Alright legal eagles of APC. I've got a question for y'all.

My question: when shooting an approach into an uncontrolled airport with calm winds and another aircraft already working a specific runway, does the FAR/AIM require you to comply with the pattern the first aircraft is working regardless of which RW your approach takes you to? I can't find a definitive answer for this.

Background: uncontrolled airfield, daytime, VMC, calm winds. Myself and another company aircraft are on RW 13, left hand pattern, both conducting student training. He's been in the pattern for about 30 min, I just joined about five min prior.

Situation: we receive a call from another aircraft who just started the VOR 31 apch and is about 10mi out. We both announce that we're on RW 13 in the pattern and we continue to make our regular CTAF calls (xwind, downwind, base, etc), though we emphasize that we're on 13. Other traffic makes 6mi call and then that's the last we hear.

Next thing we know, I'm turning base, my company is turning xwind, and this guy shows up on short final for 31, not having made a call since 6mi. He executes a missed, makes a call about departing to the south and leaves.

Fast forward 15 min. Same jackass announces he's on the VOR 31, again, at about 10mi. We both emphatically state our locations in the pattern and that we're on 13 - and ask him his intentions. That's the last we hear. The next time we see him, just a few min later, I'm in the DW and my playmate is on RW 13 doing a T&G and he sees this jackass coming straight at him, though higher, evidently making a low apch. He stays on the RW and tells the other guy to waive off. Jackass never tries to make a landing and departs to the south, without a word.

We don't think the guy was on an IFR plan, rather he was doing the VOR while flying VFR.

 

Well you could have changed your pattern and worked with the guy trying to do approaches....

 

A quick glance of regulations makes no reference to an "active" runway at non-towered airports in class G airspace. There is a rule concerning traffic patterns in such airspace, but it doesn't seem to address what you are asking. This is probably one reason why IFR training is way up there in terms of danger/risk.

 

Takes two to tango - he could have responded to our calls. Booming into a pattern two planes are flying and making their required calls, is just f'ing stupid. I never knew his plan, though I did ask.

I realize we didn't "own" the pattern. Any time i come into a VFR pattern on an IFR apch I always coordinate with the guys who are there already.

 

Active was the wrong word - by "active" i simply mean the one in use by whoever is there already.

 

Thread should be titled "I hate when traffic does not announce position or intentions at uncontrolled VFR fields".
No legal basis for your case though as long as he maintained separation. Not the best airmanship but certainly not the worst.

 

I think I know what you meant, the runway/pattern currently being used by you and others at the time. I used the word "active" just because that's a term many people understand and use, but whether it's a "real thing" in regulations seems the question. It may not be the "right" word, but it's commonly used. There have been some heated radio conversations in the past when someone has wanted to do something "opposite" or "not on the active" when flight and operations were already taking place on a particular runway. Hopefully common sense and compromise prevail.

Like I was saying before, this can be the most dangerous type of training, the task saturation and overload for the instructor can be overwhelming and they have to be able to shed teaching as necessary to do the basic things like make sure radio calls happen, configuration changes happen, coordination with other traffic and ATC, etc. Hopefully this guy fixes his issues and doesn't endanger anyone else in the sky!

 

If evasive maneuvers were required, I think that would reasonably get into 91.13 territory. I'll bet the FSDO could make some hay out that if they really wanted to.

It would be unreasonable to insert yourself into opposite-direction traffic without any attempt to coordinate in advance. I would think that traffic already in a pattern (especially the correct pattern for that RWY) and making radio calls would have at least a "common law" right of way.

If you have the N-number, let the FSDO know...if nothing else they can talk to the dude and maybe set straight. Or he may already be "known" to the FSDO, something like this could be a data point that informs how they they handle his next actual violation.

 

For anyone instructing ifr out there, there is an easy way to avoid this. Simply add 500ft to all the fixes and mins, that way the traffic pattern is not affected and you can still shoot approaches. You can also find a non-enroute vor somewhere and make your own approach. There is no need to increase the risk of a mid-air when conducting IFR training.

 

Yes, I've done this it works well.

But to maximize training value, I would pencil-in the adjusted altitudes on the approach plates before you go. That way it's more realistic for the student and they don't have an additional workload.