pattern etiquette question

[rbridges]

I was coming back from Orlando and entering a downwind for my runway.  Some other guy in a 152 was doing a straight-in practice RNAV approach (VFR conditions).  I ended up sneaking ahead of him, but it was a little closer than I'd like.  Normally I'd yield since I don't want to mess up someone's instrument approach, but I was pretty beat and ready to land.

If it turned out that we'd both be landing at the same time, how do you figure who has  right of way?  Is there a FAR that explains it for a non-towered airport?  

[Vance Harral]

FAR 91.113(g): " When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft. "

That quoted, it's not always obvious who's lower, and the "shall not take advantage" clause leaves a lot of room for argument.  I think of this one as akin to the automotive right-of-way rule for a 4-way stop sign.  Which is to say that yeah, technically there's a rule for who goes first.  But between ignorance of the rule, human nature, and measurement error, every case essentially boils down to appropriate use of judgement and caution.

[toto]

AOPA published an ASI brief earlier this year on non-towered operations.  Pretty much just a re-hashing of the FARs, which I think would say that the aircraft on final has the right of way (even if you're closer to the runway).

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2017/Jun/Non-Tower_Airport_Comms.pdf

FWIW

[toto]

@Vance Harral, I would think that the previous sentence of 91.113(g) would apply (quoted in the brief I linked above):

"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."

 

 

[rbridges]

okay.  thanks.  I guess a good rule of thumb would be if they're within the final approach fix.  

[Vance Harral]

@toto, I get your point.  But the first sentence falls apart in real life too, due to the nebulous understanding of "final approach", which is not formally defined in FAR 1.1.  At what point does a landing aircraft transition from being "in flight" to being "on final approach to land"?  Most VFR-only guys would probably say this happens on the base-to-final turn, but the OP specifically referenced the case of an aircraft on a practice instrument approach.  I don't know the parameters at his airport, but the final approach fix for the GPS approach into my home airport is 6 miles from the threshold.  No reasonable person thinks an aircraft on a practice approach here gets a 4-minute right-of-way (at 90 knots) upon crossing the FAF, vs. a guy who just turned base.

[Vance Harral]

1 minute ago, rbridges said:

I guess a good rule of thumb would be if they're within the final approach fix.  

That's certainly a reasonable and conservative idea.  But I can tell you I'd feel bad if I reported a 6-mile final and you said you'd break off your base leg to let me land first.  I certainly wouldn't take offense or feel you'd violated the spirit or letter of the FARs if you proceeded to land in front of me.

[rbridges]

1 minute ago, Vance Harral said:

That's certainly a reasonable and conservative idea.  But I can tell you I'd feel bad if I reported a 6-mile final and you said you'd break off your base leg to let me land first.  I certainly wouldn't take offense or feel you'd violated the spirit or letter of the FARs if you proceeded to land in front of me.

that's what I ended up doing.  He was 3+ miles out in a 152, and I was abeam the end of the runway.  I was able to turn base and land.  I was actually pulling off the runway when he was on short final.  

[toto]

I think that this is a perfectly acceptable outcome ---- the name of the game at uncontrolled airports is communication.  The right-of-way rules exist primary to provide a default action in the event that the aircraft can't work it out (e.g., because one or both is nordo, or one is talking to approach).

If it were me in the 152, I'd tell you to please go ahead and land -- and if I were downwind, I might ask the 152 to confirm position and then ask if it's okay for me to scoot in ahead of him.

I will say, though, that without visual verification of position, crazy things can (and do) happen at uncontrolled fields.  I've heard people report 10 miles out and seen them clearly about to pass over the field.  And I've heard people report short final when they were nowhere to be seen. 

So I usually try to be very very conservative if I hear a position report and don't see the aircraft.

[MB65E]

Towers use a 3000ft separation. Sounds like you had well more than that. As long as you don't force a go around and can clear the runway, I wouldn't think he'd have anything to complain about. Could you see him? I'd only do what you did if I had a visual. His 3mi final could mean 3mi, 2mi, or 5mi...

I've dorked up several times on instrument approaches while talking on Unicom. I've called 5mi final when I was really 5mi from the next fix. Makes for confusing times to the locals. 

Last time I got behind a 152 in the pattern he thought he was a 747...

-Matt

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, rbridges said:

I was coming back from Orlando and entering a downwind for my runway.  Some other guy in a 152 was doing a straight-in practice RNAV approach (VFR conditions).  I ended up sneaking ahead of him, but it was a little closer than I'd like.  Normally I'd yield since I don't want to mess up someone's instrument approach, but I was pretty beat and ready to land.

If it turned out that we'd both be landing at the same time, how do you figure who has  right of way?  Is there a FAR that explains it for a non-towered airport?  

What if the plane on final was on an IFR flight plan and not practice, does it not have to break off the approach and join the pattern for a VFR arrival?

Clarence

[Mooneymite]

I believe aircraft "in the pattern" (whatever that means!) have right of way over aircraft straight in...

At least that's what was decided when a Delta captain on a straight in caused an aircraft about to turn base to extend.  The little-plane pilot took offense, pushed the issue and the jet pilot got the violation.

There may be more to the story, but those were the facts relayed to me.

In a different ruling, apparently 4 miles is the break point between in the pattern and straight in.

A straight in is acceptable until you interfere with the traffic pattern.

It is a very murky question since an uncontrolled airport is...well, uncontrolled.

 

[bonal]

Back when I was flying my 150 I always kept in mind that almost everyone was going faster and I tried to allow them to move ahead unless I was past mid field DW in the pattern and even then if a fast mover was on a straight in I would just extend DW to let them in. But as said before uncontrolled fields you need to communicate and be clear of positioning. Always a good idea to get onto CTAF as soon as practicable and if there are a number of airplanes approaching then do what is expected and get onto the 45.  If I was in the 152 I would have given the right of way to your Mooney. And keep in mind a radio isn't even required in many uncontrolled fields something that always amazes me.

[Mooneymite]

35 minutes ago, bonal said:

And keep in mind a radio isn't even required in many uncontrolled fields something that always amazes me.

The vast majority of uncontrolled fields require neither radio nor transponder unless the over-laying airspace requires them.

OTOH, the vast majority of uncontrolled airports rarely have two aircraft in the pattern at the same time....it's the few busy ones that need the discipline.

[bonal]

7 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

The vast majority of uncontrolled fields require neither radio nor transponder unless the over-laying airspace requires them.

OTOH, the vast majority of uncontrolled airports rarely have two aircraft in the pattern at the same time....it's the few busy ones that need the discipline.

Quite true but only takes two to have a mid air collision and when thinking,  hardly ever anyone around here might cause a complacent attitude as you enter the area.  I make several position calls and my intentions very clear and am really looking out for visual traffic. As we all know we are on our own in uncontrolled airport traffic its up to us to do it as safely as possible.

[Hank]

30 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

The vast majority of uncontrolled fields require neither radio nor transponder unless the over-laying airspace requires them.

OTOH, the vast majority of uncontrolled airports rarely have two aircraft in the pattern at the same time....it's the few busy ones that need the discipline.

I'm the only flying plane at my field (the other two have been parked a decade or more), but we get occasional visitors and some flight school planes practicing landings. So I work at maintaining radio discipline (for when I'm away), and the usual sharp lookout.

This is my fourth base, and I am still an infrequent visitor at towered fields; I usually need to think through my call for clearance if not departing IFR.

[flyboy0681]

Where does this situation fall.. uncontrolled airport and three planes are on downwind. The middle plane is impatient and decides to turn base and then final, essentially breaking out of the pack, causing the first plane to extend downwind.

Happened to me last year while flying with Fantom.

[flyboy0681]

Just now, daver328 said:

I think public beatings are appropriate! 

:-) 

(it’s scary how selfish and dumb people can be .... it gets people killed)

My passenger was literally ready to throw punches but contained himself, although snide remarks were made.

[Hank]

4 minutes ago, daver328 said:

Just to be clear, while AIM gives specific guidance on common traffic calls, as far as I know calls at uncontrolled airports are not legally required. I understand a crop duster with no radios can’t make calls. I get that. But a guy whose just a moron, has radios, but just isn’t going to make calls, ya ... like I said ... just a moron ... 

I used to be based 10 Cessna minutes from an airport notorious for lack of radios . . . I was once followed afound the pattern by another Mooney, the only calls made were mine. He was on short final as I was on the Go after Touching, silently expecting me to not make a full stop. I gave up and went away while he continues to practice whatever he was doing.

[ArtVandelay]

I think it's easier to extend your downwind then it is to abort the straight in approach. I would let the plane on final go ahead.

[toto]

1 hour ago, daver328 said:

Lots of incorrect responses here ... or people that didn’t READ your post?

 

The question didn't seem cut-and-dried to me. I made the assumption that the Cessna was on a practice approach terminating full-stop at the uncontrolled field. Whether or not the pilot takes off his Foggles, he's on a long final leg, and the kernel of the question was whether a VFR aircraft in the pattern at an uncontrolled field can turn base in front of another aircraft established on a long final. 

The "VFR practice approach must terminate" scenario, as I imagine it, is the nonprecision approach that sends the aircraft directly in conflict with VFR aircraft already in the pattern. (Thinking a VOR approach that crosses midfield below pattern altitude.) The pilot should definitely terminate the approach and enter the pattern instead. 

But if the pilot intends to land at the field, and is already on the final approach segment (even if a few miles away), terminating the approach might reasonably mean proceeding on a VFR final. So he's still got the aircraft on downwind in front of him, and a decision still has to be made. 

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse - happy to be educated. 

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, daver328 said:

Traffic on practice approaches in VFR are obligated to break off their approach and enter traffic pattern. Whether on an IFR flight plan or not

Please let us know what CFR 14 regulation or AIM guidance requires this.  If there is one, I need to learn about it.  If there isn't one, you're just stating an opinion.  Not one I disagree with necessarily, but still an opinion that many won't share.

[carusoam]

Observations... (summary?)

Humans can act in unexpected ways...

1) Some people in the pattern at my home drome are students... and may not be able to space themselves out very well or know where everyone else is.

2) Some IR pilot’s announce where they are in terms of the FAF... that student barely knows VFR traffic patterns, where is the FAF to him?

3) giving position reports around the pattern are helpful, but I've gone two miles between starting the report and finishing the broadcast.

4) Cognitive overload is a strong reason some pilots fail to give position reports. Downwind, midfield, then nothing....chirp...chirp...chirp...

5) Once you realize how many humans are getting overloaded in the pattern, you start making space available to make sure you don’t run out of space.

6) call sign becomes 'blue and white mooney' it’s likely the C152 doesn't know what a Mooney is, nevermind my tail number.

7) traffic pattern on a busy weekend will have at least three planes in it... helicopters are going the other direction RH TP.  If they are landing they air taxi across the runway.

8) it’s really cool, when the guys with the most experience lead with the open communications... wish I had that skill.

 

This thread makes me think.  Plenty of room to improve.  

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Mooneymite]

13 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

Please let us know what CFR 14 regulation or AIM guidance requires this.  If there is one, I need to learn about it.  If there isn't one, you're just stating an opinion.  Not one I disagree with necessarily, but still an opinion that many won't share.

That Delta pilot I mentioned is now probably an expert on all the rules.  I think he only got a 30 day suspension.

This subject is discussed at length in a couple of AC's.  I think AC 90-66A is one, but there are others.

 

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, daver328 said:

VFR traffic in the pattern has the right of way. That would be you. Traffic on practice approaches in VFR are obligated to break off their approach and enter traffic pattern. Whether on an IFR flight plan or not.

So I agree this is the way it should be done, but there is no legal obligation to break off practice approaches in VFR or any other time.  Right-of-way rules are dictated by the FAR's, and they do not address this.  Sure, you could be violated for reckless operation, but not for violating the right-of-way rules, unless you were actually higher in altitude at the time.

That being said, as a person practicing IFR approaches, I can't see that I have a legal prerogative to make straight in approaches and shoulder everyone else out of the way.  Since I'm a VFR pilot, my landing falls under VFR guidelines, and those include entering the pattern unless it is safe to do otherwise.

Even if I'm flying an actual IFR approach, if there is VFR traffic, the airfield is presumably in VMC.  As such, I have no prerogative to do anything different than the other VFR traffic in the area, so the situation is the same.