Traffic Pattern Requirements

[ToolTimeTabor]

Q1. Is it "legal" to execute a "right base" to final at an uncontrolled airfield?

Discussion.

We all know that the FAA has recommended traffic pattern procedures, which basically result in "left turns" to form a rectangle. Advisory Circular 90-66A discusses the "Recommended Standard Traffic Pattern" in paragraph 8.

We also know that the reason for having standard procedures is to improve safety and to assist pilots in sequencing themselves at uncontrolled airports.

With this said, there is at least one "exception" cited in AC 90-66A, in paragraph 7.c, it talks about "straight-in" approaches. It "encourages" pilots to use the "standard traffic pattern," but goes on to give guidance about performing a straight-in.

So the question is, is it "legal" to execute a "right base" to final at an uncontrolled airfield? For example, imagine arriving from the Northwest to land to the South on Runway 18. You can "legally" intercept the 18 bearing far enough north, turn to runway heading, and execute a straight-in approach provided you execute the approach without disrupting the "flow of arriving and departing traffic."

Given that the base leg is setting up final, is there any legal constraint/regulation that prevents doing and announcing a "right base" to set up that final? Could a pilot be cited by the FAA for not conforming to the "recommended" traffic pattern?

Keep in mind, I am not asking if it is good practice, but simply whether it is a citable offense.

If so, can you provide an FAR reference? Thanks.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Not original with me, but saw this mentioned years ago by some clever wit on Usenet rec.aviation.piloting - a presumably "by the letter of the law legal" pattern that is a "right" pattern composed only of left turns. The regulation mentions direction of turns, not any definition of "left" or "right" pattern. I know jurists aren't always literalists, but they are extremely reluctant to stray from literal meanings. Not that I'd want to be involved in a test case...

 

[Jim Logajan]

If a pilot did that with other traffic in the pattern, I can believe that the FAA wouldn't have any trouble making a case for reckless operation so as to endanger the life or property of the other aircraft occupants. If the pattern were empty, I have my doubts.

In either case, I'm pretty sure hanging would not be involved unless they could make a case for murder.

Agreed - the FAA would have trouble making a case for reckless operation - even when other traffic is in the pattern. It depends on the facts specific to the case. Since the left turn reg does not apply to gliders, helicopters, parachutes (powered or unpowered), airships, and balloons, all those could be making legal and safe opposite pattern approaches. In the case of helicopters and powered parachutes the regulation explicitly requires they stay out of the way of airplanes. So simply being on a right pattern approach is not per se careless or reckless.

 

[Jim Logajan]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...011/gossman - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

Wow - MacPherson outdid herself in quoting out of context to make a claim not supported by the regulation:
"The regulation itself contemplates that right turns may be necessary or required: "... in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right .... " 14 C.F .R. 91.126(b)(1)."
Full context:
"(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; and

(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft. "
If they "have long considered that this rule does not prohibit maneuvers necessary to safely enter the flow of traffic at the airport," then they need to make that a part of the regulation since the applicable paragraphs are prefaced with "Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport," and "When approaching to land at an airport ...." Both statements are arguably true when an airplane is on the 45 angle leg entry to the downwind leg.

 

[Jim Logajan]

No, they don't, since the Administrative Procedures Act authorizes the FAA to issue these interpretations of its own rules, but even without that...

The interpretation must not be plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. And per post-Mead cases, the APA does not seem to cover interpretation letters.

From http://www.mwe.com/publications/uniEntity.aspx?xpST=PublicationDetail&pub=6031
"In Christensen, the court noted the doctrine of Auer v. Robbins, 519 US452 (1997), which held that an agency’s interpretation (apparently without regard to the form of the interpretation) of its own regulation is "controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation," quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 US 410, 414 (1945). However, in Mead, the court cited Martin v. OSHRC (CF&I Steel Corp.), 499 US 144, 157 (1991), which concerned an agency’s interpretation of its regulation, as exemplifying the giving of weight under Skidmore, as opposed to deference under Chevron."
And a few years later, from https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/357/357.F3d.632.02-1682.html"Cases will arise involving informal agency actions that once received, but no longer receive, Chevron deference in the aftermath of Mead and Christensen. See Mead, 533 U.S. at 232, 121 S.Ct. 2164 ("nterpretive rules ... enjoy no Chevron status as a class."); compare Johnson City Med. Ctr. v. United States, 999 F.2d 973, 977 (6th Cir.1993) ("[T]his Court accords deference to Revenue Ruling 85-74 under the standard set forth in Chevron."), with Aeroquip-Vickers, Inc. v. Comm'r, 347 F.3d 173, 181 (6th Cir.2003) ("In light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Christensen and Mead, we conclude that Revenue Ruling 82-20 should not be accorded Chevron deference.");"
..."Air Brake, however, cannot rely upon this principle because the Chief Counsel's legal interpretations have no claim to deference of any sort. For one reason, they are too informal. Congress does not generally expect agencies to make law through general counsel opinion letters. See Christensen, 529 U.S. at 587, 120 S.Ct. 1655 ("opinion letters ... lack the force of law"); Heimmermann v. First Union Mortgage Corp., 305 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir.2002) ("[L]etters from HUD's general counsel to members of Congress ... are the kinds of informal policy positions that lack the force of law and are unentitled to Chevron deference."), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 970, 123 S.Ct. 2641, 156 L.Ed.2d 675 (2003); Am. Express Co. v. United States, 262 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2001) ("[An] interpretation ... contained in [a] General Counsel Memorandum... [that] is not reflected in a regulation adopted after notice and comment [] probably would not be entitled to Chevron deference."); cf. Hosp. Corp. of Am., v. Comm'r, 348 F.3d 136, 144 (6th Cir.2003) ("In Mead Corporation, the Court found that Congress had not implicitly delegated law-interpreting authority through the 10,000 to 15,000 tariff rulings made each year by forty-six different Customs offices without notice and comment procedures.").

For another reason, the letters interpret a regulation (Standard 121), not the statute that the agency is charged with enforcing (the Safety Act). Chevron does not apply in this setting. See Christensen, 529 U.S. at 587-88, 120 S.Ct. 1655 (distinguishing Chevron deference — the deference accorded an agency's interpretation of a statute — from the deference accorded an agency's interpretation of its own regulation); Am. Express Co., 262 F.3d at 1382-83 ("[W]e are not dealing with an agency's interpretation of a statute and issues of Chevron deference, but with the IRS's interpretation of an ambiguous term in its own Revenue Procedure.")."

...the AIM clearly authorizes those opposite direction turns during a 45 entry.

The AIM is absolutely not regulatory. You know that. It cannot "authorize" anything. It actually creates an ambiguity where there should be none.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I click it and it opens.

dtuuri

That is probably because it is cached in your browser. I once ran into the same problem - uploaded an image, then used the link to it in the post. Then made the mistake of deleting the attached image; but the post still looked OK to me on preview and when I viewed the final post. Only when I either used another browser or forced a reread of the image did I see that the image wasn't there.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I just tried it again, and then with a different browser, and both times I got the same error message.

Is anyone else getting the error message?

I get the same error. When he gets a chance he needs to upload his image again.

 

[Jim Logajan]

If the latest IFR magazine is to be believed, there are 19,700 airports, 503 with airline service. I think he is right.

Bob Gardner

I would think most of the 19,000+ other airports are Class G at the surface, not Class E.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The reg is talking about turns in the pattern, NOT entering the pattern. Use common sense.

I know this is a long thread and easy to overlook that which has already been posted. I will merely point out that the word "pattern" doesn't appear in the regulation. It uses the word "vicinity". Why would your common sense place a 45 degree right turn to downwind outside the "vicinity" of the airport while the turns to crosswind, downwind, base, and final are inside the vicinity? My own, perhaps flawed, common sense places all five turns in the vicinity of the airport. My own common sense, informed by all other facts, tells me the regulation was improperly constructed and of dubious pedigree. That it leaves most other categories of aircraft besides airplanes to engage in Brownian motion, subject only to see and avoid, also doesn't make sense to my common sense.

We should use common sense to stay safe - but I do not believe all the regulations were written using common sense.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Makes no sense to me. If you are the guys that does the right thing, why add another procedure confirming that you're following the published procedure?

Do the right thing. Expect the other guy to do the right thing. Look out for the idiot that doesn't know or care what the right thing is.

Don't you mean "the left thing"?

<Ducks and runs....>