who has right of way, backtaxi vs landing aircraft?

[Piper18O]

I have calmed down a little, I have collected my thoughts and I just want to say a couple of more things since we are on page 9.

his is incorrect and inconsistent with the regulation as written, which is specific to aircraft that has just landed and is attempting to make way. That aircraft is not "surface" traffic until it has exited the runway. Your OSH scenario is at a towered airport and there was no inconsistency there either.

At Osh, the airport in that situation is a towered airport. The Rges have specific rules covering it, and include spacing and other requirements.
None of which apply to an non-towered airport.

So you can skip the whole story. It does not apply.

It seems that this really boils down to whether or not the guy taxiing is still a landing aircraft. At OSH the guys in the tower thought I was done landing and asked me to leave the runway. That is why I thought that towered scenario applied. If I am done landing and am on the surface, than I should probably give up the right of way to the guy on final if I safely can. I shouldn't be able to hold the airport hostage until "I am good and ready to as I see fit." Likewise, the guy on final shouldn't have a gun pointed at me to comply with his desires. To me it is just common sense. To others it may just be how they can interpret the law or regulation to their advantage or viewpoint.

But what do I know. Common sense and common courtesy have long since gone by the wayside.

 

[Troska]

This has been interesting. I’ve changed my own opinion after reading and considering the reg.

For anyone who still considers that they hold the ROW as the landing aircraft, after they have completed a 180 and are back taxiing past an available, safe exit opportunity with an aircraft on final - does your opinion change if the aircraft on final is a glider?

If it changes - why does it? The regs say that non-powered flight has ROW over powered flight, it also says aircraft on final has ROW over aircraft on the surface.

If there is an accident with the landing aircraft(glider/powered - doesn’t matter) and your aircraft back taxiing, do you really think the argument that the first safe exit wasn’t an expedient route to your final destination is going to be a strong argument?

I started on the side of “I’m on the runway, it’s mine until I exit at the site of my choosing”. I was wrong.

and we all agree the original CFI failed.

Tim

 

[dtuuri]

And since we're just talking specifically what the regulation states, and not what I would do as a matter of practicality, it's clear that I still have the right-of-way and the plane on final must yield.

If you are back-taxiing it means you did not "make way" for the plane on final, you stopped your forward velocity and reversed course without regard to the airplane behind you, whether seen or unseen. That plane has the right of way over you unless you are attempting to slow down enough to clear the runway immediately after landing. It can be no other way.

EDIT: Important caveat: If the runway in question has no exit, like say it's a sod field, what you say would apply. In fact, I caused my little brother to have to make a go around on his first solo when I didn't realize he was soloing and I entered downwind ahead of him. As I turned my C-140 around in the grass I could see the puff of exhaust come out behind as he poured the coal to it. When I shut down and got out I saw his instructor standing in the weeds and my next-younger brother enter his Luscombe downwind ahead of little brother and do the exact same thing! That day is still talked about even beyond our family.

 

[Palmpilot]

Agree with all that you wrote, but also consider that not all aircraft at untowered fields have a radio and some that have a radio may choose not to use it. See and avoid dominates and radio is complementary.

And sometimes people who have a radio dial in the wrong frequency.

 

[Southpaw]

Can't believe I read all nine pages .

 

[HighCountry]

If you are back-taxiing it means you did not "make way" for the plane on final, you stopped your forward velocity and reversed course without regard to the airplane behind you, whether seen or unseen. That plane has the right of way over you unless you are attempting to slow down enough to clear the runway immediately after landing. It can be no other way.

Alas the reg still says nothing about the method of making way, and that is intentional as every situation is unique and the reg can’t possibly address all possibilities. I’m sure I could present scenarios where back taxi was the safest and fastest route off the runway, but in truth it’s irrelevant. The FAR grants the pilot on the ground right-of-way while they are making an attempt to make way, whether they are aware of approaching traffic or not. In fact, as you say, it could be no other way because the safety implications are significant. The pilot landing can and should be able to see the pilot on the ground and can see and avoid. The pilot on the ground cannot. What you claim is irrational, and the only way your assertion works is if you delete the exception from the regulation at the expense of significant safety implications. But as I said previously no one can make you unsee what isn’t there, and apparently sometimes can’t make you see what is there. The exception still exists, despite your objections, and hallelujah for that.

I didn’t wander into the parallel discussion of good ADM, AIM guidance, etc. as I largely agreed with those comments. As designed the FAR lays the ground rules and the AIM offers guidance to help you apply those rules to your situation. The FAR is clear that the pilot who just landed has the right-of-way. That was the answer the OP was searching for. Along the way on these nine pages the discussion was muddied with what-if scenarios, implied conditions, alternate definitions, and sprinkled with AIM guidance in an effort to nullify the exception and demonstrate why asserting that right-of-way could be unsafe. Right-of-way won’t stop someone from making the wrong decision, and the runway is no place to argue who is correct.

I agree to disagree, and will leave you to your interpretations. Safe journeys.

 

[Kritchlow]

I cannot believe this is even a discussion. If he cannot turnoff, what in gods name would you like him to do???
If he can turn off, but for convenience opted not to.....
But truly how would the airplane on final know that? So many factors.

 

[dtuuri]

I cannot believe this is even a discussion. If he cannot turnoff, what in gods name would you like him to do???

If he CAN turn off, he should.

If he can turn off, but for convenience opted not to.....

He's in the wrong.

But truly how would the airplane on final know that?

Don't have to "know" by allowing enough space to let the plane in front reach the next taxiway or stop and come back to the first available exit or continue to the end and hold on the turn-around button until you're down. BTDT many times. No reason to be nasty on the radio, though, and no reason to sue someone for hogging the runway illegally due to their mistaken idea that taxiing airplanes have the right of way over one on final and can make you go around so they can get to their hangar faster.

 

[Kritchlow]

If he CAN turn off, he should.

He's in the wrong.


Don't have to "know" by allowing enough space to let the plane in front reach the next taxiway or stop and come back to the first available exit or continue to the end and hold on the turn-around button until you're down. BTDT many times. No reason to be nasty on the radio, though, and no reason to sue someone for hogging the runway illegally due to their mistaken idea that taxiing airplanes have the right of way over one on final and can make you go around so they can get to their hangar faster.

Well, I think we are in agreement with the first two

Give me moment to digest your third point.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

or continue to the end and hold on the turn-around button until you're down. BTDT many times.

So on a runway with no taxiway, which are usually shorter (<3000’) are you saying the first plane should continue to the end and hold in the turn around while the 2nd plane lands?

 

[Matthew Rogers]

My understanding was the taxiway he exited on did not connect to anything. It was closed. He stated there was barely enough room to make a 180 to re-enter the runway. At least that’s what I thought I read. Perhaps the OP can clarify

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.

There is the quote from the OP. No mention about the taxiway being too small to turn around, no mention about it not connecting to another open taxiway (Open from A to B), no mention about the taxiway entrance to the runway being closed.

 

[tspear]

There is the quote from the OP. No mention about the taxiway being too small to turn around, no mention about it not connecting to another open taxiway (Open from A to B), no mention about the taxiway entrance to the runway being closed.

All that is immaterial. Read the reg. Stop. End. Here is an example page from the FAA where surface and runway have distinct definitions.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_incursions/

The surface is all movement area excluding the runway. The reg as written gives the pilot on final right of way over surface traffic, not over runway traffic.

Pretty simple.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[Matthew Rogers]

All that is immaterial. Read the reg. Stop. End. Here is an example page from the FAA where surface and runway have distinct definitions.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_incursions/

The surface is all movement area excluding the runway. The reg as written gives the pilot on final right of way over surface traffic, not over runway traffic.

Pretty simple.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

Read both quotes Tim. I was responding to another member (first quote) who did not take the time to find and read the OP’s post (second quote). Instead he was spreading fake news. I was not commenting on the topic at all, just another member’s laziness.

So get off my lawn.

 

[dtuuri]

So on a runway with no taxiway, which are usually shorter (<3000’) are you saying the first plane should continue to the end and hold in the turn around while the 2nd plane lands?

To clarify your scenario a bit, I'm envisioning a runway with no exits beyond the reasonable stopping point of a landing aircraft—and that fact is well known by all the participants. Then, the pilot who landed needs to make a decision whether it is more expeditious to roll out to the end and clear final before back-taxiing or to make a 180° turn and come back to an exit that is available. The following aircraft knows what that pilot has for options and must extend his pattern to allow for either possibility. This scenario happened all the time way back when I was learning to fly and flight instructing at a 2200' hard-surface runway in the wintertime with no available alternate taxi route back to the office area. We weren't as reliant on radio communications in those days because many airplanes didn't have them and we had to plan for a surprise if we turned around after landing. If the person behind didn't leave enough space, the temptation for trying to taxi via the adjacent summertime sod runway was hard for some to resist. The result of that was often to get stuck half off the runway, temporarily closing the airport.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

There is the quote from the OP. No mention about the taxiway being too small to turn around, no mention about it not connecting to another open taxiway (Open from A to B), no mention about the taxiway entrance to the runway being closed.

Someone else had already corrected me but thanks for the feedback.

 

[tspear]

So get off my lawn.

Oops sorry. On my phone. Meant to reply to @dtuuri

Tim


Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[dtuuri]

All that is immaterial. Read the reg. Stop. End. Here is an example page from the FAA where surface and runway have distinct definitions.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_incursions/

The surface is all movement area excluding the runway. The reg as written gives the pilot on final right of way over surface traffic, not over runway traffic.

Pretty simple

Hahaha... LOL! (It don't say that.)

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Read both quotes Tim. I was responding to another member (first quote) who did not take the time to find and read the OP’s post (second quote). Instead he was spreading fake news. I was not commenting on the topic at all, just another member’s laziness.

So get off my lawn.

I was not spreading fake news. I asked a question that someone else had already answered prior to your response.

I’ll own the lazy assessment. No way I was digging through 8 pages to find out.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Here’s an example of an airport with limited options:

You can see an old paved runway that has been converted to grass, but I’ve never seen anyone use it. So either you need to back taxi to exit the runway on the taxiway to the southwest or pull just off the runway on the old paved section. Assuming you can’t make a U turn except at the turn around section because runway is too narrow, and you’re plane is not designed for rough runways (like a Mooney) : you could pull over on the other runway but you’ll be on the runway and not that far from the main runway.
If someone is behind you, what do you do?

 

[luvflyin]

Read both quotes Tim. I was responding to another member (first quote) who did not take the time to find and read the OP’s post (second quote). Instead he was spreading fake news. I was not commenting on the topic at all, just another member’s laziness.

So get off my lawn.

Hmm. We've pro'd and con'd paved runways to death. Time to move on to Turf Runways.

 

[Larry in TN]

Doesn’t change how silly it would be to pull off and do a 180 if there’s nobody around. And then pull off at taxiway B, because it’s the next “first available” taxiway, do another 180, and so on for every taxiway along the runway to your destination.

Nobody is saying that you have to.

Per the reg he's saying the "aircraft attempting to make way" has right-of-way which is correct.

If you are bypassing available, safe, runway exits, and that causes someone else to go around, you weren't attempting to make way.

If you still disagree, what would it look like for a back-taxing aircraft to NOT attempt to make way?

 

[TommyG]

So what if the guy stays on bravo, the other plane landed and has turned around to back taxi because he realized he can’t get to the hangar on the taxiway, and now a 3rd pilot is short final. Who has the right of way?

 

[dtuuri]

Here’s an example of an airport with limited options:

If someone is behind you, what do you do?

Hey, where is that airport? Very nice approaches, close to town, maybe a fishing spot and a grass runway bonus. I like it!

If I'm confined to hard surfaces, I'd rollout to the end and swing around on the button in a way that I can observe final. If I have time, considering the airplane on final, I'd back-taxi to the dog-leg and give the runway a wide berth before turning. If I landed really short, I'd turn around at the dogleg. Whatever you do, that long access taxiway could put you nose to nose with a departure-bound airplane wishing you had a reverse gear.

 

[dtuuri]

So what if the guy stays on bravo, the other plane landed and has turned around to back taxi because he realized he can’t get to the hangar on the taxiway, and now a 3rd pilot is short final. Who has the right of way?

The plane on final, but he's prevented from exercising his right by the back-taxiing airplane?

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's a thought I just had:

"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."

So does this mean that if the aircraft on the runway is NOT attempting to make way, it's OK for the aircraft on final to force it off the runway surface?

 

[Salty]

Ok, let’s take a different approach at this.

If you had multiple aircraft landing and they all took the “first available” which in this case dead ends, then you’d have a pileup of planes pretty quickly. At some point the guy on final is going to have to let someone back taxi.

 

[dtuuri]

So does this mean that if the aircraft on the runway is NOT attempting to make way, it's OK for the aircraft on final to force it off the runway surface?

Post #232:

But the rule does allow the pilot on final approach to force the other plane off the runway if it isn't making way for it to land, i.e., moving out of its way. If the taxiing plane chooses to be in the way, the one on final CAN force it off (which he did). IMO.

 

[Palmpilot]

Post #232:

I don't see telling someone to get off as being equivalent to forcing them off. Maybe what the FAA had in mind was that you shouldn't come so close to them that the only way they can avoid the collision is to taxi into the weeds.

 

[dtuuri]

I don't see telling someone to get off as being equivalent to forcing them off. Maybe what the FAA had in mind was that you shouldn't come so close to them that the only way they can avoid the collision is to taxi into the weeds.

Would flipping them the finger as you buzz their asp be "forcing"?

 

[Palmpilot]

Would flipping them the finger as you buzz their asp be "forcing"?

No, but buzzing their asp might be.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Actually, there's nothing in the rules that prevents two aircraft from being on the runway at the same time other than the general "don't get so close as to be a hazard."

Yep, I have a picture of me on short final, two rolling out, and one turning off, at a fly-in at WPAFB. Of course, the runways there are stupendously long for a Skyhawk (piston kind.)

 

[Larry in TN]

So does this mean that if the aircraft on the runway is NOT attempting to make way, it's OK for the aircraft on final to force it off the runway surface?

It is saying that if the landed airplane is attempting to make way, but can't, the aircraft on Final no longer has the right-of-way.

 

[kkoran]

All that is immaterial. Read the reg. Stop. End. Here is an example page from the FAA where surface and runway have distinct definitions.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_incursions/

The surface is all movement area excluding the runway. The reg as written gives the pilot on final right of way over surface traffic, not over runway traffic.

Pretty simple.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

The term "surface incident" is used to differntiate incidents on the surface of an airport that happen on non-runway parts of the movement area from ones that happen on a runway. The "surface" part of the term only means it happens on the surface as opposed to in the air.

 

[bflynn]

The plane on final, but he's prevented from exercising his right by the back-taxiing airplane?

Well, he's prevented from exercising his right by his desire to live. Only a fool would land knowing they risk a collision with an airplane on the runway.

I am disheartened by the number of people who expect everyone to get off the runway for them. I really hope none of you ever get a jet.

 

[luvflyin]

There is a BBQ at an airport. They are running out of beer. Johnson says, "I'll fly on over to Kwherever and pick up a couple cases. He comes back and needs to backtaxi to get to the party. Smith is on final behind him. Who has the Right of Way?

 

[TommyG]

There is a BBQ at an airport. They are running out of beer. Johnson says, "I'll fly on over to Kwherever and pick up a couple cases. He comes back and needs to backtaxi to get to the party. Smith is on final behind him. Who has the Right of Way?

The beer is priority.

 

[Ravioli]

Ass is an allowed word on PoA. Using "asp" as a way to subvert the obscenity filter is a violation of the RoC's. So take that you asses!

 

[ETres]

I choose to read only when it reaches 30 pages. Doesn't mean shinola before then.

 

[dtuuri]

I am disheartened by the number of people who expect everyone to get off the runway for them.

I'm dismayed at pilots who act like a runway is a time share at the beach, it's theirs until they check out.

 

[Palmpilot]

Ass is an allowed word on PoA. Using "asp" as a way to subvert the obscenity filter is a violation of the RoC's. So take that you asses!

Let's get a Chief Counsel opinion on that!