Right of Way in the pattern?

[Kingfish]

Had this happen on Sunday up in Ontario. We were flying into Muskoka (a
non-towered field) in the Pilatus and were "cleared" in by Canadian
FSS. (We were IFR but in good VMC wx) We enter on the right downwind to
Rwy 18 and hear another acft on freq - apparently he's NE of the field
entering on the left base. We figure we're quite a bit faster than the
172 and should reach final first. Turns out we're both on opposite
bases at the same altitude at which point my partner says we're lower
and faster and we procede to turn final. Well, the guy in the 172 gets
a bug up his ass and is whining to FSS that he had to take "evasive
action" to avoid us - not even close - and makes some comment about
calling the RCMP (like they actually have jurisdiction here?). I know
the rule about the acft on final having right of way, but neither of us
had reached that point yet, and both acft were at the same altitude on
opposite bases. Who had the ROW?

[Jim Macklin]

Left traffic is standard, seems you were in the wrong
pattern at an uncontrolled airport.



"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Had this happen on Sunday up in Ontario. We were flying
into Muskoka (a
| non-towered field) in the Pilatus and were "cleared" in by
Canadian
| FSS. (We were IFR but in good VMC wx) We enter on the
right downwind to
| Rwy 18 and hear another acft on freq - apparently he's NE
of the field
| entering on the left base. We figure we're quite a bit
faster than the
| 172 and should reach final first. Turns out we're both on
opposite
| bases at the same altitude at which point my partner says
we're lower
| and faster and we procede to turn final. Well, the guy in
the 172 gets
| a bug up his ass and is whining to FSS that he had to take
"evasive
| action" to avoid us - not even close - and makes some
comment about
| calling the RCMP (like they actually have jurisdiction
here?). I know
| the rule about the acft on final having right of way, but
neither of us
| had reached that point yet, and both acft were at the same
altitude on
| opposite bases. Who had the ROW?
|

[Chris G.]

Is this true in Canada as well as the USA?

Chris


Jim Macklin wrote:
> Left traffic is standard, seems you were in the wrong
> pattern at an uncontrolled airport.
>
>
>
> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> | Had this happen on Sunday up in Ontario. We were flying
> into Muskoka (a
> | non-towered field) in the Pilatus and were "cleared" in by
> Canadian
> | FSS. (We were IFR but in good VMC wx) We enter on the
> right downwind to
> | Rwy 18 and hear another acft on freq - apparently he's NE
> of the field
> | entering on the left base. We figure we're quite a bit
> faster than the
> | 172 and should reach final first. Turns out we're both on
> opposite
> | bases at the same altitude at which point my partner says
> we're lower
> | and faster and we procede to turn final. Well, the guy in
> the 172 gets
> | a bug up his ass and is whining to FSS that he had to take
> "evasive
> | action" to avoid us - not even close - and makes some
> comment about
> | calling the RCMP (like they actually have jurisdiction
> here?). I know
> | the rule about the acft on final having right of way, but
> neither of us
> | had reached that point yet, and both acft were at the same
> altitude on
> | opposite bases. Who had the ROW?
> |
>
>

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Kingfish" > writes:

> Had this happen on Sunday up in Ontario. We were flying into Muskoka
> (a non-towered field) in the Pilatus and were "cleared" in by
> Canadian FSS. (We were IFR but in good VMC wx) We enter on the right
> downwind to Rwy 18 [...]

It would be wise to review our rules about operating at uncontrolled
aerodromes:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/RAC/4-1.htm#4-5

According to the current CFS, or even the CYQA approach plate, the
circuit direction is standard for both runways, so you were in the
wrong for joining a right downwind. It's surprising that the FSS
person manning the MF radio didn't remind you.

This does not address your specific question about right-of-way. I
believe those rules are the same as in the states: landing/lower beats
departing/higher, unpowered beats powered, and so on. CAR 602.19.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part6/602.htm

- FChE

[ET]

>> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> | Had this happen on Sunday up in Ontario. We were flying
>> into Muskoka (a
>> | non-towered field) in the Pilatus and were "cleared" in by
>> Canadian
>> | FSS. (We were IFR but in good VMC wx) We enter on the
>> right downwind to
>> | Rwy 18 and hear another acft on freq - apparently he's NE
>> of the field
>> | entering on the left base. We figure we're quite a bit
>> faster than the
>> | 172 and should reach final first. Turns out we're both on
>> opposite
>> | bases at the same altitude at which point my partner says
>> we're lower
>> | and faster and we procede to turn final. Well, the guy in
>> the 172 gets
>> | a bug up his ass and is whining to FSS that he had to take
>> "evasive
>> | action" to avoid us - not even close - and makes some
>> comment about
>> | calling the RCMP (like they actually have jurisdiction
>> here?). I know
>> | the rule about the acft on final having right of way, but
>> neither of us
>> | had reached that point yet, and both acft were at the same
>> altitude on
>> | opposite bases. Who had the ROW?
>> |
>>
>>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Left traffic is standard, seems you were in the wrong
>> pattern at an uncontrolled airport.
>>
>>
>>
"Chris G." > wrote in news:44db7e1f$0$17980$892e7fe2
@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:

> Is this true in Canada as well as the USA?
>
> Chris
>
>

I'm sure we will get a canadian pilot or 2 that can tell us, but CYQA IS
on the US Lake Huron chart. If it was right traffic, it would likely
indicate so on the chart just as it would for the nearby US airports for
the benefit of US pilots who may wander that way.

Most public use airports in the US also have a segmented circle
indicating traffic patterns to help keep folks who choose not to do any
research about the airports they are choosing to land at.


Funny think is, even if the OP was correct, they could very well have
been "dead" to rights, and taken another pilot with them.

Now, i'm just a lowly student pilot, but I've been taught to call ~ 10
miles out when approaching an uncontrolled field, announce my intentions
and ask for traffic advisories. If you're not sure of the traffic
pattern, then ask at that point if you can raise anyone. ....

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[The Visitor]

In vmc, traffic already in the pattern has the right of way. Even if you
were still ifr, (but in vmc) and conducting an instrument or circling
approach. ATC or FSS cleared you for the approach, not a landing. As you
decided to fly a right hand circuit, you were not in "the circuit".

I believe now, with the CARS out, it is not strictly illegal to simply
join final. It just isn't done. Unless at an airport with a FSS. So the
only thing you really did wrong is cut off traffic in the circuit. And
that happens a lot in Canada and the US. I doubt anything will come of
it, so long as everybody (your partner) learns. And the other guy too....

Considering that the other plan chose to enter a left base, not illegal,
but not recommended, I doubt nothing will come of it. I was an innocent
mistake. Yes he was in the circuit 'technically' but the Pilatipus is
faster and you thought it would be okay to maneuver to join on final.
Reasonable and not a crime.

But to your question, the other guy did have the ROW and you should have
gotten out of his way when the conflict was apparant. It is the law. To
continue the approach was unsafe and unprofessional. And I am sure you
and your partner wnt to call yourselves professionals. I would guess the
other guy cooled down and did nothing for all his hot air.

Also in Canada, if vfr, you can't depart out the downwind at an
uncontrolled airport. You must climb RH to circuit height then you can
turn. IFR departures I believe you must climb to 400 agl unless
otherwise instructed.

The recommended procedure to join a circuit is straight in the downwind,
fly overhead the field and join mid downwind, or maneuver to do such.
Sometimes one will overfly the field 1000' above the circuit, decent on
the "dead side" then fly overhead the field to join the mid left (some
places right) downwind....

The times I have been cut off....., I would like to report somebody
cause I am getting pretty fed up. But I try to remember I'm not perfect
also. Intent is an important consideration. One time I had just turned
final (23) and an Aztec called departing (05). I yelled and screamed on
the radio and they continued. Head to head. So I had to get out of their
way. I did follow up....It was an instructional flight and the
inexperienced instructor was "pushed" into the situation by the gruff
old timer who was getting checked out in the twin. Had the jerk been
pic, I think I woulda...... but as it was the instructor got a good
lesson. (What would you have done?)

The RCMP does actually have jurisdiction. Funny about federal police
forces that way. But they defer enforcement to a section of the DoT
euphemistically called, Regulatory Compliance.




Kingfish wrote:

> Had this happen on Sunday up in Ontario. We were flying into Muskoka (a
> non-towered field) in the Pilatus and were "cleared" in by Canadian
> FSS. (We were IFR but in good VMC wx) We enter on the right downwind to
> Rwy 18 and hear another acft on freq - apparently he's NE of the field
> entering on the left base. We figure we're quite a bit faster than the
> 172 and should reach final first. Turns out we're both on opposite
> bases at the same altitude at which point my partner says we're lower
> and faster and we procede to turn final. Well, the guy in the 172 gets
> a bug up his ass and is whining to FSS that he had to take "evasive
> action" to avoid us - not even close - and makes some comment about
> calling the RCMP (like they actually have jurisdiction here?). I know
> the rule about the acft on final having right of way, but neither of us
> had reached that point yet, and both acft were at the same altitude on
> opposite bases. Who had the ROW?
>

[Kingfish]

ET wrote:
>
> Most public use airports in the US also have a segmented circle
> indicating traffic patterns to help keep folks who choose not to do any
> research about the airports they are choosing to land at.
>
>
> Funny think is, even if the OP was correct, they could very well have
> been "dead" to rights, and taken another pilot with them.
>
> Now, i'm just a lowly student pilot, but I've been taught to call ~ 10
> miles out when approaching an uncontrolled field, announce my intentions
> and ask for traffic advisories. If you're not sure of the traffic
> pattern, then ask at that point if you can raise anyone. ....

Snide comments aside, I realize we were on the wrong side (not my
call). We could have crossed over and joined the left downwind but that
could have put us in conflict with the slower traffic joining the left
base. I suspect my captain's thinking was that the 172 had just called
a 2 mile base - he was much closer - and we had enough of a speed
advantage that we could slot in ahead of him and it wouldn't have been
an issue. As it was we were on with Timmins Radio who had cleared us
for the visual approach - the 172 was also in contact with FSS. In a
similar situation now I would extend the DW and slot in behind the
slower traffic

[BTIZ]

everyone forgets.. at least in the US,
FSS does separate traffic aka ATC "clearances", they just "relay"

BT

"ET" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>> | Had this happen on Sunday up in Ontario. We were flying
>>> into Muskoka (a
>>> | non-towered field) in the Pilatus and were "cleared" in by
>>> Canadian
>>> | FSS. (We were IFR but in good VMC wx) We enter on the
>>> right downwind to
>>> | Rwy 18 and hear another acft on freq - apparently he's NE
>>> of the field
>>> | entering on the left base. We figure we're quite a bit
>>> faster than the
>>> | 172 and should reach final first. Turns out we're both on
>>> opposite
>>> | bases at the same altitude at which point my partner says
>>> we're lower
>>> | and faster and we procede to turn final. Well, the guy in
>>> the 172 gets
>>> | a bug up his ass and is whining to FSS that he had to take
>>> "evasive
>>> | action" to avoid us - not even close - and makes some
>>> comment about
>>> | calling the RCMP (like they actually have jurisdiction
>>> here?). I know
>>> | the rule about the acft on final having right of way, but
>>> neither of us
>>> | had reached that point yet, and both acft were at the same
>>> altitude on
>>> | opposite bases. Who had the ROW?
>>> |
>>>
>>>
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>> Left traffic is standard, seems you were in the wrong
>>> pattern at an uncontrolled airport.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> "Chris G." > wrote in news:44db7e1f$0$17980$892e7fe2
> @authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
>
>> Is this true in Canada as well as the USA?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>
> I'm sure we will get a canadian pilot or 2 that can tell us, but CYQA IS
> on the US Lake Huron chart. If it was right traffic, it would likely
> indicate so on the chart just as it would for the nearby US airports for
> the benefit of US pilots who may wander that way.
>
> Most public use airports in the US also have a segmented circle
> indicating traffic patterns to help keep folks who choose not to do any
> research about the airports they are choosing to land at.
>
>
> Funny think is, even if the OP was correct, they could very well have
> been "dead" to rights, and taken another pilot with them.
>
> Now, i'm just a lowly student pilot, but I've been taught to call ~ 10
> miles out when approaching an uncontrolled field, announce my intentions
> and ask for traffic advisories. If you're not sure of the traffic
> pattern, then ask at that point if you can raise anyone. ....
>
> --
> -- ET >:-)
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:CtRCg.23731$6w.22593@fed1read11...
>
> everyone forgets.. at least in the US,
> FSS does separate traffic aka ATC "clearances", they just "relay"
>

You're contradicting yourself.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>everyone forgets.. at least in the US,
>>> FSS does separate traffic aka ATC "clearances", they just "relay"
>>>
>
>
> You're contradicting yourself.
>
>
I think it's a typo - I think he meant "FSS doesn't separate..." That
would be the job of ATC, for certain traffic.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[BTIZ]

Jose is correct.. the "not" got edited somehow
B

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>>>everyone forgets.. at least in the US,
>>>> FSS does separate traffic aka ATC "clearances", they just "relay"
>>>>
>>
>>
>> You're contradicting yourself.
> I think it's a typo - I think he meant "FSS doesn't separate..." That
> would be the job of ATC, for certain traffic.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Kingfish wrote:
> Had this happen on Sunday up in Ontario. We were flying into Muskoka (a
> non-towered field) in the Pilatus and were "cleared" in by Canadian
> FSS. (We were IFR but in good VMC wx) We enter on the right downwind to
> Rwy 18 and hear another acft on freq - apparently he's NE of the field
> entering on the left base. We figure we're quite a bit faster than the
> 172 and should reach final first. Turns out we're both on opposite
> bases at the same altitude at which point my partner says we're lower
> and faster and we procede to turn final. Well, the guy in the 172 gets
> a bug up his ass and is whining to FSS that he had to take "evasive
> action" to avoid us - not even close - and makes some comment about
> calling the RCMP (like they actually have jurisdiction here?). I know
> the rule about the acft on final having right of way, but neither of us
> had reached that point yet, and both acft were at the same altitude on
> opposite bases. Who had the ROW?

You were doing a right hand traffic, and even though you saw the 172 on
left base you still proceeded to land in front of him. The 172 guy
deserves an apology from you. There is no shame in admitting ones
mistakes. I hope you will do the right thing and tell him you made a
mistake.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I think it's a typo - I think he meant "FSS doesn't separate..." That
> would be the job of ATC, for certain traffic.
>

Agreed.