Right of way questions

[Dallas]

Sec. 91.113 - (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly
so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the
aircraft are of different categories --

They go on to specify the categories but they never specify who's got the
right of way in an airplane vs. rotorcraft.

I was taught the general rule of the less maneuverable craft has the right
of way, but that's not legally spelled out in 91.113.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read it the Boeing 737 to the left of my
Cessna should give way to me.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Dallas
Sec. 91.113 - (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly
so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the
aircraft are of different categories --
They go on to specify the categories but they never specify who's got the
right of way in an airplane vs. rotorcraft.
I was taught the general rule of the less maneuverable craft has the right
of way, but that's not legally spelled out in 91.113.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read it the Boeing 737 to the left of my
Cessna should give way to me.

There is a classical sailing cartoon that shows a couple of guys in a
dinky little sailboat with an aircraft carrier bearing down on them.

The caption reads:

"Don't worry about it, we have the right of way."

[Mike Ash]

Post by Dallas
Sec. 91.113 - (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly
so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the
aircraft are of different categories --
They go on to specify the categories but they never specify who's got the
right of way in an airplane vs. rotorcraft.
I was taught the general rule of the less maneuverable craft has the right
of way, but that's not legally spelled out in 91.113.

In the absence of a description for that scenario, I would assume that
it would go back to the default rule where the aircraft on the right has
the right-of-way. But it appears that you're correct that this case
isn't actually covered; it's excluded from the general case and not
listed in the specific cases.

(Note: I'm not an instructor, or even a lawyer, so this is just my
layman's opinion.)

Post by Dallas
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read it the Boeing 737 to the left of my
Cessna should give way to me.

Legally speaking, I believe that is absolutely correct. Practically
speaking, maneuver to avoid as soon as you realize that you're
converging!

Another fun example is that if two aircraft are landing, the one that's
at a lower altitude has the right of way, even if the higher one is a
glider. (Should be no surprise that I ignore this rule with some
frequency!)

I tend to agree with Jim's cartoon. Right-of-way is good to know from a
theoretical point of view, but in practical matters I always give the
other guy the right of way unless it would somehow compromise my safety
more than the possibility of a mid-air collision would. You have no idea
if the other guy saw you, and "But I had the right of way" would not
make a good epitaph.

[Crash Lander]

Post by Mike Ash
I tend to agree with Jim's cartoon. Right-of-way is good to know from a
theoretical point of view, but in practical matters I always give the
other guy the right of way unless it would somehow compromise my safety
more than the possibility of a mid-air collision would. You have no idea
if the other guy saw you, and "But I had the right of way" would not
make a good epitaph.

Yep, me too. I always let the other guy have right of way when I'm in the
air unless it puts my safety at risk. on the ground though is different.
Crash Lander

[Dallas]

Post by Crash Lander
Yep, me too. I always let the other guy have right of way when I'm in the
air unless it puts my safety at risk. on the ground though is different.

Remind me not to write your auto insurance policy.

:- )

[Peter Dohm]

Post by Dallas

Post by Crash Lander
Yep, me too. I always let the other guy have right of way when I'm in the
air unless it puts my safety at risk. on the ground though is different.

Remind me not to write your auto insurance policy.
:- )
--
Dallas

Wimp!

Peter :-)))))

[Crash Lander]

Post by Dallas
Remind me not to write your auto insurance policy.
:- )
Dallas

lmao.
I meant whilst taxiing the a/c !! lol
Crash Lander

[A Lieberman]

Post by Mike Ash
I always give the
other guy the right of way unless it would somehow compromise my safety
more than the possibility of a mid-air collision would.

Gotta mess with you on this Mike as I do know what you mean!

How can your safety be less compromised with a mid air?

The way you worded it tickled my funny bone, carry on.

[Mike Ash]

In article

Post by A Lieberman

Post by Mike Ash
I always give the
other guy the right of way unless it would somehow compromise my safety
more than the possibility of a mid-air collision would.

Gotta mess with you on this Mike as I do know what you mean!
How can your safety be less compromised with a mid air?
The way you worded it tickled my funny bone, carry on.

It was intended to tickle it, so good.

But I was half serious as well. You're right that a mid-air collision is
pretty much a worst-case scenario, but the collision isn't a given. If
you're on a collision course, there's a certain probability that the
other fellow will see you and maneuver to avoid, or that you will simply
have a near miss.

(I'm reminded of the late lamented George Carlin: "Here's one they just
made up: 'near miss'. When two planes almost collide, they call it a
near miss. It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss!")

Obviously this must not be counted on. But we can imagine a scenario,
unlikely though it may be, where the alternative has a greater
probability of causing one's imminent demise. For example, if somehow
your only out were to maneuver into terrain, better to hold course and
let the other guy move out of the way instead.

Now I'm not saying it's likely. Indeed, I don't expect ever to encounter
such a situation. But it's always good to stay mentally flexible like
this, just in case. And if it lets me be funny, all the better.

[Dallas]

Post by Mike Ash
Another fun example is that if two aircraft are landing, the one that's
at a lower altitude has the right of way, even if the higher one is a
glider.

Na... I think in Sec. 91.113 the placement of "(d) If the aircraft are of
different categories", before "(g) Landing" makes the landing rules
subordinate to the categories.

[Mike Ash]

Post by Dallas

Post by Mike Ash
Another fun example is that if two aircraft are landing, the one that's
at a lower altitude has the right of way, even if the higher one is a
glider.

Na... I think in Sec. 91.113 the placement of "(d) If the aircraft are of
different categories", before "(g) Landing" makes the landing rules
subordinate to the categories.

In the copy I'm looking at*, (d) starts with "Converging" in italics.
Sections (1), (2), and (3) describe who has the right of way if they
have different categories, and are subordinate to section (d), meaning
they only apply to the converging case. Sections (e), (f), and (g) (the
last one being "Landing") are outside that case and aren't subject to
the rules for different categories.

This mostly makes sense. For example, if an aircraft towing another
aircraft is overtaking a normal airplane, it makes no sense for the
towing aircraft to have the right of way, as the other airplane simply
will not be able to see him. Of course my original example is a case
where it doesn't make sense.

At least, such is my interpretation. Did I mention I'm neither an
instructor nor a lawyer? :)

* Long version:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/934
F0A02E17E7DE086256EEB005192FC?OpenDocument&Highlight=91.113

* Short version: http://tinyurl.com/loggu

[Dallas]

Post by Mike Ash
At least, such is my interpretation. Did I mention I'm neither an
instructor nor a lawyer? :)

I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.

:- )

It's the usual FAA vagueness so they can nail you at the hearing, depending
on their mood that day of course.

[Peter Dohm]

Post by Dallas

Post by Mike Ash
At least, such is my interpretation. Did I mention I'm neither an
instructor nor a lawyer? :)

I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.
:- )
It's the usual FAA vagueness so they can nail you at the hearing, depending
on their mood that day of course.
--
Dallas

Possibly going back a few spaces in this thread, and with the disclaimer
that I am also not a lawyer or a CFI, there is another point that was
skipped earlier in this thread: To the best of my knowledge, there is no
rule specifying which seat is actually the pilots seat in an aircraft.
Thus, some helicopters are flown solo from the left and some airplanes (such
as the SF260) are typically flown solo from the right; and and either pilot
may be flying when there is a crew of two pilots in control positions.
Therefore, the pilot of an airplane converging from the right may not have
the greater advantage of situational awareness to see and avoid; and the
presumption that he should can not reasonably be a hard and fast rule.

Peter

[Dallas]

Post by Peter Dohm
Therefore, the pilot of an airplane converging from the right may not have
the greater advantage of situational awareness to see and avoid;

Whoa. First, I've never considered the origin of the rule, but if the
basis of the rule is situational awareness, wouldn't "the aircraft to the
other's right has the right-of-way" be the logical opposite?

In other words, consider northbound and eastbound traffic converging. The
pilot with the best situational awareness to see and avoid would be the one
in the northbound left seat. Under the rule, the northbound pilot has the
right of way and the eastbound pilot with the more limited situational
awareness is responsible for altering his course.

So, how is the rule based on the better situational awareness?

[Peter Dohm]

Post by Dallas

Post by Peter Dohm
Therefore, the pilot of an airplane converging from the right may not have
the greater advantage of situational awareness to see and avoid;

Whoa. First, I've never considered the origin of the rule, but if the
basis of the rule is situational awareness, wouldn't "the aircraft to the
other's right has the right-of-way" be the logical opposite?
In other words, consider northbound and eastbound traffic converging. The
pilot with the best situational awareness to see and avoid would be the one
in the northbound left seat. Under the rule, the northbound pilot has the
right of way and the eastbound pilot with the more limited situational
awareness is responsible for altering his course.
So, how is the rule based on the better situational awareness?
--
Dallas

I really don't know the true origin of the rule either--and many of the
rules of avigation are inherited from navigation. The result is that you
may have to go back hundreds of years, or longer, to find the dtrue origin.

However, that said, the way most multi-seat planes are flown in single pilot
operations, the aircraft on the right "rule" does seem to fit the pilot
position with the best range of vision--but my point was that the most
conventional assumption may not fit the circumstances of the moment in the
case when two aircraft that are going in nearly the same direction.

In your example, the rule is much more clear-cut, and I believe that it is
derived from nagigation of the high seas. In that case, the approaching
aircraft is supposed to pass to your left and if the convergining aircraft
is left of straight ahead, the other aircraft is expected to yeild. OTOH,
if the other aproaching aircraft is right of straight ahead, you are
supposed to adjust course to pass behind the other aircraft--which will
cause him to pass to your left.

Remember that a converging aircraft is supposed to appear stationary, but
growing, in the window or windshield, so the course adjustment required
should be small.

Again, I am not a CFI nor an attorney, and that is my understanding of the
"rule" and its origin.


Peter

[Blanche]

OK, if there's a 737 that close to the skyhawk, I'm really worried
that neither of them are paying attention to the tower!

[Mike Ash]

Post by Blanche
OK, if there's a 737 that close to the skyhawk, I'm really worried
that neither of them are paying attention to the tower!

Doesn't have to be a tower, you know. Airliners routinely fly through
Class E airspace (for example, when descending to land at an airport)
where somebody can fly, perfectly legally, with no radio and no
transponder. The 737 is probably talking to somebody (although if it's
not a regularly scheduled airline flight he doesn't have to be either)
but the Skyhawk can leave his radio be, depending on where he is.

[Dallas]

Airliners routinely fly through Class E airspace

Yep, I've actually done that in a 737.

I rode the jump seat into an airport whose tower had closed. We made
position calls on the CTAF and brought up the runway lights clicking the
transmit button.

[Mike Ash]

Post by Dallas

Airliners routinely fly through Class E airspace

Yep, I've actually done that in a 737.
I rode the jump seat into an airport whose tower had closed. We made
position calls on the CTAF and brought up the runway lights clicking the
transmit button.

How cool!

I haven't done anything that neat with an airliner. But they do get
pretty low where I fly gliders, which is about 20 miles outside the
Dulles class B. They routinely fly by a few miles north of the airport
at 8-9,000ft, a somewhat unusual altitude for us to achieve most of the
time but easy on a good wave day. Occasionally I've seen them fly
practically over the airport at maybe 4-5,000ft, altitudes which are
pretty commonly achieved by our gliders. And not a control tower in
sight. The airliner guys are talking to ATC, of course, but we sure
aren't. I'm glad to have a transponder in my glider!

[BT]

you would only have the right of way if he sees you..
How do you know he sees you?
BT

Post by Mike Ash

Post by Dallas
Sec. 91.113 - (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly
so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the
aircraft are of different categories --
They go on to specify the categories but they never specify who's got the
right of way in an airplane vs. rotorcraft.
I was taught the general rule of the less maneuverable craft has the right
of way, but that's not legally spelled out in 91.113.

In the absence of a description for that scenario, I would assume that
it would go back to the default rule where the aircraft on the right has
the right-of-way. But it appears that you're correct that this case
isn't actually covered; it's excluded from the general case and not
listed in the specific cases.
(Note: I'm not an instructor, or even a lawyer, so this is just my
layman's opinion.)

Post by Dallas
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read it the Boeing 737 to the left of my
Cessna should give way to me.

Legally speaking, I believe that is absolutely correct. Practically
speaking, maneuver to avoid as soon as you realize that you're
converging!
Another fun example is that if two aircraft are landing, the one that's
at a lower altitude has the right of way, even if the higher one is a
glider. (Should be no surprise that I ignore this rule with some
frequency!)
I tend to agree with Jim's cartoon. Right-of-way is good to know from a
theoretical point of view, but in practical matters I always give the
other guy the right of way unless it would somehow compromise my safety
more than the possibility of a mid-air collision would. You have no idea
if the other guy saw you, and "But I had the right of way" would not
make a good epitaph.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Kobra]

Post by Dallas
They go on to specify the categories but they never specify who's got the
right of way in an airplane vs. rotorcraft.

This may be true, but I believe a rotorcraft and an airplane (as far as the
FAA is concerned) are equally maneuverable and therefore the one on the
right has the right-of-way.

Someone else wrote about the cartoon that reads at the end, "The caption
says, Don't worry about it, we have the right of way." It would be more
applicable to our discussion and even funnier if it was done the other way
around. One of the guys in the small dingy calmly explaining to the
passenger, who's frantically pointing out the aircraft carrier with bulging
eyes, "Don't worry about it, we have the right of way." Personal preference
I guess.

Kobra

[Kobra]

Post by Kobra
Someone else wrote about the cartoon that reads at the end, "The caption
says, Don't worry about it, we have the right of way." It would be more
applicable to our discussion and even funnier if it was done the other way
around. >

OOOPS...that IS the way the cartoon is made....sorry.

Kobra

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Kobra

Post by Dallas
They go on to specify the categories but they never specify who's got the
right of way in an airplane vs. rotorcraft.

This may be true, but I believe a rotorcraft and an airplane (as far as the
FAA is concerned) are equally maneuverable and therefore the one on the
right has the right-of-way.
Someone else wrote about the cartoon that reads at the end, "The caption
says, Don't worry about it, we have the right of way." It would be more
applicable to our discussion and even funnier if it was done the other way
around. One of the guys in the small dingy calmly explaining to the
passenger, who's frantically pointing out the aircraft carrier with bulging
eyes, "Don't worry about it, we have the right of way." Personal preference
I guess.
Kobra

Umm, that is the caption, I thought that was obvious.

[Kobra]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Umm, that is the caption, I thought that was obvious.

Sorry...I didn't read "caption"...I read it as "Captain" as in Captain of
the aircraft carrier...again...my appologies.

Kobra

[Dallas]

Post by Kobra
This may be true, but I believe a rotorcraft and an airplane (as far as the
FAA is concerned) are equally maneuverable and therefore the one on the
right has the right-of-way.

Too bad.. they do a lot of rotorcraft training at my airport and the
little bastards are constantly popping up and getting in everyone's way.

"Surprise! Guess what I'm going to do?" Why don't you wait, 'cause I'm
not sure what I'm going to do yet either..."