Who has the right of way?

[Henning]

The last time it happened to me, I was descending through 5000 when ATC told me, "5ZC, traffic 10 o'clock, 4 miles, type unknown, altitude indicates 5000."
I acknowledged, but couldn't spot the traffic. A moment later: "5ZC, traffic now 10 o'clock, 2 miles, altitude indicates 4700."
"5ZC is expediting descent." I backed off the throttle and pushed the nose over. The Zodiac dropped fast, and the other guy passed above me by a couple of hundred feet.

I don't care about the legal niceties. I'm going to save my life first, and worry about those later. Depending on the other guy to do the right thing is a good way to get killed, on the ground or in the air.

You don't see that you did a double chase to get below him? What if he would have descended again as well?

 

[jmaynard]

You don't see that you did a double chase to get below him? What if he would have descended again as well?

I do see that, but I didn't have another option: I was descending to maintain VFR. I also know that holding my course and altitude was not an option, even if it'd been CAVU. Once again, I will not depend on the other guy to do the right thing. Period.

 

[Henning]

I do see that, but I didn't have another option: I was descending to maintain VFR. I also know that holding my course and altitude was not an option, even if it'd been CAVU. Once again, I will not depend on the other guy to do the right thing. Period.

But that means I can't rely on you to do the right thing, so where does that leave me?

 

[jmaynard]

I will not depend on the other guy to do the right thing. Period.

To expand on this a bit:

We, as pilots, hold our safety in our own hands to a greater degree than in just about any other endeavor. It's exceedingly rare for an aviation accident to not involve some action, or lack of action, on the part of the pilot that, if done properly, would have prevented the accident from happening. We know this instinctively; for that, we need no better witness than that we often use "fly safe" as a parting comment.

Waiting for the other guy to do the right thing goes against this principle. He may have his head down in the cockpit; he may be talking to a passenger; he may simply not see the oncoming traffic. In any event, I have it within my power to avoid the accident, and if I fail to do so because I'm expecting the other pilot to do the right thing, I may well be disappointed.

My aircraft isn't an F-18. I don't have lots and lots of thrust to make it go in any direction I desire. It's not even rated or stressed for aerobatic maneuvers. I, personally, don't know how to do aerobatics, and it's not on my list of things to learn; I've got better things to do than subject myself to hours on end of motion sickness. I have to act within my limits and those of the airplane.

Given that, my choices are restricted, and acting sooner rather than later is more likely to avoid a collision. I believe it is my duty as pilot to act, rather than stand by passively. If the other pilot acts as well, then I'll deal with that as it comes.

 

[jmaynard]

But that means I can't rely on you to do the right thing, so where does that leave me?

If you're doing the right thing, then I'll see that and do what's needed in that case. Aircraft aren't like supertankers that take an hour to turn, after all.

 

[Henning]

If you're doing the right thing, then I'll see that and do what's needed in that case. Aircraft aren't like supertankers that take an hour to turn, after all.

How do I know that? We may be in confining airspace and I'm going to pass close behind but I'm going to wait until I'm closer to you because there's a third and possibly fourth aircraft that you don't see that I also have to avoid. (Sometimes traffic gets complicated, you should see what it looks like at a bug run when 20 planes are working off the same airport landing 2-3 times an hour each sometimes, several of the planes may be NORDO). I need to know you're going to do what you're supposed to do. There is a reason that one craft is burdened to hold course and speed until In Extremes. As you yourself said, these arent super tankers that require a bunch of room. As long as I see you coming, I can let the situation get very close before I have to decide to maneuver, then if I have to, I will turn into you and climb or dive, depending on high wing or low, to keep you in view.

 

[jmaynard]

As long as I see you coming, I can let the situation get very close before I have to decide to maneuver, then if I have to, I will turn into you and climb or dive, depending on high wing or low, to keep you in view.

How do I know that you are going to do what you have to do? Decide. Now.

 

[gismo]

If you're doing the right thing, then I'll see that and do what's needed in that case. Aircraft aren't like supertankers that take an hour to turn, after all.

Time to turn isn't relevant since the speeds are noticeably higher in most airplanes vs supertankers, it's the turn radius that matters. Depending on the aircraft and speed involved as well as the sky conditions the ability to maneuver can be severely limited. For instance if I were descending at 200 KTAS (not unusual for me) my turn radius is a little more than one nm with a 30 degree bank. If I'm VFR or on a visual approach and there are some clouds around I have to stay out of them too, limiting my options further.

Personally, I don't believe that open water maritime rules make much sense for airplanes given that aircraft can move three dimensionally and there are often all sorts of obstacles involved such as clouds, towers, terrain, SUA, and undesireable weather (TRW, precip, etc). I doubt that there is anything in the maritime regulations dictating that the stand on vessel maintain altitude (what about submarines?) and except in confined waterways there aren't generally obstacles that must be avoided.

Unfortunately, something like the concept that the aircraft with the right of way should maintain course, speed, and altitude does make it more feasible for the burdened aircraft to choose a path that eliminates the collision hazard. But like Jay, I still believe that given all the variables and constraints involved, letting everyone attempt to avoid each other is less likely to result in a collision than one side assuming the other is going to deal with it. I also still subscribe to the idea that you're better off making a significant correction early rather than an abrupt one at the last moment and that if the first correction you make is sufficiently large it should be nearly impossible for the other aircraft to create a new conflict by maneuvering in a way that should have eliminated the original conflict.

For that matter, how many of us are capable of determining when and where that last possible moment exists? Without a calculator plus knowledge of the conflicting aircraft's speed I know I would have a hard time deciding exactly when it was time to abandon all thoughts of holding course and take evasive action if you assume that doing so too early would be a mistake.

 

[KennyFlys]

In the one close call I had, we came within a half-mile of each other. I was to the right and had the right-of-way. But, since this guy didn't appear to be moving on his part, I took the plane from my student and made a right three-sixty. When I came back around, there was no apparent change in the course of the other aircraft.

If that wasn't of the "extreme" circumstances Henning speaks of, I'm not sure what would be.

 

[Henning]

How do I know that you are going to do what you have to do? Decide. Now.

That's just it, you have to be able to trust that the other person is going to do what they are supposed to do, or the rules of ROW mean absolutely nothing and it's back to a free for all. If I am burdened with maintaining course and speed, I will let it go to In Extremes before I maneuver to avoid you, because that is what I'm supposed to do. It doesn't bother me a bit to miss you by a few feet or inches even, and I can feel safe that if we are that close, that you don't see me and as long as I maneuver so as to keep you in view until clear, things will be fine.

 

[jmaynard]

That's just it, you have to be able to trust that the other person is going to do what they are supposed to do

I guess you don't believe in flying defensively and taking active measures to be safe, then.

or the rules of ROW mean absolutely nothing and it's back to a free for all.

It's a free for all anyway. The ROW rules are only good for determining who was responsible for killing everyone on board both aircraft.

If I am burdened with maintaining course and speed, I will let it go to In Extremes before I maneuver to avoid you, because that is what I'm supposed to do.

And what if you misjudge, and your aerobatic maneuvering doesn't work or gets you in even deeper?

It doesn't bother me a bit to miss you by a few feet or inches even, and I can feel safe that if we are that close, that you don't see me and as long as I maneuver so as to keep you in view until clear, things will be fine.

Here's where we're going to have to agree to disagree: if it gets that close, there's no practical way to tell whether or not there'll be a collision until it happens or doesn't happen, and I consider that a failure of a pilot's duty to avoid an accident.

 

[Henning]

I guess you don't believe in flying defensively and taking active measures to be safe, then.
Yes, I do. I monitor the situation and act when and as needed, haven't had a mid air yet and have come across quite a few fast movers down low.

It's a free for all anyway. The ROW rules are only good for determining who was responsible for killing everyone on board both aircraft.

It's only a free for all because there are people who think they know better.


And what if you misjudge, and your aerobatic maneuvering doesn't work or gets you in even deeper?

I know exactly what the aircraft will do, and I don't need to exceed 60* of bank or 30* of pitch.


Here's where we're going to have to agree to disagree: if it gets that close, there's no practical way to tell whether or not there'll be a collision until it happens or doesn't happen, and I consider that a failure of a pilot's duty to avoid an accident.

If you can't judge your aircraft to within inches, you need more practice. I routinely fly between fences and telephone wires with around a foot top and bottom clearance and a couple of feet for the wingtip off the pole.

 

[jmaynard]

If you can't judge your aircraft to within inches, you need more practice. I routinely fly between fences and telephone wires with around a foot top and bottom clearance and a couple of feet for the wingtip off the pole.

You go right ahead and fly like that. I greatly prefer not to cut things that fine. That goes for the rest of this discussion, as well: you apparently believe in cutting things finer than I do.