Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help?

[TripSix]

I'm trying to educate myself on "see and avoid" and I found this:

14 CFR Part 91.113 (b) as follows:

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.

Digging into "right-of-way" I found this:

3.2.1 Right-of-way. The aircraft that has the right-of-way shall maintain its heading and speed.

3.2.2.1 An aircraft that is obliged by the following rules to keep out of the way of another shall avoid passing over, under or in front of the other, unless it passes well clear and takes into account the effect of aircraft wake turbulence.

3.2.2.2 Approaching head-on. When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so and there is danger of collision, each shall alter its heading to the right.

3.2.2.3 Converging. When two aircraft are converging at approximately the same level, the aircraft that has the other on its right shall give way, except as follows: a) power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft shall give way to airships, gliders and balloons;
b) airships shall give way to gliders and balloons;
c) gliders shall give way to balloons; d) power-driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are seen to be towing other aircraft or objects.

Now I'm trying to figure who/what regulates/defines "well clear." Can someone give me a starting point to start looking?

Thanks!

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I've always held it to mean "don't spook the other guys (or gals)."

I wasn't sure either, so I went to the Administrative Law Judges' site with the NTSB, thinking a decision would help with that. Like this one.

 

[Landis]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I wasn't sure either, so I went to the Administrative Law Judges' site with the NTSB, thinking a decision would help with that. Like this one.

I guess the lesson here is that if you're going to pass close to another aircraft, make sure there's not an FAA Inspector on board first.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I guess the lesson here is that if you're going to pass close to another aircraft, make sure there's not an FAA Inspector on board first.

Or just don't pass close. Interesting decision...

 

[Hacker15e]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I was always of the impression that "well clear" was defined as (at least) 500 feet.

 

[TripSix]

So basically, the "definitions" I found are a guideline...per say?

In the event there is a situation of an aircraft encroaching another the lawyers will determine what the definition of well clear based on testimony and evidence presented?

Also, from the NTSB link, "see and avoid" can spiral into "reckless," "negligent," "collision hazard," and tie in a slew of other FAR's depending on the testimony/evidence presented?

One more question: does your TCAS record/store any data in the event you RA?

Sorry about all the questions, and thanks again for your help!

 

[denver]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

Well clear means you cannot read their N number! I routinely scare people I pass because I am half blind. No seriously, that is what I was taught. Seems far enough away.

Like most regs, its all good till you crash, and live to go to court.

 

[kiloalpha]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I guess the lesson here is that if you're going to pass close to another aircraft, make sure there's not an FAA Inspector on board first.

"The FAA is on that ship..."

"Keep your distance, but don't look like you're trying to keep your distance..... fly casual!"

 

[elmetal]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I was always of the impression that "well clear" was defined as (at least) 500 feet.

Maverick! You must've been flying Michelle Obama's plane. slightly less than 3 miles separation? HOW COULD YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hacker15e]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

Maverick! You must've been flying Michelle Obama's plane. slightly less than 3 miles separation? HOW COULD YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have joined up on that C-17 for a little formation.....booyah!

 

[gotWXdagain]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

All you have to do is list lazily to the left.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

All you have to do is list lazily to the left.

You know some maneuvers, eh?

 

[genot]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

So basically, the "definitions" I found are a guideline...per say?

In the event there is a situation of an aircraft encroaching another the lawyers will determine what the definition of well clear based on testimony and evidence presented?

Also, from the NTSB link, "see and avoid" can spiral into "reckless," "negligent," "collision hazard," and tie in a slew of other FAR's depending on the testimony/evidence presented?

One more question: does your TCAS record/store any data in the event you RA?

Sorry about all the questions, and thanks again for your help!

Even if TCAS doesn't the raw radar data will and assuming the mandatory "We're responding to an RA" call is made, it'd probably be saved for a good while. Seeing as how the new radar interpretations/software are accurate supposedly down to 52.8 feet, thats probably good enough for a court of law.

Now if its Joe Weekend getting buzzed wanting to pull info off of his TIS... yeah real accurate. I can't count on both hands how many times I've heard "Uh I've got traffic on the TIS" Yeah buddy that was a DC9 that was there 15 minutes ago.

 

[Hacker15e]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

Are we really talking about TCAS rules in a thread titled 'see and avoid'?

 

[TripSix]

Even if TCAS doesn't the raw radar data will and assuming the mandatory "We're responding to an RA" call is made, it'd probably be saved for a good while. Seeing as how the new radar interpretations/software are accurate supposedly down to 52.8 feet, thats probably good enough for a court of law.

I assume you're talking about ATC's radar? The proximity determined by the radar plot would be based on mode C. In the case of a VFR pilot not in contact with ATC, the mode C used to obtain the closest proximity would be unverified.

That's kinda what I'm getting at - does the equipment on the aircraft record/store data as well? I guess a better question to have asked first was does the TCAS utilize the mode C of the other aircraft to gauge proximity too or does it actually use raw data?

 

[boondr]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I assume you're talking about ATC's radar? The proximity determined by the radar plot would be based on mode C. In the case of a VFR pilot not in contact with ATC, the mode C used to obtain the closest proximity would be unverified.

That's kinda what I'm getting at - does the equipment on the aircraft record/store data as well? I guess a better question to have asked first was does the TCAS utilize the mode C of the other aircraft to gauge proximity too or does it actually use raw data?

I have had RA's with aircraft testing transponders on the ground(Northrup Grumman, they had to be told to stop) 10000 ft below aircraft so I am going with they get the same info we do.

 

[genot]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I was thinking of more in a scenario where the offending pilot says basically yeah we were about the same altitude but I was laterally "well clear"

 

[coa787]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

Are we really talking about TCAS rules in a thread titled 'see and avoid'?

See the red traffic symbol on your navigation display (or vertical speed indicator) and avoid it. Simple enough.

 

[RobertB]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

Here's one for VFR pilots especially military guys flying around squawking 1200. If you are VFR, have TCAS, don't feel like looking out the window like you should, and see traffic on your TCAS, DON'T stop your descent at an IFR altitude when you are converging with someone else!

 

[fish314]

Re: Pilots: "See and avoid," and "right of way" - some help

I assume you're talking about ATC's radar? The proximity determined by the radar plot would be based on mode C. In the case of a VFR pilot not in contact with ATC, the mode C used to obtain the closest proximity would be unverified.

That's kinda what I'm getting at - does the equipment on the aircraft record/store data as well? I guess a better question to have asked first was does the TCAS utilize the mode C of the other aircraft to gauge proximity too or does it actually use raw data?

Yes, TCAS uses the mode C (or mode S) to determine geographical proximity. I'm pretty sure (like 99%) it uses the other airplane's altitude signal to determine it's relative altitude. In other words, it trusts that the other airplane's transponder is passing the correct altitude, and then subtract's it's own altitude from the other guy's to display relative altitude information.

As for how it computes TA's and RA's, that's based on nothing more than rate of change. If it computes that the other guy is going to be within a protective bubble (don't remember exactly how big that bubble is) in less than a given period of time, bang, you get the TA. If that time until the closest point of approach shrinks to an even smaller number... you get the RA. The exact numbers vary from situation to situation.

As for whether the TCAS records any of that data... No system that I'm familiar with does. I don't think any of them do... but I can't guarantee it. I can tell you I've used a couple of different systems on a couple of different airplanes and none of them did and I've never heard of anyone else mentioning that theirs did either.

The ATC systems do record information... but exactly what information and for exactly how long probably varies from system to system, and possibly from agency policy to agency policy. The ones that I deal with frequently all seem to hold onto their stuff for about 30 days. YRMV.