I suppose the “rule” did come about because following line features was a common way to navigate. However while the means of navigation have changed I guess it is still of scenic interest to follow some line features. Certainly many pilots do, and if you fly along some coastlines you will see just how common this is. For that reason perhaps it is still a useful means (convention or whatever you like to call it) of seperating traffic. After all we do the same above the transition level for no other reason than to provide an orderly flow of traffic which has nothing to do with navigational needs. I suppose some would call it airmanship in those places where the convention existed once upon a time. However, the trouble is as soon as it is no longer taught and/or pilots ignore the convention then its value (if there is any) diminshes.
LeSving wrote:
Today we have GPS, we have radio, we have ATC.
Try London Information. Norwegian ATC are really good at providing traffic information because they have nothing else to do except around ENGM 
and there is hardly any light VFR traffic. That is not the case further South. ATC will watch you fly into a mountain if you are VFR because they expect you to ensure terrain separation. (This is no criticism of ATC, but just a fact re. TBM crash in France)
Radio does not help when you deal with people who believe VFR flight should be performed NORDO and NOXPDR. Most of the time you do not spot the traffic anyway.
The GPS is of no help for collision avoidance, so irrelevant.
Staying to the right of a valley, a road, a railroad or a river is a good practice for collision avoidance which has been taught by instructors for generations, even in Norway, at least South of Røros.
Patrick wrote:
especially as there are simply no downsides, as ortac has mentioned.
That’s the point, there are downsides. Following a coastline shall be done over the sea, so you can see the shore. That IS the convention, with good reasons, there are no left or right “rule” there. The guys doing VFR nav old style in competitions, do not use that “rule”. They are probably the only ones today navigating the old fashion way, where the rule applies.
So we have a rule, that is not even a rule by any measure. The only pilots left today who could use that rule (competition VFR pilots), do not use it. A rule couldn’t be more nonsensical than that (in my humble opinion )
Today we have GPS, we have radio, we have ATC.
Peter wrote:
I fly so my rhs passenger gets a good view
Which is why some people prefer tandem seating planes…
Peter wrote:
So eg if going around the Isle of Wight, I fly clockwise.
I fly further off shore when the shoreline is on the left, closer to the shoreline when its on my right. I also use the air-to-air frequency, because 90% of the planes in my area will be transmitting postion reports on 122.75 (US air-to-air) when on the shoreline. I think people learn this stuff by example, socialization between pilots, when there is anough traffic that everybody is scared of hitting somebody else.
I also fly so that everyone on board gets the best view of a line feature, if it is visually appealing. Also, I choose an altitude according to the semi-circular rule, have some kind of traffic gadget or TAS, and make use of radar services wherever they are available. I also open my eyes.
Usually if you follow something, it is because of the views; otherwise, you fly more or less direct where you want to go. So mostly the position of the sun will determine from where you get the best pictures, and that is the side you will find me flying on.
All that said: In France, I have been taught about the “rule” to keep railroads etc. to the left, and in absence of any other factors I try to apply it.
I fly so my rhs passenger gets a good view
So eg if going around the Isle of Wight, I fly clockwise.
It is interesting the number not aware of the convention, or who ignore it.
For those that do, I would ask this question – if you are flying along a straight coastline (land one side, sea the other) perhaps as is often the case for a spot of sightseeing, what do you do – just ignore the convention, and do as you please, end up following the convention by default, or something else?
LeSving wrote:
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.
I really wish I could say that!
I regularly take action to avoid other aircraft, making me wonder whether some day I won’t take action in time. The most recent incident was last weekend.
The ‘fly on the right’ thing is common sense to me, normal practice with no rule required, and I’ve never before seen it debated.
Also – while in LeSvings case, while the “rule” doesn’t help if someone overtakes you at 100kt difference, it sure will help when the same to aircraft are head-on at 300kt. I am always amused at the “we don’t need these rules, it’s all see-and-avoid”. If that worked, the only rule would be “don’t crash”, and we could get rid of everything else.
But aviation is silly like that. See the huge debate about flying lateral track offset when IFR…
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.
