Who owns the runway?

[RV Wannabe]

Originally Posted by Greg Arehart

Let me clarify a few things: 1) I was listening to the radio for several minutes before taxiing onto the runway; 2) I made two calls, first announcing my intentions to taxi onto the runway, the second when almost to the end of the runway after he announced 2.6 out (this is when I said I would get out of the way asap); 3) there is no runup area at the end of the runway; 4) I had already done my preflight checklist, and just intended to do a mag check before takeoff (as I always do, takes 10 seconds max) - I had already been flying that morning; 5) there is a displaced threshold, and I was at the end of the runway when he landed; 6) his radio call gave no indication of a straight-in approach, it was just "bonanza is 2.6 north of the airport."

I also note that the end of this runway is below enough trees that from the end of the runway it is impossible to see an aircraft on final approach from the ground, and almost impossible for the approaching aircraft to see the end of the runway until on very short final (thus the displaced threshold, I presume).

My assumption (obviously wrong, which is why I originally posted the question here) was that this guy would/should enter a normal pattern and I would have time to get off the ground and out of his way. Or at least announce again that he was on a final approach so I knew what was going on.

I guess the safest course of action might theoretically have been to turn around and taxi back off the runway, but as events unfolded, I probably would have been right about where he landed at that point and this might have turned much uglier unless he saw me and did a go-around. So part of my intent in posting this is to see what could have been done (if anything) to break the chain of events.

Greg

This is a very different story than told before. It does change things.

Biggest change that I see is I doubt the guy heard you.

A mag check is still a run up, and if visibility is what you say it is I would not want to sit there for it.

Mark

[DanH]

Originally Posted by Greg Arehart

2) I made two calls, first announcing my intentions to taxi onto the runway, the second when almost to the end of the runway after he announced 2.6 out (this is when I said I would get out of the way asap);

I also note that the end of this runway is below enough trees that from the end of the runway it is impossible to see an aircraft on final approach from the ground, and almost impossible for the approaching aircraft to see the end of the runway until on very short final (thus the displaced threshold, I presume).

Hmmm. You told him you would get out of the way, and then hid behind the trees. So where is the problem?

[logansc]

The last research I did on this for a safety briefing at our local non-towered airport basically distilled down to (1) landing aircraft "on final" have the right of way over aircraft taking off (2) but are cautioned not to unreasonably delay aircraft taking off and (3) straight in landings are fully legal but not recommended. It was asserted that the FAA will NOT support aircraft owners who are involved in legal actions as a result of any incident that occurs as a result of a straight-in.

The FAA's overriding caution is to "see and be seen". At un-towered airports where no-radio aircraft are free to operate, they strongly recommend the classic 45 degree downwind entry (since you are more easily seen than on a straight-in), announcing your intentions on the radio if you have one (or in effect, announcing your intentions via your behavior if you don't---i.e. openly/visibly entering downwind for a specific runway). Overhead approaches are readily visible and are also approved, but as above, 45 degree approaches are recommended and straight-ins are legal but not recommended and will not be supported in court by an "amicus" brief by the FAA.

You won't find any of that in just one place in the regs. You'll have to research the FAR's, AIM, and the Advisory Circulars, none of which (naturally) have the exact same wording nor level of authority. Plausible denial when things go wrong and full flexibility to rule anyway they like in the aftermath, seems to be the main Federal motivation. There are NO safe-passage guarantees at an un-towered airport, given that straight-in, overhead, and 45 degree entries are all "legal", not to mention aircraft without radios, and others that simply don't use them.

For me the most reasonable practice would be to conduct mag checks off the runway, and to scan the full downwind/upwind runway extended centerlines both ways before taking the runway. Then a careful check at the end to make sure you aren't departing just in front of a late arriving straight-in (who is likely "certain" they have the right-of-way and not you---since he is "on final" even though he may be 2.5 miles out) and also with no one arriving from the take-off direction either, and then get going immediately as you complete your turn around at the approach end.

And no, I don't always do that but it's what I should!


Lee...

[RV Wannabe]

Originally Posted by DanH

Hmmm. You told him you would get out of the way, and then hid behind the trees. So where is the problem?

He got offended/scared that the guy landed.

[bruceg]

Originally Posted by ColoRv

How is a straight in with nobody in the pattern inappropriate?

It's not the best option at any non-tower airport but especially at airports like Greg's where you can't see all the runway from the final approach.
And if you need an update on the position of the known traffic, just ask 'em.

[DaleB]

Just my $.02 worth, and you can apply discounts as needed.

"I'll get out of the way" can mean different things to different people. You probably meant (but didn't say), "I'll be taking off before you fly the pattern and land." The Bo driver, who didn't bother to say he was on a straight in final, may have seen you in the displaced threshold and thought, "OK, he's out of the way."

Every time I'm on final and see someone holding short at the end of the runway I get a little nervous. Unless they have specifically said they're holding short I watch them like a hawk and am ready to push the throttle in and go around if they do something dumb, and if I'm not certain I'll ask to make sure they see me on short final. Stories like this and my own relative inexperience are the reasons why.

[TomVal]

I would suggest a NASA report be filed.

[curtis]

I have a question that is sort of on the same subject of the long finals being discussed here. I'm based at a non-towered airport where a lot of instrument approaches are flown and I wonder at what point they have the right of way over traffic on downwind or base? I veiw the long final and an ILS approach as exactly the same.

The extra bit of excitment added to the mix in the pattern is the several aircraft based at the field that are NORAD.

[David-aviator]

In my book the guy in the air always owns the runway - he has the most to lose. It's been an unwritten rule since man invented flight, give him a break and talk about the circumstances later.

[Masterplumber]

I'm mostly a lurker here but there's one point I haven't seen commented on.
Tower controlled airports are simple, you call in and the controller tells you what to do. He/she coordinates landings and takeoffs.
Airports without a controller have a single frequency and the users are expected to coordinate things themselves. It seems that in this case the author called his intentions and the other pilot called his. No further calls after what sounds like dangerously conflicting plans. Seems to me both sides should have been on the comm here.
John Koonce
RV10/N78MU