Guest Editorial By TOM CURRAN
We still enjoy a bit of freedom in how we fly at non-towered airports. Although the options we chose might not be officially “authorized,” they might not be prohibited either.
I do get concerned when folks develop their own tactics, techniques, and procedures, without fully considering whether something is safe and legal or in line with existing recommendations and requirements — or they continue “doing what they’ve always done,” because nothing unpleasant has made them change their behavior. Yet.
Regardless, as the oft-repeated saying goes, “when everyone invents their own standard, there is no standard.”
If we keep asking the questions or pushing the issues, we may get more FAA-acknowledged choices, like the “Alternate Midfield Entry” to downwind. But so far, not every facet of non-towered airports operations has been addressed by the FAA. That leaves some things in a solid gray area and open to interpretation.
One of these gray areas: Can two planes legally occupy the same runway at the same time?
Before I answer, let’s look at a couple of real-life scenarios where this was an issue.
One of my first flying jobs was towing gliders at Issaquah Skyport, a privately owned grass airstrip, about 10 miles east of downtown Seattle, that’s now closed. Surrounded by uncontrolled airspace, it sat outside the lateral limits of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s Terminal Control Area.
Officially listed at 2,000 feet by 400 feet, the runway was really just a big pasture wedged between the west-bound lanes of Interstate 90 on the south end and the access road to a nearby state park on the north.
There were two major commercial operators on the field: Our glider business at the north end and the West Coast’s largest skydiving school at the south end. A few private planes and an ultralight manufacturer were also based there.
Our tow fleet included a PA-25-150 Pawnee, a 150-hp PA-12 Super Cruiser, and two modified Cessna 150s, one with 150 hp and one with 180 hp. No one had radios, and we conducted all our glider tows using standard visual signals. We did not operate under any FAA waivers that would authorize us to violate any FARs.
If winds allowed, tow and jump plane crews would routinely conduct simultaneous, opposite direction takeoffs and landings. We’d often pass each other while we were both taking off, both landing, or with one rotating and the other in the flare.
Each plane stayed on the right side of the runway, like driving on a two-way street. This allowed us to get to our respective ends of the airstrip quickly while minimizing taxi operations.
Given how extremely popular this airstrip was, we could generate hundreds of operations on a nice day and you rarely had the runway all to yourself. Everything was dependent on exercising disciplined see and avoid, which occasionally included dodging neophyte jumpers.
With all that potential for disaster, I don’t remember any close calls.
In another, more likely example, a recent General Aviation News excerpt from a report to NASA’S Aviation Safety Reporting System described an incident involving a CFI conducting student training at a non-towered airport. A possible conflict resulted with two planes occupying the single runway at the same time. The CFI’s NASA report highlighted some confusion about the runway spacing rules at non-towered airports.
The situation developed after one plane landed at dusk, without being seen by the CFI or the student, and they ended up landing behind that plane before it cleared the runway.
The primary problem was deemed Environment-Non-Weather Related, with conditions reported as VMC with 10 miles visibility.
Many of the comments from readers focused on problems with aircraft lighting, or the lack thereof, and the challenges of seeing another aircraft during reduced lighting conditions.
The CFI rightfully listed “Deviation from Published Material/Policy” as part of the problem. He also named several contributing Human Factors, including Communication Breakdown, Distraction, Situational Awareness, and Confusion.
In reality, it was a comedy of errors that included almost everything you can do wrong at a non-towered airport: Incorrect terminology was used (upwind leg vs. departure leg); garbled, confusing communications were repeated; AIM guidance was ignored (“….any traffic at ZZZ?”); 14 CFR Part 91 was violated (right-hand pattern flown vs. left-hand and flying with required equipment inoperative).
Both pilots failed to see and avoid each other in the traffic pattern, but continued anyway.
But one thing the CFI didn’t “technically” do wrong was land before the other plane cleared the runway.
The CFI stated that when they reached the end of their landing roll, they were finally able to see a Cessna exiting the runway. With an estimated 500 foot separation, they were well clear.
When the CFI informed the Cessna pilot that the Cessna did not have a functioning rotating bacon or white tail navigation light, the response was “so you landed while we were still on the runway.”
A subsequent radio exchange between them underscored the Cessna pilot’s bad attitude. But an accurate response to his “so you landed while we were still on the runway” statement would have been “Yes, and it was perfectly legal to do so.”
The FAA does publish aircraft runway spacing requirements, based on Aircraft Categories (I, II, or III), in the FAA’s Air Traffic Control Procedures Manual (3-10-3). However, these only apply to operations at towered airports, where a controller ensures that proper separation exists and can direct corrective actions if needed.
Are minimum aircraft spacing requirements established for non-towered airports? Are specific separation distances identified, or even mentioned, in 14 CFR Part 91, the AIM, AC 90-66B, or another applicable Advisory Circular? If they are, I can’t find them.
You’ll need to interpret the regulatory guidance that comes closest to addressing your circumstances, which probably includes 91.13 Careless & Reckless, 91.111 Operating Near Other Aircraft, among others, and whatever you decide is “plenty of spacing” and “well clear.”
Of course, the best practice is to always takeoff and land when the runway is clear.
I certainly don’t advocate having more than one plane on a runway at a time, but knowing what is legal may provide useful gray area options that you might not have considered otherwise.
On the other hand, it’s not a big deal, compared to what I routinely encounter at my favorite non-towered airport. I was flying there recently and heard this radio call: “ZZZ Traffic, Cessna 123TC, I’m entering a seven-mile left downwind for Runway 29. Any traffic in the area please advise.”
Tom Curran is an independent instructor and aviation speaker based in Gig Harbor, Washington. He holds an ATP certificate, plus all CFI ratings. He is a 26-year USAF veteran, F-15C and B-1B instructor pilot, and former AOPA Air Safety Institute contractor.
Obviously, prudence demands using a very comfortable margin of safety. But if two aircraft can land in close formation, than same surface landings should not be a controversy when capable aircraft are flown by competent pilots.
But because pilot attention may be distracted to the local environment during flare out, and because anything can and does happen in the course of time, there can be no uncertainty before total commitment, even if the most gross mechanical failure should happen.
It would be just as stupid to violate a pilot who has given heed to all the above as it is to expect a regulation to replace good judgement. If we make regulation our fairy godmother, than the story will end with a bunch of pilots who are trapped inside a glass slipper.
I operated at a non towered field for about 20 years as a business (T6/SNJ Instruction).
As a rule of thumb I never landed until the landing aircraft had exited the runway and totally cleared the hold line.
When returning from a flight I always navigated to a 1 mile 45 degree entry point on gear speed and at pattern altitude. Naturally with all radio calls made.
If approaching from the opposite side of downwind, I always over flew the pattern at 500 to 1000 above, descended several miles out so that I could arrive at my 45 degree entry point without disturbing the pattern or departing aircraft.
These are my recommendations if you operate at a non towered field and don’t wish to be a smoking hole some day.
Pay attention, follow best practices, and don’t be an arrogant dick head.
The FAA should make clear statements about the legality of the straightin or midfield pattern entry, if the landing pattern is in use.
I operated at a non towered field for about 20 years as a business (T6/SNJ Instruction).
As a rule of thumb I never landed until the landing aircraft had exited the runway and totally cleared the hold line.
When returning from a flight I always navigated to a 1 mile 45 degree entry point on gear speed and at pattern altitude. Naturally with all radio calls made.
If approaching from the opposite side of downwind, I always over flew the pattern at 500 to 1000 above, descended several miles out so that I could arrive at my 45 degree entry point without disturbing the pattern or departing aircraft.
These are my recommendations if you operate at a non towered field and don’t wish to be a smoking hole some day.
Pay attention, follow best practices, and don’t be an arrogant dick head.
Ever landed at Oshkosh?
If the pilot screws up the FAA is quick to complain. If the Faa screws up, well, shucks, the Faa just brushes it off. I was cleared for takeoff at Van Nuys Airport many years ago, in a light twin, and I was already at full power, running down the runway, and another aircraft starts crossing the runway. I pull the throttles, start breaking, and slow down. I say to the tower controller “what the hell are you doing , putting another aircraft on the runway ahead of me“ and he responds “operations are normal“. Obviously ground cleared this aircraft across, while Tower had already given me clearance to takeoff. My point is the duplicity of the Faa. If I had screwed up they would be all over me like a rash
Thanks very much for the comments—keep them coming!!!
As mentioned; there are circumstances where you’d expect to encounter multiple aircraft on a runway simultaneously….I’m assuming folks involved in formation flying are complying with 14 CFR § 91.111 – Operating Near Other Aircraft.
I purposely stayed away from airshow/fly-in scenarios at non-towered airports. They typically (…not always) have temporary ATC in-place, and/or published arrival & departure procedures.
Curran
There is a chilling video of a warbird landing into the sun in Southern California and running over a plane that was on the runway, which resulted in fatalities. Two on the same runway.
One of the worse things the FAA did was to say that mid-field opposite the 45 entries are legally recognized. No ATC would ever point two airplanes at each other head on, which this policy does. At the time when most pilots are scanning the downwind and the runway, mid-field over the runway entries are not always in the normal scan. Add non ADS-B planes in the pattern too. We didn’t need it for decades. Hard to say what changed. Most pilots flying today weren’t trained to use it.
Issaquah was a nice field and putting a shopping mall there wasn’t a great move. Thank goodness for Harvey Field.
Agreed…many wonderful memories…great folks…great flying…LOTS of valuable lessons learned. Served me pretty well, I think. Thanks.
The mid-field entry isn’t anything new. I remember seeing it on one of AOPA’s Safety Briefing publications from way way back and I would guess that the FAA eventually adopted it and added it to the Airplane Flying Handbook. The illustrations of the mid-field entry and the overhead to 45 degree teardrop entry are illustrated side-by-side on page 8-5. The detailed information on how to perform these entries is on page 8-4. From the comments I have seen in many articles, I think that has caused many misinterpretations. Normally a picture is worth a thousand words, but in this case it’s a problem. For example, for the overhead teardrop, I have seen many complaints that it may conflict with downwind traffic at pattern altitude and even at 1500ft agl, and that the teardrop will risk a head-on collision with downwind traffic because it is shown so close to the downwind leg. Not so if you follow the guidelines on page 8-4 to stay clear of all downwind traffic by overflying at 2000ft agl, and making the teardrop “well clear” of the pattern. Likewise I have seen many complaints of the mid-field entry (conflicting with the 45 degree entry is totally valid), but if the guidelines are followed, this is something that would never occur. The guideline is again on the preceding page 8-4 (the last sentence) and to use the mid-field entry only when the pattern is not busy.
There are many other exceptions beyond “formation” ….where multiple aircraft at some times may safely occupy a runway simultaneously, and legally. LAHSO, multiple glider landings (of necessity), glider PTT events, ….and flight test “Chase” come to mind. Even with ATS separation being applied (e.g., with temporary towers), some notable sanctioned operations deal with high volume simultaneous use, some time with additional markings and procedures added.
There’s of course flights of 2 or more, line up and wait, and in the example, the tow plane and glider would also count as 2 aircraft on the runway at one time. At the end of the day, it won’t make a difference until there is an accident or incident and aeronautical decision making will come into question.
Sorry…there’s no STC for a “rotating bacon”…you’ll have to get your own 337 field approval.
Curran
Attend a formation clinic and watch 4 aircraft take runway and takeoff in very close proximity. Safely!
Lights are required at night whether landing or taking off or cruising.
Formation flight includes take-off, cruise and landing. With pilot’s prior agreement and no commercial (( 135 operation )
The FAA does not investigate runway incursions at uncontrolled fields. I have had 3 instances of pilots sneaking out on the runway at the most inopportune time. So, i guess its anything goes at uncontrolled fields. One caveat though; if the incursion causes an accident then they will investigate.
At Oshkosh, I have seen 6 or 9 planes on the runway at the same time, departing. I have personally been on the ground at Nantucket when fog was closing in. Tower cleared 5 planes for departure at the same time. I was just leaving my tie down and was not yet on a controlled area.
The Air Traffic Control manual list ATC separation for class 1 aircraft, daytime, as 3,000 ft
see; FAA JO Order 7110.65W, Air Traffic Control
https://www.faa.gov › media › order › atc
So, it may be safe to land, [ and legal ], at a non-towered airport, daytime, if you know what the preceding aircraft is, or will be doing; a full stop or a touch and go.
Note sections 3-9-6 and 3-10-3 .
It does state 3000’ but remember, that’s at a towered field. As a prior USAF. controller we had local reduced runway separation criteria, even for fighters, at USAF bases. Controllers also use “anticipation” separation, meaning while a departing plane hasn’t lifted off yet when you’re cleared for for takeoff, separation is anticipated to exist.