what_next wrote:
But other than following a prescribed track, it would not cross my mind to fly along a road from A to B.
No, you do it if there is a line lending itself to follow, or if you use a feature as an Auffanglinie for bad weather navigation. Remember, this “rule” originates from a time where GPS was more often associated with rugby than with navigation. Point is, you don’t usually follow those lines but if you do it is a good idea to stay right of the line feature.
LeSving wrote:
Besides, in a Saab Safir, the PIC usually sits on the right. What about single seaters or tandems?
But you do agree that in a vast majority of GA aircraft the pilot has the best navigational view to the left or doesn’t mind the direction and there has been a further advantage due collision avoidance rules.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
and when I mention it to fellow pilots, or even to instructors, none has ever heard of it
Too bad, around my neighborhood all know. But we do teach this in the pilotage exercises since decades. (I have learned pre-JAA, too, but this was one of my first lessons during navigation training). Perhaps that is because in northern Germany in times before GPS you used more roads and railways to navigate with than in more feature-dense areas.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
In fact I consider it “just another UK peculiarity”
Actually I can imagine it has been pointed out more to UK pilots, because they drive on the wrong side of the road and fly on the right side, so it doesn’t come as natural as in continental Europe. But the rule is pretty much being taught in Germany, too, and I know some US CFIs who teach it, too.
Peter wrote:
In the UK, the stuff about flying to the right of line features ranks at a level similar to knowing the signals square.
mh wrote:
the rule is pretty much being taught in Germany, too, and I know some US CFIs who teach it, too.
There are reasons to follow ground features, and staying right when doing so was taught to me early on in the US. One example would be when crossing through a mountain pass while climbing from an airport near the base of the pass. Others are likely to be descending to the same airport in the opposite direction… e.g. @Patrick, do you remember the phrase ’El Cap?" 
Since UK pilots have many hundreds of miles to climb from home base before reaching anything over 4500 amsl, they may not run into that situation so often.
Following a road may save your life in unihabited desert terrain. Carrying water when temperatures on the ground are 45 C is a good idea, but in the event of a forced landing, sitting on the road and waiting for a car while drinking is better than drinking while hiking to the road across miles of desert…. assuming you’ve survived the forced landing in rough terrain. In that situation it’s quite likely that traffic coming the opposite way will be following the same road, for the same good reason.
In my area, helicopters follow motorways like a religion, and stay to the right. I believe in this case following the road has something to do with minimizing the impact of their noise.
Silvaire wrote:
e.g. @Patrick, do you remember the phrase ’El Cap?"
Sure – I also remember coming back to a rather busy airfield from one certain casino where it would make a lot of sense to stay on the right side of the corridor for everyone – I learned that after I had encountered my very first (and last up to now) near-miss there early on during the course (instructor grabbed the yoke and diverted the aircraft).
The trouble with “rules” albeit from days long gone is that some pilots religously follow the rules and others do not for various reasons including because it is no longer taught or they dont see the point. I recall being told off by another pilot not that many years ago for being on the wrong side of the coast line feature!
Very interesting to hear that it is a “rule” still followed by many and very interested in its interpretation in aircraft where the pilot sits on the wrong side – so to speak.
mh wrote:
But you do agree that in a vast majority of GA aircraft the pilot has the best navigational view to the left or doesn’t mind the direction and there has been a further advantage due collision avoidance rules.
It does not make sense. You shall keep a lookout for other traffic. The only time when I was a tiny bit worried about a mid air, was when I was flying a cub and a Lancair came from behind. We were in radio contact, but he didn’t see me and was flying twice as fast. That rule would not help one bit.
Navigating in Norway, you often follow the coastline. In fact, you can still write that in the flight plan (if you are lucky, they could reject it because it is non standard from a couple of years ago). Anyway, you fly above water to have as good vis of the land as possible. You want to see the shore lines. There is no right or left when you do that.
I’m surprised that so few people on here see the relevance of line features, or the benefit of tracking them on a standard side.
When crossing the Everglades swamp single-engine VFR it would be dumb to not follow a road. Same for desert roads as mentioned by @Silvaire, and other remote regions where you are flying low-ish level, out of glide range from a safe area. And if you’re following one, there is zero disadvantage to doing so on the correct side.
Also, departing out of Shoreham and flying West for example, I would always track north of the coast and would expect opposite traffic to be south of the coast. Not that this really applies if flying a “proper” A-to-B flight, waypoint to waypoint on the GPS, eg direct GWC.
LeSving wrote:
It does not make sense. You shall keep a lookout for other traffic. The only time when I was a tiny bit worried about a mid air, was when I was flying a cub and a Lancair came from behind. We were in radio contact, but he didn’t see me and was flying twice as fast. That rule would not help one bit.
Huh? If you are on head-on collision course every pilot shall divert to the right. If you get opposing traffic along a line feature and everyone flew on the left side, you’d cross your tracks instead of just flying on separating a bit from the feature. That rule helps a LOT.
For instance you follow a road, a river or a railway track, you do it on the right side of the road, the river or the railway track. In a vast majority of all aircraft you have a better view of the feature and less deviation in case of opposing traffic. If now one berzerk Saab pilot chooses to fly on the left along a more traffic dense feature, he is actively endangering all other pilots.
It is even a part of standardised VFR approaches, as Patrick has pointed out:
mh wrote:
standardised VFR approaches
An approach is not en route. Besides, in competition navigation, the navigator sits on the right (in most aircraft). He is the one with the need for good visibility of ground features. The same goes for SAR flying. The PIC is flying, the right hand seat navigates and communicates and spots, the one in the back spots and take pictures.
I can understand the reasoning from a theoretical point of view, but there are so many real world situations where the he rule makes no sense. And as I said, I have never heard of it before.
Besides, in competition navigation, the navigator sits on the right (in most aircraft). He is the one with the need for good visibility of ground features. The same goes for SAR flying.
I guess neither competition flying nor SAR operations follow line features for navigation…
LeSving wrote:
An approach is not en route. Besides, in competition navigation, the navigator sits on the right (in most aircraft). He is the one with the need for good visibility of ground features. The same goes for SAR flying. The PIC is flying, the right hand seat navigates and communicates and spots, the one in the back spots and take pictures.I can understand the reasoning from a theoretical point of view, but there are so many real world situations where the he rule makes no sense. And as I said, I have never heard of it before.
I think we’ve established that the “rule” is only taught in some countries and in fact has ever only been a “rule” per se in a few countries. Having said that, it is fair to argue the usability of the rule here (which we are doing). LeSving, you are providing case examples where the rule wouldn’t be useful to disprove it. That doesn’t work. It obviously cannot be applied to each and every situation (and in fact I have stated that in today’s flying, I follow a GPS track and do not bother too much about ground features).
But I think it’s also save to say that there are a number of situations in VFR flying (busy corridors such as Hudson – where this is mandatory btw – , approaches along ground lines, valley flying, hostile terrain) where the rule is quite useful to avoid a possible collision (of course that does not interfere with having a good lookout, as you imply further above) and it is simply a sign of good airmanship, as mh pointed out, to use it rather than saying “nobody taught me and I have 5 random examples where it didn’t help, so I won’t do it”, especially as there are simply no downsides, as ortac has mentioned.
