Right of way on final

bflynn said:
Because non-towered airports work by the cooperation of all pilots. The FAA has established through convention that a 45 degree entry to downwind is the "best" way to enter the pattern and published guidance to that effect in the AIM and other official publications. Yes, the AIM is only regulatory through 91.13.

You can enter the pattern almost any way you want, but if you cause problems in the air by doing it, you are in the wrong. Based on on the non-regulation guidance on the issue, causing a problem by not doing a 45 degree entry implies liability.
Click to expand...

Yes, the FAA in all their infinite stupidity recommends turning your back to the airport and losing visual contact with the field, and all the traffic you previously acquired. No thanks. The only time I do a 45 is when I happen to be coming from that direction. I personally think anyone using this asinine recommendation should be violated under 91.13.

I tell my students that it is the most retarded entry, but that's what I'm going to show you to do, because the retards at the FAA recommend it. After you pass your check ride, please don't do it anymore.
 
bflynn said:
Because non-towered airports work by the cooperation of all pilots. The FAA has established through convention that a 45 degree entry to downwind is the "best" way to enter the pattern and published guidance to that effect in the AIM and other official publications. Yes, the AIM is only regulatory through 91.13.

You can enter the pattern almost any way you want, but if you cause problems in the air by doing it, you are in the wrong. Based on on the non-regulation guidance on the issue, causing a problem by not doing a 45 degree entry implies liability.
Click to expand...

For everyone flying the same pattern at near the same speeds I might agree in principle. But that's not the case when mixing it up with jet traffic. I've always let them get to a runway the most expeditious way possible, which is usually a straight-in, even if that meant me extending, slowing or whatever.
 
EdFred said:
That has nothing to do with right of ways and straight ins, but right turns in a left pattern. Or pilots claiming straight in and making a right turn within the vicinity. There is the one throwaway sentence about a violation, but he provides no citation for it.
Click to expand...

Is this the sentence you're throwing away?

The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern.”
Click to expand...
 
MauleSkinner said:
Is this the sentence you're throwing away?
Click to expand...

Yes because nothing in 126 says anything about straight in being illegal and 127 says refer to 126.

Perhaps 91.89(a) used to say something different. But under 126, there is nothing that says straight ins have to give way to traffic in the pattern.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'd say suggesting how to enter the pattern would move that liability to you...:dunno:
Click to expand...

My CFI beat this into me just before I got certified. I was advising from the air, and he said in no uncertain terms to knock it off and just announce your location and intentions. Let others deal with their situation unless there's a clear conflict and you want to coordinate.

A while back I was announcing 'Blackwood traffic blah, blah, blah..' and some guy came on and said in a snarky voice 'Uh - aircraft calling Blackwood, you need to look it up, it's Brownwood, unless you burned it down'. I kept announcing very distinctly 'BLACKwood' and he advised I need to get off the air. Apparently he didn't know there was a Blackwood that shares the same CTAF. I didn't bother telling him.
 
docmirror said:
My CFI beat this into me just before I got certified. I was advising from the air, and he said in no uncertain terms to knock it off and just announce your location and intentions. Let others deal with their situation unless there's a clear conflict and you want to coordinate.

A while back I was announcing 'Blackwood traffic blah, blah, blah..' and some guy came on and said in a snarky voice 'Uh - aircraft calling Blackwood, you need to look it up, it's Brownwood, unless you burned it down'. I kept announcing very distinctly 'BLACKwood' and he advised I need to get off the air. Apparently he didn't know there was a Blackwood that shares the same CTAF. I didn't bother telling him.
Click to expand...

I would have probably said "You do realize there is a Blackwood in [city] don't you?
 
Last edited:
I'll extend for jet traffic but if some Dr. in a Bo announces ten mile final and I'm about to turn base, **** him.

It's a non-issue really. I'll be down and sipping cold tea before he shows up. :yesnod:
 
Just say your a student pilot on downwind, everybody will get out of your way.
 
Turn your radio off. Problem solved. :D I can't see someone 10 miles out so they don't exist.
 
91.113(g) said:
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.
Click to expand...

In most instances when an aircraft in the pattern is in conflict with a straight-in aircraft, the pilot in the pattern will be lower and 91.113(g) would seem to favor the pilot in the pattern.

I have not looked for case law around this (and specifically around the "advantage" clause), but the lower-aircraft rule sprang to mind. Discuss...
 
Last edited:
Had a situation on a calm day where everyone was using Runway 27. (I had landed 30 minutes earlier on 27, a crop duster had made a couple of landing on 27, maybe another plane.)

I start taxing to 27 from the midfield FBO (likely a 5000' runway), announcing "Bugsmasher 1234 taxi to Runway 27".

About to the Runway, I hear "KingAir1234 10 mile final for approach to 09"

Now I have to figure out if I take off into his final approach, how fast a King Air is going to close the distance, and, since he was not even going to land, just fly an approach, who had the right of way.
 
petrolero said:
In most instances when an aircraft in the pattern is in conflict with a straight-in aircraft, the pilot in the pattern will be lower and 91.113(g) would seem to favor the pilot in the pattern.

I have not looked for case law around this (and specifically around the "advantage" clause), but the lower-aircraft rule sprang to mind. Discuss...
Click to expand...

I would not consider an airplane in the pattern as approaching the airport, but already in the environment. Plus an airplane on a 3 mile final on the 3 degree approach will be at a lower altitude than an airplane abeam the numbers at pattern altitude.
 
EdFred said:
I would not consider an airplane in the pattern as approaching the airport, but already in the environment.
Click to expand...

Is this your opinion or the FAA's? Not being snarky I just want to know.

In my opinion, the pattern aircraft is approaching the airport just as much as the guy on a straight-in, who is also 'in the environment' given that he most likely has the field in sight and is talking on CTAF.

Plus an airplane on a 3 mile final on the 3 degree approach will be at a lower altitude than an airplane abeam the numbers at pattern altitude.
Click to expand...
What about 10-mile? 5-mile? Certainly there is a point on final where he would be at TPA, but don't forget that the guy in the pattern is going to be descending also.

Now it is true too that from numbers to touchdown, that's a theoretical 3 miles so you'd be in conflict with any aircraft that is 3 to 4 mile straight-in. And that would perhaps put them lower than TPA. And in that case they would seem to have ROW. But the point I'm making is that 91.113g covers it - the lower aircraft at the point of conflict.

In 100% of cases I've flown, I extend downwind for a conflict with a guy on final. But if the airplane is way out there and I'm lower, there's no way he can claim to have right of way just because he is someplace along the final course - which was the what the OP was getting at.
 
Last edited:
Defensive driving is about safety over 'insisting on right of way.' When in non-towered and in a pattern going long downwind seems safer than insisting on a right of way and guessing wrong on proximity and speed of approaching aircraft.
 
d5by5 said:
Defensive driving is about safety over 'insisting on right of way.' When in non-towered and in a pattern going long downwind seems safer than insisting on a right of way and guessing wrong on proximity and speed of approaching aircraft.
Click to expand...

One of the two near-hits I had occurred when I was on an extended downwind due to aircraft on "final" 5 miles out. I extended downwind. And extended. And extended. Finally turning base and coming back on the final leg, I was on a 2 mile final. Approaching the normal base-to-final turn, I suddenly had a 152 in my windscreen turning final. I accelerated, slipped right and climbed into an upwind leg.

Was that safe? Or would safer for the guy on the 5 mile final to have spent an extra 5 minutes flying over to the 45 entry point?
 
bflynn said:
One of the two near-hits I had occurred when I was on an extended downwind due to aircraft on "final" 5 miles out. I extended downwind. And extended. And extended. Finally turning base and coming back on the final leg, I was on a 2 mile final. Approaching the normal base-to-final turn, I suddenly had a 152 in my windscreen turning final. I accelerated, slipped right and climbed into an upwind leg.

Was that safe? Or would safer for the guy on the 5 mile final to have spent an extra 5 minutes flying over to the 45 entry point?
Click to expand...

It would have been safer had you made a normal pattern, landed, and been off the runway before 5 mile final guy is even a mile out, rather than extend that far out. Blame is on you for this one, not the straight in guy.
 
petrolero said:
Is this your opinion or the FAA's? Not being snarky I just want to know.

In my opinion, the pattern aircraft is approaching the airport just as much as the guy on a straight-in, who is also 'in the environment' given that he most likely has the field in sight and is talking on CTAF.

What about 10-mile? 5-mile? Certainly there is a point on final where he would be at TPA, but don't forget that the guy in the pattern is going to be descending also.

Now it is true too that from numbers to touchdown, that's a theoretical 3 miles so you'd be in conflict with any aircraft that is 3 to 4 mile straight-in. And that would perhaps put them lower than TPA. And in that case they would seem to have ROW. But the point I'm making is that 91.113g covers it - the lower aircraft at the point of conflict.

In 100% of cases I've flown, I extend downwind for a conflict with a guy on final. But if the airplane is way out there and I'm lower, there's no way he can claim to have right of way just because he is someplace along the final course - which was the what the OP was getting at.
Click to expand...

Unlike Ron Levy, I will not try to say my opinion is the FAA's opinion. It is my opinion that an airplane in the pattern is not approaching the airport. Approaching the runway maybe, but not approaching the airport. In fact, technically speaking in most cases the plane is getting further from the airport (on departure, on crosswind after crossing the runway centerline, on downwind after crossing the runway midpoint). Verify on your GPS if you like. ;)

Also keep in mind, in most cases the guy on straight in is probably going to be much faster than guys in the pattern. So now when I enter the pattern in my Comanche - and I'm doing well over 120kts until I drop my gear. So now I've got the 172 and the 152 that I now have to mess with coming up on, and have to extend further on downwind because they are half my speed in the pattern. So to your point, I've now created MORE points of conflict.
 
see there....if you were a Bonanza you'd have at least 30 more knotts of steam in the pattern vs your 120.:rolleyes2:
 
91.113 says the aircraft on final has the right of way and if two aircraft are on final, the lower altitude has the right of way. Base leg is not final, so it doesn't matter if that aircraft is lower, not on final, don't have right of way. While I believe some jackwagons abuse this regulation, it is, nonetheless the way it is. However, if you can get in without causing a conflict, there is no issue.
 
petrolero said:
In most instances when an aircraft in the pattern is in conflict with a straight-in aircraft, the pilot in the pattern will be lower and 91.113(g) would seem to favor the pilot in the pattern.
Click to expand...

That would not be consistent with "...it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land...."
 
There is no right of way. there are only about 400K pilots, can't we all just get along and work it out and try not to bend metal or hurt people
 
EdFred said:
It would have been safer had you made a normal pattern, landed, and been off the runway before 5 mile final guy is even a mile out, rather than extend that far out. Blame is on you for this one, not the straight in guy.
Click to expand...

You know, you weren't there. There was so many things to judge, but ultimately the challenge I had was that he wasn't where he said he was, so I didn't trust him until I saw him. The guy called a short final and I started talking to and looking for him so I could turn base after him. 2 miles later I found him.

Should I have asked him for a speed? maybe, but he wasn't trust worthy with his position, so knowing that had a X kt approach speed (Viking) wouldn't have helped. Perhaps I should have asked for a time, but if I didn't believe him about his position, why would I have believed his time?

Would be nice if the FAA cut out the ambiguity and published just one thing, but then I guess they wouldn't be the government...
 
bflynn said:
You know, you weren't there. There was so many things to judge, but ultimately the challenge I had was that he wasn't where he said he was, so I didn't trust him until I saw him. The guy called a short final and I started talking to and looking for him so I could turn base after him. 2 miles later I found him.

Should I have asked him for a speed? maybe, but he wasn't trust worthy with his position, so knowing that had a X kt approach speed (Viking) wouldn't have helped. Perhaps I should have asked for a time, but if I didn't believe him about his position, why would I have believed his time?

Would be nice if the FAA cut out the ambiguity and published just one thing, but then I guess they wouldn't be the government...
Click to expand...

You said he was five miles out. That's what I was going on. If you change your story in the middle of the discussion, that doesn't help your cause.
 
Here is the reality. We have a house on the threshold on the downwind for an uncontrolled burger run airport. If I want to have a good laugh I turn on the radio and listen to where people think they are when approaching the airport. Many are not where they think they are. One misty morning, I completely overflew one airport when I was trying for a mid 45 upwind.
 
yetti said:
Here is the reality. We have a house on the threshold on the downwind for an uncontrolled burger run airport. If I want to have a good laugh I turn on the radio and listen to where people think they are when approaching the airport. Many are not where they think they are. One misty morning, I completely overflew one airport when I was trying for a mid 45 upwind.
Click to expand...

Oh, you aren't kidding. "I'm over the power plant" and they can still see it in their windscreen, or just after it disappears from view. That is NOT over the power plant.
 
EdFred said:
Yes, the FAA in all their infinite stupidity recommends turning your back to the airport and losing visual contact with the field, and all the traffic you previously acquired. No thanks. The only time I do a 45 is when I happen to be coming from that direction. I personally think anyone using this asinine recommendation should be violated under 91.13.

I tell my students that it is the most retarded entry, but that's what I'm going to show you to do, because the retards at the FAA recommend it. After you pass your check ride, please don't do it anymore.
Click to expand...

What type of entry do you recommend if the pilot is not in position for a straight-in or 45 entry?
 
mikeinbama said:
91.113 says the aircraft on final has the right of way and if two aircraft are on final, the lower altitude has the right of way. Base leg is not final, so it doesn't matter if that aircraft is lower, not on final, don't have right of way. While I believe some jackwagons abuse this regulation, it is, nonetheless the way it is. However, if you can get in without causing a conflict, there is no issue.
Click to expand...

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach.

When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Click to expand...
I agree. The first part deals with someone on final having ROW in a conflict. The second part deals with two aircraft approaching the airport and neither is on final. Although it doesn't say that neither is on final, it does imply that since the first part established that if one of the two were on final, the one on final trumps.

That said, both parts have an "advantage" clause and that would, to my thinking not necessarily the FAA's, mean that someone calling final 10 miles out and then claiming no one could turn final in front of him is FOS. He would have ROW if there were a conflict but doesn't mean no one can land in front of him.

So if a guy calls 10 mile final and I'm on a normal 1-mile base, there is absolutely no conflict and thus no reason to give ROW. Once I turn final, I am lower than 10-mile guy and I have ROW (but there's no conflict so ROW is moot)

If I cause him to have to go around then it becomes dicey. But if he's 10 miles out, unless he's an F-15 as someone said, it's not going to be a problem.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
What type of entry do you recommend if the pilot is not in position for a straight-in or 45 entry?
Click to expand...

A real interesting alternative is the upwind entry. A straight-in at pattern altitude, slightly on the non-pattern side of the runway. You can even do a 45 from the "wrong" direction into it, and have the runway in sight at all times, never converging more rapidly than 45 deg.

It even works at Half Moon Bay, and doesn't require the teardrop into rising terrain that freaks so many people out.

It doesn't always work, if something unpleasant is going on on the non-pattern side. Like, don't try it at Marina while the meat bombs are dropping.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
What type of entry do you recommend if the pilot is not in position for a straight-in or 45 entry?
Click to expand...

MAKG1 said:
A real interesting alternative is the upwind entry. A straight-in at pattern altitude, directly over or slightly on the non-pattern side of the runway. You can even do a 45 from the "wrong" direction into it, and have the runway in sight at all times, never converging more rapidly than 45 deg.

It even works at Half Moon Bay, and doesn't require the teardrop into rising terrain that freaks so many people out.
Click to expand...

This, or downwind, or crosswind, or base.

I will never put my back to the center of the airport.

Here's an attachment. Now, keep in mind that I am not advocating any right turns. Those entries are all based on where you are when about 5 miles from the field. For example, if I'm in the downwind entry sector, but north of the field, I will head south and enter straight into the downwind.
 

Attachments

  • entries.png
    entries.png
    12.1 KB · Views: 39
MAKG1 said:
10 miles FAF to MAP is a VERY long final on an instrument approach. Even on an ILS, I don't see many longer than 8 miles. VOR and RNAV approaches seem to be around 5 miles.
Click to expand...
You can be on 'final' outside the FAF. Here's an airport we go to quite a bit. It's uncontrolled. As an example, I think it's better to report 25 mile final than SOCKY inbound.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1509/06741i26.pdf

Also, this thread is the first I've heard of people using the word "final" to mean, "I've got the right-of-way". The things I learn on POA. :rofl:
 
MauleSkinner said:
Note that violation history has determined that straight-in traffic doesn't have right-of-way over traffic established in the pattern.
Click to expand...
we had a fatal accident ak KHQZ a few years ago when someone called final 10 miles out and a cessna was on the pattern father and son, the traffic on pattern never heard the transmission nor saw the plane and both collided on approach, father and son dead, FAA ruled that the landing traffic had the right of way and ruled against the traffic on the pattern.
even a 10 mile final was ruled acceptable by the faa and enforced by the tower.
 
EdFred said:
Yes because nothing in 126 says anything about straight in being illegal and 127 says refer to 126.

Perhaps 91.89(a) used to say something different. But under 126, there is nothing that says straight ins have to give way to traffic in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the NTSB statement says a straight-in is illegal.

Regs don't specifically cover every possible combination of possibilities.

The FAA has a long and storied history of issuing violations based on interpretation rather than letter of the law. I don't have FlyteNow's deep pockets, nor do I assume everyone else does, so I'm simply pointing out the FAA/NTSB Interpretation.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Nothing in the NTSB statement says a straight-in is illegal.

Regs don't specifically cover every possible combination of possibilities.

The FAA has a long and storied history of issuing violations based on interpretation rather than letter of the law. I don't have FlyteNow's deep pockets, nor do I assume everyone else does, so I'm simply pointing out the FAA/NTSB Interpretation.
Click to expand...

Actually, you were pointing out Yodice's reference to it - which may or may not have been exactly what they really said. We saw Ron (albeit he's not a lawyer) do that countless times here. Say that the FAA said something in an interpretation that they didn't actually say. However, with that article being completely about right turns to final, I am going to assume what he pointed out in context was referencing right turns to final, rather than just a straight in.
 
Unless Yodice misquoted the NTSB, it seems pretty clear that the NTSB a quote is talking about straight ins, not right turns.

YMMV.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Unless Yodice misquoted the NTSB, it seems pretty clear that the NTSB a quote is talking about straight ins, not right turns.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, or it was quoted out of context.
 
petrolero said:
I agree. The first part deals with someone on final having ROW in a conflict. The second part deals with two aircraft approaching the airport and neither is on final. Although it doesn't say that neither is on final, it does imply that since the first part established that if one of the two were on final, the one on final trumps.

That said, both parts have an "advantage" clause and that would, to my thinking not necessarily the FAA's, mean that someone calling final 10 miles out and then claiming no one could turn final in front of him is FOS. He would have ROW if there were a conflict but doesn't mean no one can land in front of him.

So if a guy calls 10 mile final and I'm on a normal 1-mile base, there is absolutely no conflict and thus no reason to give ROW. Once I turn final, I am lower than 10-mile guy and I have ROW (but there's no conflict so ROW is moot)

If I cause him to have to go around then it becomes dicey. But if he's 10 miles out, unless he's an F-15 as someone said, it's not going to be a problem.
Click to expand...


Egg-zactly


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
EdFred said:
This, or downwind, or crosswind, or base.

I will never put my back to the center of the airport.

Here's an attachment. Now, keep in mind that I am not advocating any right turns. Those entries are all based on where you are when about 5 miles from the field. For example, if I'm in the downwind entry sector, but north of the field, I will head south and enter straight into the downwind.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ed and MAKG. That's the general approach that I've been using lately, as I have never liked losing sight of the airport, especially an unfamiliar one, as used to happen when maneuvering for the 45 from the other side of the airport. Of course, as MAKG pointed out, one has to avoid skydivers who may be on the non-pattern side. (Helicopters too.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top