Right hand traffic

[CaptainRon]

A recent incident prompted me to look up FAR 91.126 Operating at a field in Class G Airspace (which is also incorporated by reference into 91.127, Ops at Class E field). According to 91.126, the only time a right hand pattern is allowed to be flown is when there is a visual indicator or lights ON THE GROUND indicating the right hand pattern. My interpretation then, is if it is indicated on a Sectional or in the AFD and is NOT indicated on the ground, it may not be flown. The FAR says you MUST make all turns to the left UNLESS there is a visual indicator on the ground indicating a right turn.

The airport in question has Right traffic indicated on the Sectional and in the AFD but NOT indicated on the ground. I contend that the person flying right hand traffic at this field was in violation of the FARS. A Sectional and the AFD are the same as the AIM, informational only and NOT REGULATORY.

Comments?

 

[Singlecoil]

Well Captain it is things like these that cause regulations to be written.
The object of the game is to not hit another aircraft and to keep dirt out of the pitot tube. If the sectional says right traffic, and the AFD says right traffic, then fly right traffic just like everyone else is doing. That regulation was written, like all the others, because of some accident somewhere. Since then, the sectional denotes traffic patterns as does the AFD. The regulation should be changed to note the other sources of information available, but it won't be changed until someone has a midair over an airport because he was following the letter of the law, and not common sense.
This may shock you, but most commercial pilots don't even overfly the field and look for visual traffic indications, because instead they are relying on information in the Jepps, or the AFD. Time is money in commercial aviation. You don't overfly fields when you have other perfectly good wind indicators, like smoke or wind on water, and a working radio. You will have plenty of time on final to see if there is a deer or something like that on the runway.

You may be technically correct in this case, but I think your efforts would be better served by having a word with the airport manager about his lack of non-standard markings than with a pilot who follows the sectional.

 

[avbug]

Captain Ron is correct by literal definition, but Singlecoil is correct in practice.

Captain Ron, when you make a 45 degree entry to the downwind in a left pattern, you make a right turn to enter that pattern...thereby having violated that sacred rule of all left turns. A minor point.

Fly what is appropriate. Suppose you don't overfly the field, but enter straight in? Or simply enter the downwind without ever having overflow the segmented circle or other pattern indicator? You would make a decision on traffic based on your preflight planning, correct? It sounds as though your preflight planning includes the AFD and other pertinent data. Go with it.

It's not uncommon for rural airport facilities to go neglected for decades...if the traffic pattern stated in the AFD isn't reflected by the decrepid segmented circle, then there's a good chance that the segmented circle hasn't been altered in donkeys years. Above all, use common sense. If terrain intervenes and obviously the pattern should be flown on the other side, then fly it on the other side, and forget the circle, published data, etc. Safety first.

Don't get so caught up in the AIM being informational. It's a compilation of regulated actions, or regulations. Additionally, the FAA and NTSB have held people in violation of the practices contained therein. Further, you're more likely to face a violation of 91.13 for careless and reckless operation of you cause a problem trying to enforce the left turn rule as you see it, rather than actually flying a different pattern than depicted.

Always assume traffic could be anywhere, and then behave as though it's everywhere...traffic patterns and radio calls not withstanding. You'll live longer and stress less when things aren't where you wish them to be.

 

[midlifeflyer]

avbug wrote:
Captain Ron is correct by literal definition...

No he's not. Captain Ron was only reading part of the regulation which says (some emphasis added):

"(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required , each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.
(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in a Class G airspace area -
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right;"

(b) is modified by (a).


Translating statute-ese into English, you get

Unless otherwise authorized or required, when approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in a Class G airspace area, each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right.

 

[avbug]

Thanks, Jim. Long story, but I'm not really back...still on the "road." Just stealing some computer time where I can. How's sunshine and warmer weather?

Midlife, Captainron is correct, and yes, we can all read. Yes, it does say "unless otherwise authorized," but what is "authorized?"

The information printed on a chart is not an authorization, nor is the AFD an authorization.

As for required, we can set that aside, because the regulation permits at all time the PIC to act in favor of safety of flight, where required. We also know by case law and interpretation, that it's well proven that in any case involving investigation of a violation, the pilot must prove his requirement.

Remember that in reference to administrative law, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Therefore, Captainron is correct, technically. See previous comments.

 

[midlifeflyer]

avbug wrote:
The information printed on a chart is not an authorization, nor is the AFD an authorization.

That may well be an accurate statement, but do you have a source for saying that information contained in an official government publication that the government expects you to use as part of the requirement to obtain all available information about a flight and which describes procedures to be used is not an authorization to use those procedures, or would at least be a basis for estoppel?

I've never heard of a case in which someone was violated for =following= information contained in the A/FD in the absence of a NOTAM to the contrary.

 

[CaptainRon]

Thanks all, for the input.

AvBug beat me to the question I had for midlifeflyer: what is "authorized"? Since neither the AFD nor a Sectional are regulatory, the drafters must have had something else in mind to "authorize" a deviation from the "must" contained in the FAR. A NOTAM perhaps?

I have flown into many airports with right hand traffic (as indicated on the sectional or in the AFD or my Flight Guide) and never paid any attention to whether there was an indicator on the ground or not. It is definitely something I will pay more attention to in the future as I, of course, continue to fly the right hand traffic.

By the way singlecoil, the FBO was later called on the phone to inquire about the lack of a visual indicator for right hand traffic and the person who answered the phone had no idea what we were talking about!

 

[midlifeflyer]

CaptainRon wrote:
AvBug beat me to the question I had for midlifeflyer: what is "authorized"? Since neither the AFD nor a Sectional are regulatory, the drafters must have had something else in mind to "authorize" a deviation

That was my follow-up point. Does "authorize" imply that the something that does the authorization has to be regulatory? I don't think so. I guess it's possible, but I can't imagine an FAA "bust" sticking if you're called on the carpet for doing something an official publication says is okay to do. Just doesn't make sense. I know. The common wisdom is that law and regulations don't have to make sense, but "common wisdom" while often "common" is rarely "wisdom." It's usually based on lack of knowledge.

 

[avbug]

An authorization is not implied. It must be specifically authorized. An example of an authorization is the operations specifications.

 

[Singlecoil]

By the way singlecoil, the FBO was later called on the phone to inquire about the lack of a visual indicator for right hand traffic and the person who answered the phone had no idea what we were talking about!

Reminds me of the time in Golovin, AK making a blackhole approach at night. Vasi said I was high, I descend. Still says I'm high, I descend. Then I realize the VASI is really two extra lights right next to two runway lights that were supposed to be blue, indicating a taxiway, but were white. I almost kicked the things out with my boot, but you can bet I talked to the airport manager, who had no idea either.

 

[Doozer]

I think that if you used left-hand 270-degree turns, you could fly the right hand pattern & still be legal.

 

[avbug]

Calling the FBO to query or complain won't likely do you much good. The FBO is a tennant: you need to talk to the landlord. Talk to the airport authority or airport manager, or in many cases, the city or county airport council.

Calling the FBO on this issue is much like calling the FSDO for a regulatory question or guidance: you're wasting your time, and they can't help you.

 

[tarp]

And for all the dimestore lawyers out there, I know exactly what will happen when you do it wrong. Standing on the ground at GAI and talking to both the D.E. there and an FAA inspector who was performing ramp checks, we all went eyes to the sky when a hapless and visiting Bonanza decided to do it by left turns to runway 32. There was also a C-172 doing a proper right hand pattern at the same time. They both turned base at the same time and the Cessna saw the Bonanza and made an escaping move.

One month later, thru the DE, I found out the Bonanza pilot was charged with:

91.13 Careless and reckless
91.103 Improper preflight (all information pertaining to runways and flight)
91.113 Failure to see and avoid.

The Bonanza pilot got to take a form ride and probably actually looks at an A/FD now.

The moral of the story - on every flight you probably bust at least one regulation, so you better use some sense because if someone doesn't like the way you fly, you're gonna get busted.

 

[CaptainRon]

Just out of curiosity Tarp, as I am not familiar with Gaithersburg, is there a visual indicator on the ground to indicate right hand traffic on 32? I can't tell from the picture on AirNav.

 

[100LL... Again!]

It is important to remember that the FARs are not a carefully harmonized group of regs. They are a patchwork, and sometimes omissions and contradictions can be found. Go with the A/FD. There is a reason they put that data in there.

 

[CaptainRon]

Whatever the reason they put it in there, it is, for some reason, not official. The AFD, the AIM, a Sectional, etc., are all "informational" only. The only thing that is regulatory is 14CFR. You can't be cited for "violating" the AFD.

Don't get me wrong. If the AFD says the airport has Right Hand Traffic on a runway, it is probably a very good idea to use Right Hand traffic. I would much rather live and be cited than to die knowing I wasn't violating 91.127.

 

[avbug]

Captainron,

A lot of pilots have made that mistake. You don't think you can be vilolated for failing to comply with published information in the airport facility directory, or aeronautical information manual?

Refer to 14 CFR 91.103...it covers all information regarding a flight, not just what's listed. A lot of pilots who failed to take note of this have realized their error when facing enforcement action.

You can, and will be held accountable for obtaining, and adhering to all information regarding the flight. Additionally, you may be held as careless and reckless in accordance with 91.13 if a problem is created, or an inspector feels that a problem may have resulted (weather it did or not is not relevant).

 

[bobbysamd]

AIM and A/FD

I second all the above opinions about flying right-hand traffic. If the A/FD or any other official, i.e. FAA or U.S. Government pub says right-hand traffic, fly it.

This reminds me of the many debates we had at Riddle about the "regulatory" nature of the AIM. Most of these debates turned on the required v. recommended reports for IFR. I had students argue to death with me that AIM commentary about position reporting or other procedures need not be followed. While not strictly regulatory, as far as I was concerned, if the AIM recommended doing something a certain way, it was good enough for me. I'd hate to argue that the AIM is not "regulatory" at an NTSB certificate action hearing.

Avbug makes a good point about taking up with the airport manager the lack of segmented circle and traffic pattern indicators.

 

[ksu_aviator]

For what its worth I heard this story about a pilot back in the days of TRSA's.

GA Jim will call him, was flying a run from Western KS to Northern CO. Denver was a newly designated TRSA and GA Jim's Route took him right through it. GA Jim, being the good little pilot bought a brand new sectional and used it to determine the airspace he would be flying in. The sectional had become effective just 2 days prior and the Denver TRSA had been left off of the sectional. GA Jim, following the information on his sectional flew through the TRSA and was subsequently violated for it. The reason was he did not have all available information. What GA Jim was suppose to have done, according to the FAA, was consult the previous and out of date sectional which had depicted the new TRSA that was mistakenly left off of the second edition.

My opinion is, if they want to bust ya, they'll bust ya. Do what will keep ya from saying "Oh Shucks!" or something more lude.

I would also like to add that if you asked an 3 FAA examiners you'd get 4 or 5 different answers.

 

[CaptainRon]

You are absolutely correct, ksu_aviatior, if they want to bust you, you will get busted. However, there is no requirement to talk to anybody when flying into, out of, or through a TRSA. With the advent of the ICAO airspace classification system (Class A, B, C, D, E & G) TRSAs were left out in the cold. In fact, they are not even addressed in 14CFR. A lot of TRSAs were converted to Class C. While most GA pilots don't deal much with TRSAs, my home Sectional has 5 of them! Except where a TRSA overlaps other airspace (it is normally overlayed at a Class D airport) it is basically Class E airspace and there are no restrictions to enter, leave or transit it.

Interestingly enough, although participation in TRSA services are voluntary on the part of the VFR pilot, it is mandatory on the part of ATC. If you request it, they must provide it. Even if you are landing at the airport served by the TRSA, you can tell approach control that you do not wish to participate. The same applies to departures. Tell Ground or the Tower "negative radar service" and when the Tower cuts you loose, you're on your own.

Now, why anyone would decline a service that could possibly make their flight a little safer is a topic for a whole other thread!

Perhaps Denver was an ARSA at the time.