Who has priority on a taxiway?

[Vaughn Simon]

OK, perhaps I had my head up my... errr, you know. Perhaps the other guy
could have made a better radio call. Anyhow...

I landed at a very quiet uncontrolled field a few weeks ago. As I taxied
back on the taxiway for my departure, I kept hearing a helicopter calling out
pattern legs for a place called "tango". As I recall, he never mentioned the
name of the field, or used the word "taxiway" in his radio call, so I assumed
that he was just practicing at some nearby pad. (My error, when in doubt...) It
wasn't until I had taken off that I realized that I had been using taxiway T. I
probably seriously ****ed the guy off, and/or risked having a helicopter land on
top of me.

Lesson learned!

So now the question. Who has priority on a taxiway? Surface traffic or
landing traffic?

Vaughn

--
Will poofread for food.

[Rajat Garg]

Landing traffic will usually have the priority over anything else even
take off traffic

~r
http://www.pilotoutlook.com

[Dave S]

Vaughn Simon wrote:

>
> So now the question. Who has priority on a taxiway? Surface traffic or
> landing traffic?
>
> Vaughn
>

Helicopters must avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic at all times.

Dave

[Vaughn Simon]

"Rajat Garg" > wrote in message
...
> Landing traffic will usually have the priority over anything else even
> take off traffic

On a taxiway? How about on the parking ramp?

Vaughn

[Denny]

On Nov 29, 12:11 am, Dave S > wrote:
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
> > So now the question. Who has priority on a taxiway? Surface traffic or
> > landing traffic?
>
> > Vaughn
>
> Helicopters must avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic at all times.
>
> Dave

Roger that, Dave - The choppers at our field use a right hand pattern
and are careful not to cause hiccups with fixed wing craft who cannot
maneuver like they do...
VAughn, unless the chopper declares he has to land on the taxiway
right now, you just continue on down the taxiway.....

However, at our field the choppers have been told they WILL use the
runway for all takeoff and landing movements and then hover taxi to
their hangar - NO direct takeoff from taxiways and ramps, period!
Even the police and ambulance choppers obey the rule...

denny

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, perhaps I had my head up my... errr, you know. Perhaps the other
> guy could have made a better radio call. Anyhow...
>
> I landed at a very quiet uncontrolled field a few weeks ago. As I
> taxied back on the taxiway for my departure, I kept hearing a helicopter
> calling out pattern legs for a place called "tango". As I recall, he
> never mentioned the name of the field, or used the word "taxiway" in his
> radio call, so I assumed that he was just practicing at some nearby pad.
> (My error, when in doubt...) It wasn't until I had taken off that I
> realized that I had been using taxiway T. I probably seriously ****ed the
> guy off, and/or risked having a helicopter land on top of me.
>
> Lesson learned!
>
> So now the question. Who has priority on a taxiway? Surface traffic
> or landing traffic?
>

I don't believe I've ever seen or heard anything either way, I don't think
it needs to be. It's called a "taxiway" for a reason.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> I don't believe I've ever seen or heard anything either way, I don't think
> it needs to be. It's called a "taxiway" for a reason.
>
>
We've got a few airports around that have the designated helipad marked
out on the taxiway. If you saw they guy attempting to land you should
give way. Otherwise, he needs to similarly deal with people taxiing.
The operative rule is don't run into anybody.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> We've got a few airports around that have the designated helipad marked
> out on the taxiway.

That's a different situation.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> OK, perhaps I had my head up my... errr, you know. Perhaps the
> other guy could have made a better radio call. Anyhow...
>
> I landed at a very quiet uncontrolled field a few weeks ago. As I
> taxied back on the taxiway for my departure, I kept hearing a
> helicopter calling out pattern legs for a place called "tango". As I
> recall, he never mentioned the name of the field, or used the word
> "taxiway" in his radio call, so I assumed that he was just practicing
> at some nearby pad. (My error, when in doubt...) It wasn't until I
> had taken off that I realized that I had been using taxiway T. I
> probably seriously ****ed the guy off, and/or risked having a
> helicopter land on top of me.
> Lesson learned!
>
> So now the question. Who has priority on a taxiway? Surface
> traffic or landing traffic?
>
> Vaughn

You shouldn't feel you ****ed him off you in a stuck-wing have the
right-of-way over the helicopter just about everywhere.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in
:

> OK, perhaps I had my head up my... errr, you know. Perhaps the
> other guy
> could have made a better radio call. Anyhow...
>
> I landed at a very quiet uncontrolled field a few weeks ago. As I
> taxied
> back on the taxiway for my departure, I kept hearing a helicopter
> calling out pattern legs for a place called "tango". As I recall, he
> never mentioned the name of the field, or used the word "taxiway" in
> his radio call, so I assumed that he was just practicing at some
> nearby pad. (My error, when in doubt...) It wasn't until I had taken
> off that I realized that I had been using taxiway T. I probably
> seriously ****ed the guy off, and/or risked having a helicopter land
> on top of me.
>
> Lesson learned!
>
> So now the question. Who has priority on a taxiway? Surface
> traffic or
> landing traffic?
>


AFAIK, when helis are using taxiways, they are taxiing. They are supposed
to use the runway for takeoff and londing ops and the taxiwas to get where
they want to on the field after that. I'm only going by what I've observed,
but they always seem to defer to other traffic when doing so as well.
Aside form the legalities, it makes sense. They're basicaly big, barely
controlled chainsaws and it's simply impracitacal to mix them in with fixed
wing traffic any other way.

Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

I'm not certain of who actually would have the *legal* right of way...
but personally I think I'd prefer to yield right of way to whoever has
the biggest spinning meatgrinder on their flying machine.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-28 18:54:54 -0800, "Vaughn Simon"
> said:

>
>
> I landed at a very quiet uncontrolled field a few weeks ago. As I taxied
> back on the taxiway for my departure, I kept hearing a helicopter calling out
> pattern legs for a place called "tango".

The same right of way rules apply to a taxiway as anywhere else for
aviation. If the aircraft are "converging," then whoever is on the
right has the right of way. Airplanes do not have the right of way over
rotorcraft. Landing aircraft have right of way over aircraft whether
they are in flight or maneuvering on the ground.

Aircraft on the water follow the same rules as any other watercraft.
Even the morons on jet skis are supposed to follow those rules,
although for some reason they seem to be completely unaware of them --
to their peril.

§Â*91.113Â*Â*Â*Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an
aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight
rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an
aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this
section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give
way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it
unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all
other air traffic.
(d) Converging. 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. If the aircraft are
of different categories—
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other
head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course
to the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the
right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter
course to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while
landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of
this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already
landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach.
When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of
landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but
it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another
which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt.
91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Vaughn Simon]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> stuck-wing have the right-of-way over the helicopter just about everywhere.

Whoa guy! Right-of Way is assigned in 91.113, and there is nothing there
that gives airplanes right-of-way over helicopters. (Yes, I know about 91.126
(2), but that is more of a general thing.)

Also, as a glider pilot, I have learned that one lives longer if you do not
expect to automatically receive the right-of-way just because the regs say it
should be yours.

Vaughn

[Robert M. Gary]

On Nov 29, 4:02 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:

> Also, as a glider pilot, I have learned that one lives longer if you do not
> expect to automatically receive the right-of-way just because the regs say it
> should be yours.

I'm not sure that is what this thread is about. I don't think the OP's
objective was to ram the helo if it was determined the OP was in the
right-of-way. I thiink he was interested in what guidance the FARs or
even AIM may provide.

-Robert

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:47:23 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't believe I've ever seen or heard anything either way, I don't think
>> it needs to be. It's called a "taxiway" for a reason.
>>
>>
>We've got a few airports around that have the designated helipad marked
>out on the taxiway. If you saw they guy attempting to land you should
>give way. Otherwise, he needs to similarly deal with people taxiing.
>The operative rule is don't run into anybody.

Don't blow anybody over would be another good one.

Don

[[email protected]]

Vaughn Simon > wrote:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
> > stuck-wing have the right-of-way over the helicopter just about everywhere.

> Whoa guy! Right-of Way is assigned in 91.113, and there is nothing there
> that gives airplanes right-of-way over helicopters. (Yes, I know about 91.126
> (2), but that is more of a general thing.)

> Also, as a glider pilot, I have learned that one lives longer if you do not
> expect to automatically receive the right-of-way just because the regs say it
> should be yours.

There is a classic cartoon that shows two guys in a dinky sailboat
with an aircraft carrier bearing down on them.

One guy says to the other: Don't worry about it. We have the right-of-way.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

> Whoa guy! Right-of Way is assigned in 91.113, and there is nothing there
> that gives airplanes right-of-way over helicopters.

2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

Doesn't the ordering here imply it (at the least)?

Does anyone disagree that the general idea here is the less
maneuverability options an aircraft has, the more right of way it has?

Maybe it's not fair for gyrocopters, but helicopters can go up, down,
sideways, and backwards -- or hover. They got more options than
everybody else.

Speaking of helicopters, on my checkride one kept popping up and down
next to the runway I was using for all the landing assessments. There
was lots of corn growing, so when he was on the ground you couldn't
see him. I took off on a x-wind takeoff and he suddenly popped up at
the far end, where I was heading. He hovered there practicing not
drifting onto my runway. It was a little disconcerting because from
1500 feet away he looked awful close to my centerline.

[Dave[_5_]]

> However, at our field the choppers have been told they WILL use the
> runway for all takeoff and landing movements and then hover taxi to
> their hangar - NO direct takeoff from taxiways and ramps, period!
> Even the police and ambulance choppers obey the rule...
>
> denny

I happen to think that is a dumb idea - especially the "hover taxi"
part. Helicopters should have separate parking/tiedown areas, and
avoid conflicting with fixed wing traffic. Once I was working on my
plane with the cowling removed when along came some military types in
a chopper - hovering down the taxiway, which was right in front of me.
They sent my cowling tumbling - which I did not appreciate at all.. I
gave 'em an extended one-finger salute.

The airport near my office makes many visiting choppers park on the
grass - and take off and land there directly, using non-conflicting
directions. Those folks based at this airport who have helicopters
with skids are obliged to use trailers for ground movement The
arrangement seems to work well.

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

Roger all of that.... How about this: Once I decided to fly to a
quiet, uncontrolled airport that happens to have a good restaurant
within walking distance. While on final a helicopter comes in from the
side, and proceeds to hover over the far end of the runway. What he
was doing I have no idea. Since the runway was quite long, I decided
that there was no hazard, and continued my landing. I taxied to
parking (at the far end), and he landed the chopper nearby on the ramp
- and came over. Turns out he is a Sheriff's Deputy (on duty), and is
irritated about what happened. I assured him that I had seen him and
percieved no conflict - thus went ahead with my landing. He didn't
pursue the matter.

So who is right and who is wrong in that situation? I made an entirely
normal approach and landing - whereas he operated his helicopter in a
manner that unnecessarily conflicted with the flow of fixed-wing
traffic. He could just as easily have come in from the side and landed
immediately on the ramp. Since nothing came of it I just chalked it up
to experience. If I could have my druthers, I'd prefer not to have
helicopters around airplanes at all.

David Johnson

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-29 21:23:17 -0800, Dave > said:

> Roger all of that.... How about this: Once I decided to fly to a
> quiet, uncontrolled airport that happens to have a good restaurant
> within walking distance. While on final a helicopter comes in from the
> side, and proceeds to hover over the far end of the runway. What he
> was doing I have no idea. Since the runway was quite long, I decided
> that there was no hazard, and continued my landing. I taxied to
> parking (at the far end), and he landed the chopper nearby on the ramp
> - and came over. Turns out he is a Sheriff's Deputy (on duty), and is
> irritated about what happened. I assured him that I had seen him and
> percieved no conflict - thus went ahead with my landing. He didn't
> pursue the matter.
>
> So who is right and who is wrong in that situation? I made an entirely
> normal approach and landing - whereas he operated his helicopter in a
> manner that unnecessarily conflicted with the flow of fixed-wing
> traffic. He could just as easily have come in from the side and landed
> immediately on the ramp. Since nothing came of it I just chalked it up
> to experience. If I could have my druthers, I'd prefer not to have
> helicopters around airplanes at all.
>
> David Johnson

Obviously, he did not yield the right of way to landing traffic. Once
he lands he is supposed to get off the runway.

There is no requirement that other traffic clear the runway before you
land as long as there is no undue hazard to persons or property on the
ground.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:200711291042028930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>
> The same right of way rules apply to a taxiway as anywhere else for
> aviation. If the aircraft are "converging," then whoever is on the right
> has the right of way. Airplanes do not have the right of way over
> rotorcraft. Landing aircraft have right of way over aircraft whether they
> are in flight or maneuvering on the ground.
>

Except they shall not take advantage of that rule to force an aircraft off
the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way
for an aircraft on final approach.

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:

> 2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute,
> weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
> (3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
> weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
>
> Doesn't the ordering here imply it (at the least)?
>
Only in the specific case where those words apply. That is
for the case of "converging other than head on".

So if you are overtaking, converging head-on, or if one aircraft
is landing, or in distress, then the class priority DOES NOT APPLY.