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.