I've appended a legal interpretation here, which is partially applicable to the question. In this case, if the aircraft in the pattern at the airport in question is flying a left hand pattern, the aircraft on final is to the pattern aircraft's right. If a converging conflict is at issue, then the aircraft one final has the right of way, in addition to the other issues already set forth by previous posters.
Note that the following interp is from 1981, and recodification of the FAR has occured since that time. Lest someone point out that currently the reference in 14 CFR has different enumeration; this we already know. The interpretation on the issue, however, still remains valid.
January 7, 1981
Boyd Scarborough, Esq.
Dear Mr. Scarborough:
In your letter of November 28, 1980, you requested an interpretation of Section 91.67(c) and (f) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs: 14 CRF 91.67). As you requested, we have interpreted the right-of-way rules of those sections as they apply to the following situation:
Aircraft A commenced a takeoff, under VFR, to the south from a private, noncontrolled airport with two intersecting, sod covered runways. Meanwhile, Aircraft B, also under VFR, had touched down heading east, on the intersection runway, slowed to approximately 15 MPH, and continued toward the intersection at that speed. The two aircraft collided on the ground at the intersection of the two runways.
You posed the following question: Which of the two aircraft, if either, enjoyed the right-of-way under FAR Section 91.67?
Section 91.67(c) states that 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. The applicability section of Subpart B of Part 91 (Section 91.61) states that the subpart "prescribes flight rules governing the operation of aircraft." Accordingly, Subpart B applies only to the operation of aircraft in flight, unless the wording of the individual section indicates otherwise. Since Section 91.67(c) references "altitude" and does not specifically mention operations on the surface, it is our opinion that paragraph (c) does not apply to the situation presented.
Our research has revealed no definition of "landing" in either the regulations or in the NTSB decisions. The NTSB has defined "takeoff" to include the entire takeoff roll, but there appears to be no reason to apply that definition to the landing situation. See Administrator vs Fostrey, 2NTSB 1756.
For the purposes of the specific example you posed, it is the opinion of this office that Aircraft B was "landing" only until the aircraft was on the ground and slowed to a speed such that the pilot would have been able to stop the aircraft, before he entered the intersection, through the application of normal braking. Any movement by Aircraft B after it had slowed to the speed defined above would be taxiing, not landing, and the right-of-way rules of Section 91.67(f) would no longer apply. We emphasize that this interpretation applies only to the specific example you presented, and only at noncontrolled airports.
We hope that this opinion will be useful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
RONN E. HARDING
Chief, Airspace and Environmental Law Branch
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Office of the Chief Counsel