who has right of way, backtaxi vs landing aircraft?

[midwestpa24]

Do what we've done where there are no taxiways: You roll out all the way to the end and give yourself an exit into the grass if need be and let the guy land behind you and then both of you back Taxi. We've done three planes this way and all three of us have back taxiied.

Unless you are familiar with the airport, I would be careful going in the grass near a runway. You never know how well maintained it actually is.

I'm also curious how you guys are working **** out when the wind shifts. Sounds like a real cluster**** and a poorly thought out airport construction project.

Even big hub airports occasionally have projects that require the use of a runway as a taxiway. If you have a single runway and a parallel taxiway that needs work, how else do you expect to do it?

 

[bflynn]

I believe, Aircraft in the air would have the right of way in this case.

incorrect

91.113, paragraph g

(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.

as stated, courtesy says we should all get along and don’t kill yourself maintaining the right of way

 

[Tools]

Uncontrolled field. You land, you exit where you want. Next guy lands, he exits where he wants, lather rinse repeat. It’s that simple.

Uncontrolled field, don’t land until the runway is clear and it’s safe to do so.

Controlled field, you get cleared to land, you land, you exit where you can (and cleared if back taxi requested). Next guy gets cleared to land, he lands, exits where he can (and cleared...). Lather rinse repeat. It’s also that simple.

 

[bflynn]

The time you spend on the runway clearing it after the landing is protected. You wanting to use the runway for expedience to taxi to parking is NOT.

the taxiway was closed. Where do you figure he would have gone to?

 

[EdFred]

Unless you are familiar with the airport, I would be careful going in the grass near a runway. You never know how well maintained it actually is.

The grass is only an emergency option. "give yourself an exit if need be"

 

[Hang 4]

To the OP - was there a taxiway that you could exit to, but not reach the hangars? So pull off to clear the runway, taxi part of the way back and then re-enter the runway to get to the hangar? If that was the case, it would have been polite to do that. If not, then yes, you should have been allowed to taxi back (or backtaxi) as you wanted.

 

[PaulS]

Sounds like only a portion of the taxiway was closed. I think we need more info.

 

[EdFred]

Uncontrolled field, don’t land until the runway is clear OR it’s safe to do so.

Fixed it for you.
5000' runway, with a guy 3000' down, I'm not going around. I'm landing on the numbers and hitting the 1200' taxiway exit without even heating up the brakes. Done it a number of times, and will continue to do so. Or do you think it's a regulation that 2 planes can't be on the runway at the same time?

 

[Jeff767]

There are some seriously rude pilots posting on here. Most runways without Parallel taxiways have turnouts placed specifically to allow aircraft to clear the runway. The rule is also very clear. You have a obligation to clear the runway if you can for landing aircraft. It’s also good common sense which pilots should possess.

 

[EdFred]

There are some seriously rude pilots posting on here. Most runways without Parallel taxiways have turnouts placed specifically to allow aircraft to clear the runway. The rule is also very clear. You have a obligation to clear the runway if you can for landing aircraft. It’s also good common sense which pilots should possess.

What rule? Where is this rule published?

 

[Jeff767]

What rule? Where is this rule published?

91.113, paragraph g

(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.

 

[Lindberg]

This really has been an interesting discussion. It seems to be an edge case where the regs are slightly ambiguous, depending on your interpretation of the facts. But here's what it boils down to for me:

Right-of-way regs really just serve the purpose of telling us whose job it is to get out of the way and who's going to be at fault if there's a collision or near miss. Assuming everyone communicates and knows what's going on (it appears they did) who do we think the FAA would find most fault with if the CFI had landed and plowed into the OP while he was backtaxiing?

See 91.13, 91.111, 91.113

 

[EdFred]

91.113, paragraph g

(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.

That says absolutely nothing like what you said. Where's the rule that says you are obligated to get off the runway?

Good practice? Yep. Considerate? Yep. But not a published rule.

In fact where's the regulation that says you can't have more than 1 aircraft on the runway?

 

[Bill]

Do what we've done where there are no taxiways: You roll out all the way to the end and give yourself an exit into the grass if need be and let the guy land behind you and then both of you back Taxi. We've done three planes this way and all three of us have back taxiied.

I do this when landing north at my home airport, especially if the winds are squirrely. Due to terrain and topography, most of us (the wise ones, anyway) at our airport land 1000-1500 past the numbers when the winds are up, it just makes for a much more controlled landing. When this happens, there is little chance to make the only turnoff onto the taxiway, so if someone is following me in on final I fast rollout to the end turnout to allow the guy behind me to land as well. Then, as you say, we both back taxi. I even get on the radio to tell them I'm rolling to the end so they know my intentions.

 

[EdFred]

This really has been an interesting discussion. It seems to be an edge case where the regs are slightly ambiguous, depending on your interpretation of the facts. But here's what it boils down to for me:

Right-of-way regs really just serve the purpose of telling us whose job it is to get out of the way and who's going to be at fault if there's a collision or near miss. Assuming everyone communicates and knows what's going on (it appears they did) who do we think the FAA would find most fault with if the CFI had landed and plowed into the OP while he was backtaxiing?

See 91.13, 91.111, 91.113

That would be on the landing aircraft.

 

[EdFred]

I do this when landing north at my home airport, especially if the winds are squirrely. Due to terrain and topography, most of us (the wise ones, anyway) at our airport land 1000-1500 past the numbers when the winds are up, it just makes for a much more controlled landing. When this happens, there is little chance to make the only turnoff onto the taxiway, so if someone is following me in on final I fast rollout to the end turnout to allow the guy behind me to land as well. Then, as you say, we both back taxi. I even get on the radio to tell them I'm rolling to the end so they know my intentions.

Yep, started that practice as a student pilot. Look at Z98 on a satellite view, and we often landed to the north. Heck, I've landed OVER guys there who have taxied to the north end when landing south as well. (OK, not exactly over, side stepped 50' or so) All communicated ahead of time. Unfortunately we have people on the board propagating falsehoods about what's required and not required.

 

[Stewartb]

My cabin strip is 1000’ long and too narrow to turn around on with any load in the plane. If I pass my parking spot at the 400’ mark I’ll usually roll to the end to turn around and taxi back. There’s no place to go so no space for the next guy until I get to parking. It happens often and it’s simple to manage. One more reason airplane drivers should use standard patterns and view the area before setting up to land.

 

[flyingron]

the taxiway was closed. Where do you figure he would have gone to?

From the original post he said he exited at the next available taxiway rather than to continue backtaxiing.

 

[rbridges]

To the OP - was there a taxiway that you could exit to, but not reach the hangars? So pull off to clear the runway, taxi part of the way back and then re-enter the runway to get to the hangar? If that was the case, it would have been polite to do that. If not, then yes, you should have been allowed to taxi back (or backtaxi) as you wanted.

there was a taxiway nearby, but it's next to the construction and basically a dead end with enough room to do a 360 and reenter the runway. I was fine doing it, and I would do it for anyone who was coming in a little early. Like I said, I was just wondering who actually had the right of way. For him to "order" me to pull over seemed buttheaded.

 

[EdFred]

there was an taxiway nearby, but it's next to the construction and basically a dead end. I was fine doing it, and I would do it for anyone who was coming in a little early. Like I said, I was just wondering who actually had the right of way. For him to "order" me to pull over seemed buttheaded.

Yeah, that is buttheaded.

 

[texasclouds]

Biggest butthead has right of way. Been that way since the beginning of time.

 

[aftCG]

To the OP - was there a taxiway that you could exit to, but not reach the hangars? So pull off to clear the runway, taxi part of the way back and then re-enter the runway to get to the hangar? If that was the case, it would have been polite to do that. If not, then yes, you should have been allowed to taxi back (or backtaxi) as you wanted.

This. Lots of people posting the same regulation but have a different interpretation. If I just landed but haven't cleared the runway aren't I still "landing traffic"?

I'm imagining but need a picture, that the OP could have turned off onto a taxi way, allowed the other plane to land, then everyone could have gone about their day with no need to involve the PoA brain trust (cough).

I ferry planes as a hobby and can say there are a LOT of airports in this country that have a runway with no taxi ways of any kind, yet no one blows up the internet over it.

 

[Rooney Freimund]

What am I missing? Once the guy on final heard the back taxi call out, my ADM dictates it's a simple go-around at an untowered field. Seems ballsy to key the mike and insist another aircraft get out of his way....

I've had people join a mid-field downwind in front of me. What did I do? Broke out of the pattern and came back on the 45, not directing or complaining on the radio about anyone else but me. I learned long ago that only [my wife and] I can control my actions ...

 

[flyingron]

What am I missing? Once the guy on final heard the back taxi call out, my ADM dictates it's a simple go-around at an untowered field. Seems ballsy to key the mike and insist another aircraft get out of his way....

The regs say the guy landing has the right of way. The person who wants to use the runway as a taxiway needs to wait until the guy lands.
This is not the case of the guy landing and making his way to exit the runway, it's someone who could exit the runway but decides that he has more right to the runway than the next guy. Unfortunately, the regs and GOOD AVIATION DECISION MAKING says, you don't block landing traffic. People going to their hangar and people waiting for takeoff can wait while the landing guys get safely down.

My airport has no full length taxiway. If you there's someone landing behind you, you either make the turn off or you roll to the end and wait.

 

[DoubleD]

If we can assume the CFI was familiar with the airport, he knew there would be a need to back taxi and would plan his pattern accordingly.

 

[Jeff767]

That says absolutely nothing like what you said. Where's the rule that says you are obligated to get off the runway?

Good practice? Yep. Considerate? Yep. But not a published rule.

In fact where's the regulation that says you can't have more than 1 aircraft on the runway?

You are required to give way to landing aircraft with one exception. If there is no option to exit the runway you can’t be forced off. It’s pretty simple. Why anyone would even argue the point is bizarre. It’s good practice, common sense and the right thing to do.

 

[PaulS]

The CFI should have known the airplane in front needed to back taxi and planned accordingly, so he f'd up. That said, the guy on the ground accommodated him because he could, which was the right thing to do. If it were me I would have done the same thing if there's a place to go. If not, I would have told the guy unable, go around.

 

[rbridges]

I'm imagining but need a picture, that the OP could have turned off onto a taxi way, allowed the other plane to land, then everyone could have gone about their day with no need to involve the PoA brain trust (cough).

You're right, but for me, it's a learning question. You can't always ask the local CFI who may or may not think he's the gospel at the airport. Judging by the responses, I see I'm not the only one who wasn't 100% sure. The POA brain trust is a great resource. lol.

 

[EdFred]

You are required to give way to landing aircraft with one exception. If there is no option to exit the runway you can’t be forced off. It’s pretty simple. Why anyone would even argue the point is bizarre. It’s good practice, common sense and the right thing to do.

You're putting words into the regulation that aren't there. This guy said the taxiway is a dead end. So he's supposed to taxi into the dead end, shut the plane down, turn it around by hand, start it up and then back taxi just because some other guy can't plan ahead. GTFO.

Still looking for you to provide the regulation that there can't be more than one aircraft on the runway at a time.

 

[Jeff767]

You're putting words into the regulation that aren't there. This guy said the taxiway is a dead end. So he's supposed to taxi into the dead end, shut the plane down, turn it around by hand, start it up and then back taxi just because some other guy can't plan ahead. GTFO.

Still looking for you to provide the regulation that there can't be more than one aircraft on the runway at a time.

I never commented on more than one aircraft. I also pointed out that most airports without a parallel taxiway have a area or areas to pull clear to allow other aircraft to land. If they don’t the regulation is clear that you can’t be forced off and can back taxi. I get that you are the pilot who rather than pull off and wait 30 seconds for the next guy to land is going to back taxi and force the following aircraft to go around. You are probably also the guy driving a car who when they see a car trying to move into your lane with a blinker on speeds up to block them rather than slow slightly to let them in. There is a term for that kind of person.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

91.113, paragraph g

(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.

The rule you just quoted specifically states landing traffic does not have right away over surface traffic on the runway after a landing. Once the landing traffic clears the runway they are then required to yield right of way to the landing aircraft.

it’s a matter of plainly stated regulation the OP had right of way until clearing the runway. Whether or not it is polite to stop on the runway, turn around and then clear the runway where it is most convenient due to taxiway closures is about all there is to discuss here.

 

[Jeff767]

You are expected to clear the runway at the first reasonable opportunity be it a taxiway or turnout.

 

[EdFred]

I never commented on more than one aircraft. I also pointed out that most airports without a parallel taxiway have a area or areas to pull clear to allow other aircraft to land. If they don’t the regulation is clear that you can’t be forced off and can back taxi. I get that you are the pilot who rather than pull off and wait 30 seconds for the next guy to land is going to back taxi and force the following aircraft to go around. You are probably also the guy driving a car who when they see a car trying to move into your lane with a blinker on speeds up to block them rather than slow slightly to let them in. There is a term for that kind of person.

And you'd be wrong. I am the guy who taxis all the way to the end of the runway and lets the guy land behind me and then we both taxi back. You also got the car thing completely wrong. I make try and make sure no one ever has to hit their brakes or adjust their speed. Makes more much less stressful driving. But I get that it's fun for you to make things up about people. You should do it more. It really shows how smart you are(n't).

You are expected to clear the runway at the first reasonable opportunity be it a taxiway or turnout.

Regulation that states this? 91.113 ain't it. Hell, you don't even have to clear if you share.

 

[Omalley1537]

Was the CFI in a Citation?

edit...I see someone beat me to it, lol

 

[MtPJimB]

This. Lots of people posting the same regulation but have a different interpretation. If I just landed but haven't cleared the runway aren't I still "landing traffic"?

I agree 100%. You are still the "landing traffic" until you have cleared the runway. Rule 91.113 says "on final approach to land or while landing". When you touch down and are still on the runway, that is "while landing". If not, then why distinguish between that and "on final approach to land"? If the moment your wheels touch pavement (or grass), you are no longer, "landing traffic" that would be craziness.

 

[MBDiagMan]

As I tecall the term Backtaxi went away a long time ago.

Okay! Then what is the correct term?

 

[Lindberg]

The regs say the guy landing has the right of way. The person who wants to use the runway as a taxiway needs to wait until the guy lands.
This is not the case of the guy landing and making his way to exit the runway, it's someone who could exit the runway but decides that he has more right to the runway than the next guy. Unfortunately, the regs and GOOD AVIATION DECISION MAKING says, you don't block landing traffic. People going to their hangar and people waiting for takeoff can wait while the landing guys get safely down.

My airport has no full length taxiway. If you there's someone landing behind you, you either make the turn off or you roll to the end and wait.

At what point exactly was the OP done landing?

 

[bflynn]

You are expected to clear the runway at the first reasonable opportunity be it a taxiway or turnout.

Sure, it's good courtesy

Are you required to do so? Or are you saying the landing aircraft can force you off the runway?

 

[WDD]

I always go with "What would Paul Bertorelli say?" Don't be a "jerk". (Edited there a bit).

Taxi guy - Back taxi and exit to good taxi way and/or exit as soon as you can to get where you need to go.

Landing guy - There's a guy on the runway moving to where he needs to go; he'll exit the runway as soon as he gets there. Land when he's done.

 

[Stewartb]

Okay! Then what is the correct term?

I’ve heard pilots request back taxi but haven’t heard a controller say it for a long time I have heard taxi back. Maybe a controller here can clear it up. I haven’t been to a controlled runway for a few years.