We now take a break from our regularly scheduled NTSB accident analysis to re-visit an Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) report, commonly referred to as a “NASA Report,” of an incident that we first published online back in mid-April 2023.
A report that got quite a lot of feedback from readers. A report that revolves around right-of-way rules… and more… with a lot to talk about.
But first, here’s a summary of the reported facts: It’s night. It’s an uncontrolled airport. There are three planes in the pattern: A Cessna 172, another light piston GA aircraft, and an Eclipse 500 jet. They are all nicely strung out like pearls on a necklace, getting ready to land, everyone playing nicely together in the sandbox.
On right base, the Eclipse pilot lowers his gear and gets an anti-skid system failure alert. In his words, “not an emergency,” but because of the problem, he requests priority to land over the other airplanes. The light piston obligingly pulls out of the pattern and flips a 360. The pilot of the C172, however, takes a different approach.
He says “No.”
Then he reportedly adds, “You just think you should have priority because you are faster.”
The Eclipse pilot radios that he needs to land immediately and, more than once, requests the C172 to break off and go around.
In the NASA report, written by the Eclipse pilot, the pilot of the C172 was “belligerent and uncooperative throughout.”
Attitude and perceived belligerence aside for a moment, were the actions of the C172 pilot legal? Who had the right-of-way in this situation?
Right-Of-Way Rules
The right-of-way rules, which most student pilots learn on day one of flight training, are pretty simple: They are based on the maneuverability of aircraft in different categories, not speed.
The less maneuverable your aircraft is, the more priority you have. So balloons get the right of way over all other aircraft. Next come gliders. Then airships, and so on. That’s the basic structure.
For current students flying land aircraft, these regulations are found in 14 CFR § 91.113 (the right-of-way rules for seaplanes are found in § 91.115).
But these regulations include a few exceptions.
One is that, on landing, the lower aircraft has the right-of-way, with the admonishment that an airplane can’t “take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another.”
And then there’s the fire thing.
The guy who’s on fire has the right-of-way over everybody else, be it airplane, airship, glider, or balloon.
Actually, the regs really don’t say “on fire.” They say: “An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.”
That’s a bit different from what most students are taught, which is that aircraft experiencing emergencies have the automatic right of way.
Or is it? Is distress the same thing as an emergency?
Well, figuring that out is a bit distressing.
“In distress” is not defined in the regs, and if there is an FAA legal interpretation of the term, I’m not finding it.
In the AIM, however, in 6-3-1 (c), we are told that an aircraft in “distress” should use the “mayday” call, while aircraft experiencing an urgency condition should make a “pan” call.
Digging deeper, the pilot/controller glossary defines distress as “a condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance.”
So with all of that, I think we can safely say that being on fire is the same thing as being in distress, and that the intent of the right-of-way-rules is that you can break the rules only if you have some serious or dangerous problem underway or quickly developing.
Bottom line: From the point of view of the regs, the C172 was not obligated to give way to the Eclipse. The C172 was both lower and the jet wasn’t in regulatory distress. The jet pilot didn’t make a mayday call or even a pan call. And, by his own admission, his situation wasn’t an emergency.
But that said, should the C172 have given way anyway? Even if not legally required to do so, was it — you know — the right thing to do?
The Right Thing To Do
Most of the commenters online at GeneralAviationNews.com felt that while the C172 pilot clearly had the right-of-way, he should have given way anyway, just out of courtesy — even though many readers thought both pilots were lacking in courtesy that night, with about half saying the Cessna pilot was being a total jerk, and the other half saying the Eclipse pilot was being a total jerk.
Quite a number argued that the anti-skid failure hardly warranted priority landing, but here’s the thing: I don’t think most of us know enough about the Eclipse Jet to really know how big an issue that is or how big an issue it can become.
So I, for one, am not judging the jet pilot’s safety concern.
Additionally, I think we all need to acknowledge that our experience and skill sets vary.
Things that wouldn’t even raise my blood pressure might panic a less-experienced hand. Likewise, something that would totally freak me out would leave Michael Goulian asking for another Red Bull to stay awake.
What isn’t an issue at all for one pilot might be a huge issue for another. Safety is not universal.
What’s important is not the real measure of safety, but operating safely within your skill set.
But with that in mind, many readers — correctly, I think — felt that, given that the Eclipse pilot thought he had a problem, rather than try to beat everyone to the runway, he should have given way and let the other two airplanes land first.
That would have given him time to troubleshoot and run checklists, as well as to clear the pattern before potentially having an incident that closed the field, leaving two airplanes stranded in orbit around the airport. Going last in line, argued many readers, would have been both good aeronautical decision making (ADM) and good courtesy.
Meanwhile, many felt that — bona fide emergency or not — if the Eclipse pilot really felt he needed down NOW, rather than arguing with the C172 pilot, he should have just declared an emergency and proceeded to the runway. That’s what the emergency declaration is for.
If someone asks for priority we can choose to grant it or not. When someone declares an emergency, the choice is made for everyone.
Interspersed with the comments on the incident, a surprising number of readers reported negative encounters with pilots of jets and other high-performance aircraft.
Many felt that owners of more expensive aircraft seem to feel that, due to their higher operational cost, they should be allowed to the front of the line, but I really liked JS’s comment that money has no universal value.
Many folks flying 172s, says JS, have had to scrimp and save for an hour’s rental, and being bullied out of your practice by someone with a net worth in the stratosphere “gets pretty irksome.”
That’s an awesome point. It’s not what the plane costs per hour — it’s the percentage of your income and savings that hour of flight time represents.
Reading between the lines, many readers thought that there might be some sort of “history” between the two pilots. That could well be true, but is beyond our scope here.
Others bemoaned that the lack of traditional civility in society at large has increasingly crept into aviation.
One pilot, Cary Alburn, said, “When I started flying more than 50 years ago, I was impressed with the overt politeness I consistently heard on the radio. But in the last few years, there has been more and more popping and sputtering from ego-driven pilots who think they’re the only ones in the sky.”
And that, in my mind, is our key takeaway today.
Takeaways
There are other takeaways, of course, but I think we all know the right-of-way rules and the magic word that negates those rules.
And I hope everyone understands — and respects — that what might not be an emergency for you might be a hair-on-fire emergency for another pilot.
And I ask that, regardless of what you are flying, you don’t make judgments about other people’s bank balances.
A student in a 172 might have a large part of his or her net worth tied up in an hour’s flight — but so too might a recently fired corporate executive in his jet.
On the flip side, the student in the 172 might be worth millions and is learning to fly.
You can just never tell, so you should never judge.
I remember going into a really high-end FBO as a student pilot. I was in a total rust-bucket wreck of a training airplane, but I was marshaled into a parking spot between two gleaming corporate jets. I was sorta embarrassed, but once shut down, I was treated just as well by the FBO staff as if I’d stepped out of one of the jets.
When I later told my flight instructor how amazed I was by the good treatment I received, he simply replied, “They know better than to judge a man by his airplane — or, at least, by the airplane he’s flying on a given day.”
But going back to that old-time courtesy on the radio — and in our flying — as our primary takeaway: Regardless of who you like or who you hate, I’m sure you’ll agree that if everyone exhibited what used to be called “common” courtesy, our flying days would be more enjoyable. So how do we do that?
When I was growing up, I learned that how we acted and spoke — our behavior — was situational. How you behaved on the playground was different from how you behaved in the classroom. How you behaved dining out was different from how you behaved eating at home. How you behaved at the rodeo was different from how you behaved at church.
We had our baseline (good) behavior. We had our somewhat more rowdy behavior, reserved for the appropriate venues. And then we had our best behavior. I’ll bet you were raised the same way. But increasingly, it seems, people feel that they can behave the same way — often their rowdy behavior — at all times, in all places.
Can’t we all just be on our best behavior when we are flying?
Oh what knowledge I learn from reading these wonderful articles and feedback! I have a little over 200 hours and I cannot get enough of this heartfelt communication.
“THIS (IS) COMMUNITY! & I am blessed to be a part of it! I will always be courteous and give way because that is how I was raised. In the beginning I thought the jet should have landed first but after the comments; even though it was just anti-skid, I believe the other way around now. I haven’t been flying long enough to think of that if it were to happen to me in the pattern but reading this article has taught me what to do without getting into that situation firsthand. Thank you!
Please give a thought to aircraft waiting to depart to another airport. The runway may be closed after the damaged aircraft lands, so – provided the damaged aircraft can wait for a reasonable amount of time (5-10 minutes; not 60 minutes!!!), its pilot should agree that other aircraft waiting to land should “land before”, AND other aircraft waiting to depart should “take off before”.
Years ago I told a story in the comments on one of these GA websites. I was surprised how many people put me on blast and was super critical of me. It involved an incident at my regular airport which is towered. Apparently everyone thought I broke the rules and landed without clearance, but I guess I was supposed to tell all the different instructions that ATC gave me as part of my story. I assumed that if you said you landed at a towered airport you got cleared to do so unless stated otherwise. Others apparently thought differently. The point is, ever since that I make the assumption that all pilots are a bunch of a* hole dick heads until proven otherwise and I need to base my actions and decisions on that assumption. Not saying that I’ll automatically be one myself, I try to be courteous and polite, but I have learned to throw that out the window if someone want to be one. But I think that’s the main point of this article, we just aren’t as civil as we used to be
I like what TedK said, “damaged airplane land last” especially if there is a good possibility they runway will be tied up and closed afterwards. I am not a military trained pilot, but I think that makes a lot of sense. There are exceptions of course, as one commentor said and “aircraft on fire” take priority over all others. My take away is if I am unable to lower my landing gear, and no other problems like low fuel, I am going to request to land last.
There was literally, no emergency. Jet simply wanted to land sooner. Owners wife needed to pee most likely.
An exceptional read, William. There’s plenty to learn from this article, for anyone willing to read between the lines, or just take the words at face value. Wonderful work.
I agree! Great article! Wish that society would get back to this behavior everywhere!
Obviously, the Eclipse pilot was thinking only of himself. But that’s no excuse for the 172 pilot to be a jerk on the radio.
I’ve landed fully loaded B-767s with no anti skid. Not a big deal. Just don’t lock up the brakes on rollout.
Short, wet runway is a different problem.
If it’s not an emergency, and anti-skid inop doesn’t sound to be and the pilot even said it wasn’t, then the 172 had the right of way. But, no reason to be a horses patoot
about it. It pains me that the Covid era rudeness and self centeredness that we found during the lockdowns has crept into the cockpit.
Sorry to say it’s been there long before Covid. When I was first learning to fly I figured we were all friendly and a sense of community amongst us. Found out it’s not always the case well before covid hit, unfortunately.
To me, an anti-slip failure does not constitute an emergency or even a reason for the Eclipse pilot to ask for priority.
There may have not been prior history between these two pilots, as someone suggested, but I understand, though not necessarily agree with, the 172 pilots attitude. There is this phenomenon with pilots that I think we’ve all seen. Many pilots have attitudes that they are better pilots than many of their counterparts. The reasons are many. The most common is tail dragged pilots think they are better than tricycle gear pilots, and jet pilots think they are above everyone else. Here’s an interesting statistic, many commercial jet pilots who retire and want to keep flying buy light sport airplanes. They are relatively inexpensive to buy and operate, however they are very different from flying an airliner and many pilots find they are not up to the proficiency level needed to safely operate a light sport aircraft. I’ve been told by my insurance provider that the main reason for the dramatic increase in insurance for light sport aircraft is the number of claims by former ATP pilots who weren’t up to the task, even though they have thousands of hours.
At any rate, courtesy is king when operating an aircraft. That 150 pilot in front of you in the pattern may have skill levels that far exceed yours. Treat everyone with respect.
Well said Wm Dubois and the comments are constructive too. It’s a small sand box and we all gotta get along.
I agree with the biggest takeaway being the lack of respect that permeates our country now. As name calling, blatant dishonesty and crazy conspiracy theories become more and more how certain people relate to others the effect is more bad behavior everywhere. Most people are not that way, but good behavior isn’t a story. The jerks are making the news.
You’re so right!
I think both pilots could have learned from the pilot that pulled out and did a 360. Way to go to them.
The article was a really good one.
As for my comments on the comments: – “I’m with you fellers” – (Delmar – beginning scene in – “O brother – where art thou”)
The Eclipse pilot should get some basic mechanical training – and I’ve heard of road rage – but not very often flight rage.
The jerk pilot needs to learn how to be nice or he should stop flying.
Being courteous is always part of flying – and maybe he should also give up driving cars before he blows up at a guy with a similar temper that carries special tools.
The USAF has a rule. The damaged one lands last. That way they don’t foul the runway leaving the others with a predicament of where to land.
In this case, the Jet with the Anti-skid problem wasn’t considering what his non-emergency could become to him…and to the others …if his anti skid caused him to foul the runway. So, he should have thought further rough the problem and he shouldn’t have asked to get ahead of the others.
How do I know about the USAF Rule? I watched it in action with battle damaged B-52s returning to the one runway Diego Garcia island, a thousand miles from the next runway. And yes, I flew SAR for that damaged Tail End Charlie whose airplane gave out while they gallantly stood aside. They died like aviators.
They should probably come up with something like that in the FAR, absent fuel constraints let the others land first. And even with fuel issues, if you can’t let a few planes land before you then I think you might be in violation of the fuel requirement reg unless you are literally leaking fuel somewhere.
I would give way regardless to help a pilot who needs it. Maybe a child about to have an unfavorable intestinal eruption? Maybe a panel light? Engine doesn’t sound happy? My fellow pilot friend – I will give you all the space you need for you to land without occurrence. If I yield, I know gravity will eventually get me to the ground, too.
I like your policy. If everyone followed it, we’d never have any of these boneheaded confrontations.
So the 172 and the Eclipse landed without incident and the Eclipse pilot is upset?
Apparently both piston aircraft were ahead of jet in pattern, with jet on base, what would have happened without the problem? It seems that there was not enough spacing between jet and aircraft ahead of it regardless. Did the problem cause jet to “hurry up and land” when it should be slowing with stabilized approach?
Just doesn’t make sense.
As the purple and yellow dino says “use your indoor voice”. I think that gets the drift across anyway.
“Can’t we all just get along” Rodney King
If not an emergency, if there’s any risk your landing could block the runway, the most rational and considerate solution is to let all others in the pattern land first. However, I think if I had someone request priority for any sort of problem, I would find it impossible to refuse. An argument over the radio will reduce each pilots’s ability to deal with the rest of their flight safely. That has to be a major driver for us as pilots to be courteous, in the air especially.
Excellent discussion! Money is relative, yet courtesy and consideration should prevail.
Very well written and good commitment.
+1 for me as well.
Article was a good and sensible one. And so the majority (I underline majority) of comments.