who has right of way, backtaxi vs landing aircraft?

Ravioli said:
Thanks for the diagram.

In this example I would usually roll out full length, exit at the end and use the taxiway from Alpha to Bravo, hold there and yield as needed before back taxiing.

UNLESS: it was quiet, nobody in the pattern, no one reporting inbound, etc. in which case I'd do 180 (or 540) on the runway and save some minutes.

Regardless, I still think the CFI was wrong based on what you described in the original post.
Click to expand...

Again, here's the reg:

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.

The landing aircraft has the right of way. The only exception is when the aircraft landing ahead is attempting to get off the runway. Back taxiing to get to your hangar is not "attempting to make way" for the other aircraft.
 
flyingron said:
Again, here's the reg:

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.

The landing aircraft has the right of way. The only exception is when the aircraft landing ahead is attempting to get off the runway. Back taxiing to get to your hangar is not "attempting to make way" for the other aircraft.
Click to expand...

That's YOUR interpretation. He was between B and C. Who made you king to determine what making way is or isn't or which taxiways are approved for making way and which ones aren't? 113 (nor any other regs) doesn't address back-taxiing at an uncontrolled. Or are you just picking up slack for the departure of the other Ron? FARRs? (...according to Ron)

If the FAA says that flight time is the time from engine start and moving under own power, including taxiing until it comes to complete rest, then he wasn't taxiing back to his hangar, he was still flying. And if he was still flying, he's still on final, and lower than the other plane.

See, I can do it too. Make up my own interpretation and call it good!
 
EdFred said:
Who made you king to determine what making way is or isn't or which taxiways are approved for making way and which ones aren't?
Click to expand...
The regulation doesn't approve or disapprove anything. It defines who has the right-of-way.

The aircraft on the ground is required to give way to the airplane on final. The only exception is that the aircraft on final can't force him off the runway if he's attempting to vacate but can't do so in time.

If you pass a usable turn off, that could get you out of the way of a landing aircraft, resulting in a go-around you haven't yielded right-of-way to the landing aircraft as required.
 
Larry in TN said:
The regulation doesn't approve or disapprove anything. It defines who has the right-of-way.

The aircraft on the ground is required to give way to the airplane on final. The only exception is that the aircraft on final can't force him off the runway if he's attempting to vacate but can't do so in time.

If you pass a usable turn off, that could get you out of the way of a landing aircraft, resulting in a go-around you haven't yielded right-of-way to the landing aircraft as required.
Click to expand...

He's between taxiways. He couldn't get stopped by the first one and hasn't reached the second one he could use to vacate. He never left the runway. He *is* trying to vacate. What regulation says he can't back-taxi to vacate, or even how fast he must vacate?

Ron says he can't back taxi because that's the direction of parking and hangars, and evidently heading to parking isn't vacating the runway. But if you weren't heading to parking, then you are vacating.
 
EdFred said:
He's between taxiways. He couldn't get stopped by the first one and hasn't reached the second one he could use to vacate. He never left the runway. He *is* trying to vacate. What regulation says he can't back-taxi to vacate, or even how fast he must vacate?
Click to expand...
The regulation says that the landing aircraft has the right-of-way. If the landed aircraft bypasses available options to clear the runway before the following aircraft lands then he didn't yield the right-of-way.
 
Larry in TN said:
The regulation says that the landing aircraft has the right-of-way. If the landed aircraft bypasses available options to clear the runway before the following aircraft lands then he didn't yield the right-of-way.
Click to expand...

He didn't pass any available options!


He landed long and couldn't get stopped in time for his first available option, and has not yet reached the next available taxiway. With your statement it sounds like you saying every time that you don't make the first turn off you are now in violation of 91.113 if someone is behind you. You seriously aren't suggesting that. This isn't a case where there is 20 exits and he just keeps rolling on past them. There's 3 plausible exits available. He hadn't landed by the first exit, and hasn't reached the 2nd or 3rd.
 
This thread is beginning to shape up as the country folks against the city folks.

BTW, two birds land on a power line. I say that the one on the right will fly first! If you think that the other one will fly first YOU’RE WRONG!
 
Stewartb said:
As I tecall the term Backtaxi went away a long time ago.
Click to expand...
That sounds like something my wife would say. Instead of answering the question, she criticizes the way the question is phrased. Good thing she has redeeming values.
 
EdFred said:
He didn't pass any available options!


He landed long and couldn't get stopped in time for his first available option, and has not yet reached the next available taxiway. With your statement it sounds like you saying every time that you don't make the first turn off you are now in violation of 91.113 if someone is behind you. You seriously aren't suggesting that. This isn't a case where there is 20 exits and he just keeps rolling on past them. There's 3 exits available. He hadn't landed by the first exit, and hasn't reached the 2nd or 3rd.
Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere that Larry said the OP passed any available options. As you said, Taxiway B was not an available option the first time he came to it if the speed during the landing rollout was too high at that time.

The second time he came to it, he was back-taxiing, so it had become an available option, and he took it, as required by the right-of-way rule.
 
I interpreted it as he couldn't make C and had not yet reached B. He turned around to go back to C, got yelled at, turned around again and proceeded to B.

Based on this and what Larry and Ron said, he missed C, so now he's in violation if he decided to back-taxi - even if C is closer than B.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I interpreted it as he couldn't make C and had not yet reached B. He turned around to go back to C, got yelled at, turned around again and proceeded to B.

Based on this and what Larry and Ron said, he missed C, so now he's in violation if he decided to back-taxi - even if C is closer than B.
Click to expand...

That's not consistent with the OP's description of events:

rbridges said:
I landed on 36 and I started my backtaxi between A and B (closer to B, but I didn't realize traffic was right on my tail or I would have headed on up to A). I need to get to C to work my way to the hangars. He called me before I got to B. You can go in it, but it's blocked beween B and C.
Click to expand...
rbridges said:
The new FBO is being built in the empty spot between Bravo and Charlie, so the taxiway between them is blocked. I landed a little long and was coming up on Bravo heading south when the oncoming traffic called me. It was no big deal to tuck into B and do a 360 and get back on the runway. I'm not the guy who can spit out FAR/AIM rules, so it just got me wondering about right of way.
Click to expand...
 
Palmpilot said:
That's not consistent with the OP's description of events:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I missed that. Exit at A, circle back on B and then wait until it's clear to go to C.

However, if between B and C then what??
 
Kritchlow said:
On takeoff, often we reduce takeoff power and require the entire runway.

SNIP.
Click to expand...

I don't in the Citabria, I generally lower 2 notches of flaps for Vx and am climbing by around 500ft depending on wind. At the end of 5,000 ft I am turning crosswind usually. Why would I have waited?
 
Personally, I don't believe in insisting on my right-of-way. If I had been on final and saw or heard that there was an airplane back-taxiing on the runway, I would have just gone around rather than making demands.
 
Palmpilot said:
Personally, I don't believe in insisting on my right-of-way. If I had been on final and saw or heard that there was an airplane back-taxiing on the runway, I would have just gone around rather than making demands.
Click to expand...

You and I are in the same camp. Although, I will maintain that even if they backtaxiied alllllll the way to C, they were still making way. There's no regulation that says closest taxiway is the only one that's considered making way.
 
EdFred said:
You and I are in the same camp. Although, I will maintain that even if they backtaxiied alllllll the way to C, they were still making way. There's no regulation that says closest taxiway is the only one that's considered making way.
Click to expand...
Beats me. I guess that's why we have administrative-law judges!
 
rbridges said:
A CFI with a student flew in behind me after I landed.............. but he got on the radio and told me I had to leave at the next available taxiway.
Click to expand...

I love those snot-faced "Karen" CFIs, who think they are gods. My reply would have been along the order of "Are you a spitter or a swallower?"
 
Palmpilot said:
I need more information on that hypothetical. What exactly is the situation at that moment?
Click to expand...

Same airport as the posted diagram. Same taxiway closures. Same destination on the field. Landing to the North. Can't get stopped by C and you are:

1) 1/3 of the way to B from C
2) 1/2 way to B from C
3) 2/3 of the way to B from C

CFI Karen is behind you.

When is back-taxiing OK, and when is it not OK?
 
EdFred said:
He didn't pass any available options!
Click to expand...
He had an available option and he took it after the landing aircraft asked him to. That was what the regulation required him to do.

Continued back-taxiing, resulting in the aircraft on final going-around, would have been a violation of the right-of-way rules. Pull off the runway, wait for the landing aircraft to pass, then continue the back-taxi to the exit that connects to your parking location.

EdFred said:
When is back-taxiing OK, and when is it not OK?
Click to expand...
When your back-taxiing doesn't cause another aircraft with the right-of-way to go-around.
 
EdFred said:
Same airport as the posted diagram. Same taxiway closures. Same destination on the field. Landing to the North. Can't get stopped by C and you are:

1) 1/3 of the way to B from C
2) 1/2 way to B from C
3) 2/3 of the way to B from C

CFI Karen is behind you.

When is back-taxiing OK, and when is it not OK?
Click to expand...
I don't know what the FAA, ALJ, or NTSB would decide, but I would make the decision based on whatever I thought would be most likely to achieve a safe outcome. A lot would depend on which way I was pointed when I found out about the conflict.
 
Larry in TN said:
When your back-taxiing doesn't cause another aircraft with the right-of-way to go-around.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making things up. There is absolutely no regulation that states that, nor does even the AIM say so.

I ran this past a DPE and he says that backtaxiing IS making way. If the other airplane came in too close, that's on them. You still own the runway until you exit back taxi or not. You do not have to proceed to the next taxiway. Hell, proceeding to the next taxiway could ALSO cause a go around. I don't know what regulation states you always have to go forward at an uncontrolled field.

I guess at Z98 when landing north, I am ALWAYS going to be in violation if I don't make the windsock.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
He had an available option and he took it after the landing aircraft asked him to. That was what the regulation required him to do.

Continued back-taxiing, resulting in the aircraft on final going-around, would have been a violation of the right-of-way rules. Pull off the runway, wait for the landing aircraft to pass, then continue the back-taxi to the exit that connects to your parking location.

When your back-taxiing doesn't cause another aircraft with the right-of-way to go-around.
Click to expand...


There is an unknown variable involved when you start expecting someone to leave a paved runway. It could be muddy or soft under the grass, or any number of things that you can’t know until it’s too late. Expecting someone
to do that to save you a go around is just downright rude. Now, that said if the incoming plane is an emergency and they let me know, I’ll take to the mud and worry about it later. I have that much respect for others, but doing it to save a perfectly operational plane from a go around is just being self centered.
 
Timbeck2 said:
You guys did see my mountain/molehill pic didn’t ya?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm just wondering where these mystery regulations are that say exiting via back-taxi at an uncontrolled field is not exiting the runway and is not making way for the aircraft behind.
 
The landing CFI demanded that the OP vacate the runway immediately, earlier than the OP intended, which is explicitly prohibited by FAR 91.113 (g). He used his landing right-of-way to "force an aircraft off the runway surface". The OP then had to re-enter the runway to continue to his destination exit, blocking the runway a second time, and likely for a longer total duration than if he had be able to proceed as originally intended. The reg explicitly prohibits landing aircraft from forcing you to do this.

5 pages of discussion that boil down to these two sentences:
1) "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."
2) "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, without delay at the first available taxiway, for an aircraft on final approach."

The first is FAR 91.113 (g), the second is a conglomeration of FAR 91.113 (g) regulation and AIM 4-3-20 guidance. If you choose to abide by the second sentence, and impose additional constraints beyond the regulation, do so with caution because you could find yourself in violation of FAR 91.113 (g) as the CFI in this example did.

The reg as written is simple, it's clear, and it gives the landing aircraft the right to exit the runway by their own authority. This simple wording also clearly prohibits blocking a landing aircraft by taking the runway for departure without allowing sufficient clearance as to not impact the landing aircraft.

I think it's also clear in these 5 pages that the great majority are very accommodating and will work together to achieve common goals. In the OP's scenario I also would have exited the runway ASAP as demanded by the landing aircraft, not because he told me to or that I think the regs say I had to (which they don't, it's actually the opposite), but because I consider an approaching pilot who is barking orders to other aircraft to be an unsafe pilot and I just want to get the hell away from them. The runway is no place to argue Regs, clearly that's for PoA forums :)

Happy flying, and landing, and best wishes in your attempts to make way.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, I'm just wondering where these mystery regulations are that say exiting via back-taxi at an uncontrolled field is not exiting the runway and is not making way for the aircraft behind.
Click to expand...

They are hermetically sealed in an envelope in a mayonaise jar....

 
Timbeck2 said:
You guys did see my mountain/molehill pic didn’t ya?
Click to expand...
argh-all-this-time-i-thought-the-saying-was-why-have-a-mole-hill-when-you-could-have-a-mountain--57d91.png
 
EdFred said:
Now you're just making things up. There is absolutely no regulation that states that, nor does even the AIM say so.
Click to expand...
14 CFR 91.113 gives the right-of-way to the aircraft on final with the exception of when the aircraft on the runway is attempting to make way.

MBDiagMan said:
There is an unknown variable involved when you start expecting someone to leave a paved runway.
Click to expand...
Who is expecting someone to depart the paved surfaces?

The OP had a taxiway available to pull off onto and did pull off onto that taxiway in time for the aircraft on Final to land. That is what 91.113 required him to do. It does not require him to head off into the grass. That's why the single exception is there in the regulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top