way and What to Do

dbahn

dbahn

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Vermont
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Bahnson
In this hypothetical example two planes are of similar make/model, both approaching to land to the south and both are roughly a mile or so from the airport at pattern altitude with "A" on a downwind in the left hand pattern.

Who has the ROW and what does the other one do? One of them is NORDO.


ROW.jpg
 
Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories—

Maybe?
 
Is this really hypothetical or is "your friend" in one of them? For me, if I am in one of them, and also assuming I am not the NORDO, then prior to knowing if the other aircraft is NORDO, I will decide if I want to be #1 or #2. I would make the standard radio call. Than I add that I am either #1 or #2 to land and also ask the other aircraft if they would prefer otherwise. I could care less if I am #1 or #2 - it is me just throwing something out there.

If the other plane agrees with my sequencing then we are all good. Maintain visual separation and in we go.

If the other aircraft disagrees or comes back with something that I do not want to deal with or they simply do not respond (perhaps because they are NORDO) then I would rather have them in front of me than behind me. I update my radio call that I am #2 (no more asking) as well as do a right 360 (or similar) to allow the other aircraft to get further in front of me.

In the air, trying to decide who has the legal right of way makes no sense to me. I have no idea what sort of legal analysis the other pilot is or is not running in their head. For me, it is about communication, coordination and cooperation. If that does not happen than I am backing off and letting them do their own thing.
 
I'm with eman....maybe.

B has the right of way
except
I suppose it could be argued that A is already in the pattern... a very wide pattern that I would argue isn't the pattern (depending on type and speed)....but could be....say at the crosswind to downwind turn....
in such case wouldn't B need to yield to planes already in the pattern>?
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
In the air, trying to decide who has the legal right of way makes no sense to me. I have no idea what sort of legal analysis the other pilot is or is not running in their head. For me, it is about communication, coordination and cooperation. If that does not happen than I am backing off and letting them do their own thing.
Click to expand...

Fully agree. You gotta fly the situation in front of you, in a manner that keeps everyone out of harm's way. Midairs aren't fender-benders where both drivers can argue over right-of-way after one gets sideswiped in traffic. Do what ya gotta do to avoid the conflict entirely, and save the legal considerations/debrief for later.
 
dbahn said:
In this hypothetical example two planes are of similar make/model, both approaching to land to the south and both are roughly a mile or so from the airport at pattern altitude with "A" on a downwind in the left hand pattern.

Who has the ROW and what does the other one do? One of them is NORDO.


View attachment 117130
Click to expand...
You looking for the Law? Or good judgement?
 
By regulation B has the right of way.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
In the air, trying to decide who has the legal right of way makes no sense to me. I have no idea what sort of legal analysis the other pilot is or is not running in their head. For me, it is about communication, coordination and cooperation. If that does not happen than I am backing off and letting them do their own thing.
Click to expand...

I think the legal ROW makes a LOT of sense. It is the FIRST level of decision making once you see another aircraft that may pose a conflict. Either you have the ROW or he does. If you have it, you continue hoping he will recognize that he has to remain clear, but you immediately formulate an alternative plan to implement as soon as you see he's not taking action to remain clear. He may not have a radio, he may not recognize that he needs to yield, he may not have seen you, he may just be a jerk, and there may be all sorts of inadvertent other reasons to do something differently, but ROW comes first in the decision making process. If you see an aircraft approaching from the right at your altitude in cruise, isn't the first step there to react to the fact that he has the ROW? You can't communicate, coordinate, and cooperate (any or all of those) in many situations, and the regulations are written with that in mind.

This hypothetical situation is exactly one such scenario.
 
I think technically B would have the ROW, but I also think it's easier for B to deconflict than it is for A. I would call and probably do a 360 if I were B and the terrain allowed it. As far as the no radio bit, I believe everyone should be using a radio, especially if they are likely to encounter another aircraft in the pattern. But lets say B is nordo and is clueless, then A would have to take evasive action. Not a lot of good options, I would probably turn left to deconflict, which opens you up to other potential conflicts. So the answer is "it depends".

I've been in these situations before, generally a meeting of minds on the radio solves the issue, no radio complicates that.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
I would make the standard radio call. Than I add that I am either #1 or #2 to land and also ask the other aircraft if they would prefer otherwise. I could care less if I am #1 or #2 - it is me just throwing something out there.

If the other plane agrees with my sequencing then we are all good. Maintain visual separation and in we go.

If the other aircraft disagrees or comes back with something that I do not want to deal with or they simply do not respond (perhaps because they are NORDO) then I would rather have them in front of me than behind me. I update my radio call that I am #2
Click to expand...

Although I have frequently made radio calls indicating I am number one or number two, I recently learned that those labels are reserved for tower operators, and that we should probably not use them.
 
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.

When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way.

My vote is B.
 
dbahn said:
In this hypothetical example two planes are of similar make/model, both approaching to land to the south and both are roughly a mile or so from the airport at pattern altitude with "A" on a downwind in the left hand pattern.

Who has the ROW and what does the other one do? One of them is NORDO.


View attachment 117130
Click to expand...
You looking for the Law
Clip4 said:
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.

When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way.

So it could be either A or B since no altitude information was given in the scenario other than roughly pattern altitude.
Click to expand...
He said they were both at the same altitude, "...both are roughly a mile or so from the airport at pattern altitude..."
 
luvflyin said:
You looking for the Law

He said they were both at the same altitude, "...both are roughly a mile or so from the airport at pattern altitude..."
Click to expand...
Correction was in progress when you posted, but B is using a recommended entry and A isn’t. In a lawsuit where a jury had to find fault, I believe B would be determined to have ROW.
 
Clip4 said:
Correction was in progress when you posted, but B is using a recommended entry and A isn’t. In a lawsuit where a jury had to find fault, I believe B would be determined to have ROW.
Click to expand...

But they are both probably dead, so they won't care. I agree on B, but as I posted previously, I would probably and in fact have given way as B to A because it was just easier for me to do so. Of course we were talking to each other.
 
I guess it all depends. If I'm in the Bonanza and I'm feeling sporty....I'll just pass him to the right.

Most times I'm not looking for conflict....so I'll just do a 360 and fall in line. ;)
 
Generally speaking, aircraft entering the pattern should give way to aircraft already in the pattern. However, common sense sequencing should drive the actions of both pilots. IMO let type of aircraft and relative speed dictate the outcome, eg. let the heavier and faster aircraft get in front. If both are similar type and speed, B should slow down and adjust his aim point to pull in behind A.
 
Clip4 said:
Correction was in progress when you posted, but B is using a recommended entry and A isn’t. In a lawsuit where a jury had to find fault, I believe B would be determined to have ROW.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The regulation is pretty explicit
 
Clip4 said:
Correction was in progress when you posted, but B is using a recommended entry and A isn’t. In a lawsuit where a jury had to find fault, I believe B would be determined to have ROW.
Click to expand...

But you see this sometimes with people doing practice landings. How do you know that aircraft A hasn't been in the pattern doing touch and go's? And there's nothing in the regulations that affords right of way to anyone merely for being "in the pattern", which itself is not well defined, at least with respect to distances.
 
Tantalum said:
yes, this is how I know it as well. They use this in maritime also
Click to expand...

Problem is the FAA says via publications that when in the pattern then the plane to the right does NOT have the right away and is supposed to yield to the plane on down wind. So which is it? regulation or publication?
 
EdFred said:
Problem is the FAA says via publications that when in the pattern then the plane to the right does NOT have the right away and is supposed to yield to the plane on down wind. So which is it? regulation or publication?
Click to expand...
That's probably in that whatever the number is AC also
 
luvflyin said:
That's probably in that whatever the number is AC also
Click to expand...

Like I asked in the other thread, why is the FAA putting out publications with recommendations that go against the regulations?
 
EdFred said:
Like I asked in the other thread, why is the FAA putting out publications with recommendations that go against the regulations?
Click to expand...


So they can ground more pilots, obviously. It's easier to decrease the load on ATC by grounding pilots than it is to hire more controllers.
 
EdFred said:
Problem is the FAA says via publications that when in the pattern then the plane to the right does NOT have the right away and is supposed to yield to the plane on down wind. So which is it? regulation or publication?
Click to expand...

Which publication? I couldn't find it on a cursory look.
 
I know you guys know this, but for those reading who may not, screw the FAA and save your life in a situation like this.
 
Which reg should A violate? If he yields the ROW and does a right 360 for spacing, he's violated the rule requiring turns in the pattern to be made to the left.
 
EdFred said:
Problem is the FAA says via publications that when in the pattern then the plane to the right does NOT have the right away and is supposed to yield to the plane on down wind. So which is it? regulation or publication?
Click to expand...
Yeah and that's where the whole "reasonable person" and make your best judgment comes in.. which is less than ideal. One of my biggest fears is being subject to a jury of my peers! Paul B's take on this was basically "don't be an @$$hole" .. but the whole thing is further complicated by the nordo planes. Sure, pilot A and B can talk to each other like (hopefully) reasonable adults. But the nordo guy? It is clear to any normal person in the last accident that the twin guy blasting straight in was at fault. Did the dude have to turn ahead of him? No. But the whole thing could have been avoided had he slowed and flown a normal pattern..

The fact that these threads go on and on shows proof that we're not immune from untowered pattern accidents happening again
 
Too close for missiles, switching to guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top