who has right of way, backtaxi vs landing aircraft?

Salty said:
so, do you pull off on the first taxiway every time you land, even if it’s a dead end, or is in the wrong side of the field from where you are going?
Click to expand...

Only if I have to give the landing plane the right of way to the runway. (I still think the CFI was a D***)
 
Salty said:
...most people wouldn’t consider a closed taxiway “available”
Click to expand...
Well, most people SHOULD consider their failure to note an airplane on final before blocking its runway THEIR own bad and get out of the way if possible. But don't leave the prepared surface lest you make the matter even worse.

Flight is inherently risky business. Suppose you make the plane you cut off go around and it clips a tree and kills all aboard? Or runs out of gas? Or stalls with a stuck trim? It'll be on your conscience for the rest of your life.
 
Last edited:
Guess I can fly as close to the plane in front of me on final as I want. As soon as he's landed, if he's not off in 46 milliseconds, he's not making way and the whole runway is mine...oh except for the guy who was on my ass on final, and on that guys ass, and...
 
dtuuri said:
Flight is inherently risky business. Suppose you make the plane you cut off go around and it clips a tree and kills all aboard? Or runs out of gas? Or stalls with a stuck trim? It'll be on your conscience for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

Won't be on my conscience. I wasn't the one following too close on final, nor was I the inept pilot who doesn't know how to properly execute a go around. Nice try though.
 
dtuuri said:
Well, most people SHOULD consider their failure to note an airplane on final before blocking its runway THEIR own bad and get out of the way if possible. But don't leave the prepared surface lest you make the matter even worse.

Flight is inherently risky business. Suppose you make the plane you cut off go around and it clips a tree and kills all aboard? Or runs out of gas? Or stalls with a stuck trim? It'll be on your conscience for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry dtuuri, but cutting someone off is probably one of the least probable reasons for an airplane behind on final getting too close. More likely that airplane screwed up his approach by improper planning. The guy behind me is not my problem nor should I ever feel responsible for him, that's a distraction that might lead me to do something stupid. That airplane behind always has the option of going around, it's his responsibility to ensure the safety of his flight, not mine, even if I did cut him off. If he doesn't know how to safely execute a go around, then again, that is his problem and his fault, not mine.

Now just for the record, I can't recall ever cutting someone off in the pattern, but if it were to happen, my first instinct would be to apologize and offer to go around. Cutting people off in the pattern is a dangerous business and pilots should work hard to avoid doing it.
 
A glider in flight has right of way of a non-emergency airplane. But most gliders have no ability to steer on the surface or even taxi. After the glider lands, and is briefly waiting for a tow hookup so it can take off again, who has the right of way, the glider or a landing airplane?
 
Lindberg said:
A glider in flight has right of way of a non-emergency airplane. But most gliders have no ability to steer on the surface or even taxi. After the glider lands, and is briefly waiting for a tow hookup so it can take off again, who has the right of way, the glider or a landing airplane?
Click to expand...

Most of the glider operations around here don't land on the main runway so it's not an issue. But a glider can't easily move out of the way on the ground, so ROW doesn't really matter.
 
PaulS said:
I'm sorry dtuuri, but cutting someone off is probably one of the least probable reasons for an airplane behind on final getting too close.
Click to expand...
We're talking about back-taxiing. The plane turning around on the runway is "cutting off" the plane on final from his right to land. Perhaps he did maintain a proper distance assuming the plane would roll to the end rather than stop and turn around on the runway.
 
dtuuri said:
The plane turning around on the runway is "cutting off" the plane on final from his right to land.
Click to expand...

We don't know what OP's stated intentions were... Did he announce on CTAF: "landing 36, back taxi to D, Perry"

If so, the CFI has nothing to complain about when the plane landing before him is doing exactly what they said they'd do.

We all plan for what the guy ahead says he's going to do and space accordingly, right? Be it Touch&Go, Stop&Go, Full Stop, Full Stop and backtaxi, low approach only" Each of those gives a different estimate of the time #1 will need to be clear, n'est pas?
 
dtuuri said:
Well, most people SHOULD consider their failure to note an airplane on final before blocking its runway THEIR own bad and get out of the way if possible. But don't leave the prepared surface lest you make the matter even worse.

Flight is inherently risky business. Suppose you make the plane you cut off go around and it clips a tree and kills all aboard? Or runs out of gas? Or stalls with a stuck trim? It'll be on your conscience for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point. He's trying to use the AIM to say you must exit at the first available taxiway. The AIM passage isn't specific to a plane landing behind you on final. It's ALWAYS.

So I ask again. Do you ALWAYS exit at the first taxiway even if it's a dead end, or doesn't go where you want to go? Because that's what he's trying to say you have to do. The AIM passage has nothing to do with whether or not there's anyone else around.
 
Question for pilots here:

If there is a plane taxiing on the runway while you are on a routine final approach (no emergency), do you just go around or do you get on CTAF and ream out the plane on the ground to make way?

I'm betting most pilots would just go around and wait for the runway to clear. Safety first. Save righteous indignation for later, or never.

Maybe the CFI was not local and was not aware that the parallel taxiway was partially closed, and didn't plan spacing adequately for a full stop for the plane ahead and taxi back, but it doesn't really matter, ultimately. If there is a plane on the runway, you aren't landing. If you ask nice in advance , the plane on the ground might be courteous and expedite your landing or touch and go. But insisting a plane clear the runway for you at their inconvenience is just being a d**k. No one is getting written up for this kind of kerfuffle at an uncontrolled airport, so might as well play nice.
 
chemgeek said:
Question for pilots here:

If there is a plane taxiing on the runway while you are on a routine final approach (no emergency), do you just go around or do you get on CTAF and ream out the plane on the ground to make way?

I'm betting most pilots would just go around and wait for the runway to clear. Safety first. Save righteous indignation for later, or never.

Maybe the CFI was not local and was not aware that the parallel taxiway was partially closed, and didn't plan spacing adequately for a full stop for the plane ahead and taxi back, but it doesn't really matter, ultimately. If there is a plane on the runway, you aren't landing. If you ask nice in advance , the plane on the ground might be courteous and expedite your landing or touch and go. But insisting a plane clear the runway for you at their inconvenience is just being a d**k. No one is getting written up for this kind of kerfuffle at an uncontrolled airport, so might as well play nice.
Click to expand...
In this scenario I would have heard it and seen it while in the down wind and just extended. No need for a go round. If appropriate for the student, it would be an excellent lesson in go rounds.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
In this scenario I would have heard it and seen in while in the down wind and just extended. No need for a go round. If appropriate for the student, it would be an excellent lesson in go rounds.
Click to expand...

Now you are just being logical. :) If there is a plane ahead of you doing a full stop, you can always plan to leave adequate spacing to allow the plane ahead of you to vacate the runway so you can land without delay.

But if caught on short final with a plane on the runway, because of poor planning or otherwise, it's no big deal to just go around for another try. It happens at a busy uncontrolled airport. Playing nice and planning ahead keeps things from getting all balled up. My home airport is usually pretty sleepy. But GAI, another story. Better be on your best and most cooperative behavior there if you want to get in or out expeditiously.
 
chemgeek said:
Question for pilots here:

If there is a plane taxiing on the runway while you are on a routine final approach (no emergency), do you just go around or do you get on CTAF and ream out the plane on the ground to make way?

I'm betting most pilots would just go around and wait for the runway to clear. Safety first. Save righteous indignation for later, or never.

Maybe the CFI was not local and was not aware that the parallel taxiway was partially closed, and didn't plan spacing adequately for a full stop for the plane ahead and taxi back, but it doesn't really matter, ultimately. If there is a plane on the runway, you aren't landing. If you ask nice in advance , the plane on the ground might be courteous and expedite your landing or touch and go. But insisting a plane clear the runway for you at their inconvenience is just being a d**k. No one is getting written up for this kind of kerfuffle at an uncontrolled airport, so might as well play nice.
Click to expand...

"...do you just go around or do you get on CTAF and ream out the plane on the ground..." Maybe neither. I might say something like 'would you mind getting off at B for a minute and then I'll follow you back.'
 
Salty said:
You're missing my point. He's trying to use the AIM to say you must exit at the first available taxiway.
...
Do you ALWAYS exit at the first taxiway even if it's a dead end, or doesn't go where you want to go? Because that's what he's trying to say you have to do. The AIM passage has nothing to do with whether or not there's anyone else around.
Click to expand...
I didn't read most of the posts, so sorry if I missed your point. In answer to your question, the AIM says not to stop or reverse course on the runway in the first place and you should exit at the first available taxiway. The OP landed long on 36, so should have gone to the end because that was the "next" taxiway, IMO. Since it was unusable to return to the hangar he could taxi as far as he could on the parallel taxiway and back-taxi where needed after clearing the final approach (BOTH directions) before reentering the runway. If the first taxiway is a "dead end", meaning no room to turn around, then it isn't "available", IMO.
 
I haven't been following post by post either. I think the AIM reference is this. I've highlighted some things. It seems to imply that maybe the hangin' a 180 thing is only a no no at Towered airports. And to add some fuel to the fire(punchline below), does first available automatically mean 'next?'

4−3−20. Exiting the Runway After Landing. The following procedures must be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.
a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots must not exit the landing runway onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.

https://nypost.com/video/epic-fire-pit-fail-as-dimwit-pours-fuel-directly-on-flames/
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
I didn't read most of the posts, so sorry if I missed your point. In answer to your question, the AIM says not to stop or reverse course on the runway in the first place and you should exit at the first available taxiway.
Click to expand...
Ok, so how to you exit at a un-towered field with no taxiway? The AIM passage you are quoting references ATC - no Tower, no ATC.

I wonder if the CFI in the second plane was unaware the middle taxiway was closed? might explain why he was "ordering" the OP off the runway
 
luvflyin said:
I haven't been following post by post either. I think the AIM reference is this. I've highlighted some things. It seems to imply that maybe the hangin' a 180 thing is only a no no at Towered airports. And to add some fuel to the fire(punchline below), does first available automatically mean 'next?'

4−3−20. Exiting the Runway After Landing. The following procedures must be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.
a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots must not exit the landing runway onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.

https://nypost.com/video/epic-fire-pit-fail-as-dimwit-pours-fuel-directly-on-flames/
Click to expand...
I don't read it that-a-way at all. I think your ATC background colors your interpretation. I read the paragraph as applicable to uncontrolled fields as well as ones with towers. The mention of ATC is to allow for exceptions to the "rule" (note quote marks—this is the AIM). An airplane rolling out after landing has no way of knowing how close someone else is behind him, so stopping and reversing direction is a risky thing to do, not withstanding that at most GA small airports you can usually get away with it.
 
Hang 4 said:
Ok, so how to you exit at a un-towered field with no taxiway? The AIM passage you are quoting references ATC - no Tower, no ATC.

I wonder if the CFI in the second plane was unaware the middle taxiway was closed? might explain why he was "ordering" the OP off the runway
Click to expand...
At the 2200' runway I used to instruct at, we rolled to the end, turned around and checked final before back-taxiing. There was an adjacent sod runway that doubled as a taxiway in dry summer weather, but caused problems when it was soggy if someone got caught in the OP's trap and thought it would serve as an escape route. More than once the plane would get stuck in the muck. I'll concede, though, that at a rather long runway the temptation would be to make a 180 instead of wasteful taxiing to the end first. At those fields I would guess the participants would expect and encourage an expeditious 180.
 
dtuuri said:
I don't read it that-a-way at all. I think your ATC background colors your interpretation. I read the paragraph as applicable to uncontrolled fields as well as ones with towers. The mention of ATC is to allow for exceptions to the "rule" (note quote marks—this is the AIM). An airplane rolling out after landing has no way of knowing how close someone else is behind him, so stopping and reversing direction is a risky thing to do, not withstanding that at most GA small airports you can usually get away with it.
Click to expand...

Nah, my years as a Controller had nuthin’ to do with it. I was just commenting on how something may be ‘looked at/interpreted as/assumed to mean’ depending on the reader.
 
91.113 (g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach.

I still say that if the plane on the runway is attempting to make way for the aircraft on final approach, he will get off the runway if there is an exit to the runway like the OP did. If the OP would have decided to continue his back taxi all the way to the approach end because that is where the hangers were, he would not have been attempting to make way for the aircraft on final approach. Instead he would have been attempting to get to his hanger without regard for the aircraft on final approach. In this second scenario, the OP would have been in violation of 91.113. If the OP was back taxiing and was between B and C when the CFI made his call, and the OP would have been in no man's land half way between B and C without an immediate exit from the runway, and the CFI decided that since he had the right of way, he was landing come hell or high water, and the OP was forced off the runway into the grass in order to avoid a collision, then the CFI would have been in violation of 91.113 because he took advantage of the rule and forced an aircraft off the runway surface onto the grass.

After all of this discussion, I would like to refer to my third post on this thread from back on page 1:

Piper18O said:
The aviation community is an awesome and special group of people when consideration for others in taken into account. When someone only thinks about himself, ugliness rears it's grotesque head.
Click to expand...

 
I don't just think of myself. If I were on final and the traffic that just landed was back taxiing, I would go around. No question. I certainly wouldn't get on the radio and tell them to get off. At least not unless I was having an emergency.
If I were the traffic back taxiing, I would expect to continue doing it.

As far as the right of way rules about turning around on the runway at a towered field, if they weren't intending to limit it to towered fields why would they state towered field?
 
dtuuri said:
I don't read it that-a-way at all. I think your ATC background colors your interpretation. I read the paragraph as applicable to uncontrolled fields as well as ones with towers. The mention of ATC is to allow for exceptions to the "rule" (note quote marks—this is the AIM). An airplane rolling out after landing has no way of knowing how close someone else is behind him, so stopping and reversing direction is a risky thing to do, not withstanding that at most GA small airports you can usually get away with it.
Click to expand...
That is not at all how I read it. It a towered airport you need Tower permission to do such actions.
ATC and Tower are separate in FAA lingo in a fair number of places. ATC is enroute while Tower is the terminal area.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
FORANE said:
I don't just think of myself. If I were on final and the traffic that just landed was back taxiing, I would go around. No question. I certainly wouldn't get on the radio and tell them to get off. At least not unless I was having an emergency.
Click to expand...

Same here.

If I were the traffic back taxiing, I would expect to continue doing it.
Click to expand...

If I were the pilot who was back-taxiing and saw someone on final who was close enough to be a factor, I would get off at the first available taxiway even if the pilot on final didn't say anything. Unless I saw the pilot on final initiating a go-around.
 
To be interesting, this whole scenario/argument is missing a NORDO spray plane and at least a half dozen drones. I haven’t followed the whole thread, but did anyone even ask if the offending CFI was on a 10-mile straight-in final?

What a disappointment.
 
I keep thinking...maybe the offending CFI on final was having some sort of issue...and engine out to be an extreme example...and needed to get down NOW

Seems to me that landing on such a runway, then turning around and taxiing back to where you can vacate the runway...is all just part of the landing roll-out....so just do it as expeditiously as possible and since you are still "landing" then where's the question?
granted, if there's a place that works such as a jug handle turn out run-up area or some other thing that permits, then the polite thing to do would be to temporarily exit to let the other guy land too
or if there was some sort of emergency then hit the grass to make way....
but otherwise that's the way I think....
 
After seven pages of this I just can't resist any longer......

Regarding the right-of-way question, the reg does seem a little vague and open to interpretation. Perhaps interpration could be easier if we considered the rule in the context of the FAA's philosophy regarding right-of-way. The philosophy is really quite practical.

In the air, the right-of-way order is (1) aircraft in distress, (2) baloons, (3) gliders, (4) airships,.... Basically, the philosophy is that the more maneuverable aircraft must yield the right-of-way to the less maneuverable aircraft. This makes logical sense. A plane flying toward a baloon can turn away much easier than the baloon can. The craft with more options yields to the one with fewer options. Simple and practical.

So what does that tell us about a plane on the runway versus one on final approach? Planes are much less maneuverable on the ground than in the air. A plane on the ground can neither ascend nor descend, its speed is rather slow, and its turning options are constrained by the limits of the runway and available runway exits. That plane, as a practical matter, has the lesser ability to yield. The plane in the air on final, however, can yield the right of way rather easily. All the airborne pilot need do is shove in the throttle and go around.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the plane on the runway has the right of way. The plane on the runway is still in the process of "landing" until it vacates the runway. Want additional proof? When you land at a controlled airport, you don't switch comms to ground control until you've exited the runway. The tower controls landing traffic, and until you leave the runway you are still under tower control and you are still considered part of the landing traffic.

The CFI in this example blew it, in my opinion. What an excellent opportunity to give the student a real-world, practical example of a go-around situation! My instructors drilled into me that every approach is a go-around until proven otherwise. One instructor told me, "As soon as you even think, 'Maybe I should go around,' shove in the throttle and go. Don't debate it, don't question it, just go around." This CFI had a great chance to teach that, and he failed to do it.
 
At one mountain airport I went too, which was effectively one way in, one way out they had CTAF on a public speaker.
My wife and I watched a high wing Cessna start taxing down the runway when someone called in that they needed to land ASAP due to the onset of what promises to be explosive expulsion from the co-pilots back end. Followed by a "How dare you say that!" or something to that effect. The departing Cessna immediately replied and would turn low and climb offset the runway, for so and so, come straight in. The Cessna went to full power, couple hundred feet later was in the air and turned over the airport at probably 50 ft and climbed away slightly offset from the runway. Impressive airmanship, maybe not the best ADM. The other plane that landed was a taildragger, the back wheel did not appear to touch the ground as the pilot did a 180 partly down the runway. back taxied so fat i thought he would takeoff, tires chirping as he turned onto the taxiway. Engine was still stopping when the passenger was out the door and running to FBO.
I never knew a taildragger could taxi that fast.

Tim
 
Half Fast said:
In the air, the right-of-way order is (1) aircraft in distress, (2) baloons, (3) gliders, (4) airships,.... Basically, the philosophy is that the more maneuverable aircraft must yield the right-of-way to the less maneuverable aircraft. This makes logical sense. A plane flying toward a baloon can turn away much easier than the baloon can. The craft with more options yields to the one with fewer options. Simple and practical.

So what does that tell us about a plane on the runway versus one on final approach?
Click to expand...
Not what you rationalize. The landed plane has only to continue to the next exit (or runway end) straight ahead, no need for "maneuvering", if maneuverability is really a consideration, which it isn't. Making the runway available for someone else ASAP is the obvious intent of the AIM. You don't know for sure who or what might be right behind you or for what reason unless you are at a controlled field where the tower takes on the responsibility for you. You can at best make a guess, which isn't good enough.

Welcome to the argument! :)
 
dtuuri said:
Not what you rationalize. The landed plane has only to continue to the next exit (or runway end) straight ahead, no need for "maneuvering", if maneuverability is really a consideration, which it isn't. Making the runway available for someone else ASAP is the obvious intent of the AIM. You don't know for sure who or what might be right behind you or for what reason unless you are at a controlled field where the tower takes on the responsibility for you. You can at best make a guess, which isn't good enough.

Welcome to the argument! :)
Click to expand...

generally a back taxi when you are between taxiways actually has the lowest time for blocking the runway.
Therefore if safety is your concern, minimal time obstructing the runway requires the pilot execute an immediate back taxi no not go further down the runway.
Further, the plane on approach has many more options than the plane on the ground, unless said plane on approach has declared some some sort of emergency.

Tim
 
dtuuri said:
Not what you rationalize. The landed plane has only to continue to the next exit (or runway end) straight ahead, no need for "maneuvering", if maneuverability is really a consideration, which it isn't. :)
Click to expand...


Maybe, maybe not. "Maneuvering" includes exiting the runway. Maybe he's going too fast to turn at the first exit. The runway pilot should do his best to exit as expeditiously as possible, but the right-of-way is his until he is able to do so and the plane on final is obligated to go around if necessary. The situation is easily fixed by the plane in the air, perhaps not so easily by the plane on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top