Ron Natalie wrote:

alexy wrote:


The head-on convergence clause is a little more problematic, as seen
from the different interpretations here. One interpretation (shall we
call it "Peter"?) is that the requirement that both alter course to
the right removes the right of way from both. The other interpretation
(Let's call this one "Larry") is that they are still converging, so
the category right of way rules apply, and the "turn right"
requirement is just for same-category craft, or is just advisory, not
changing the right of way.

Converging head on (apply directly to the forehead) requires both to
alter to their respective right REGARDLESS OF CLASS.
I agree.

There's no ambiguity here.
That claim flies directly in the face of the evidence seen here (and
does not alter course to the rightg).

The rule specificaly says converging OTHER THAN HEAD ON
OR NEARLY SO.
Look more closely at (d). It is composed of a title word
("Converging.") and two sentences in the opening paragraph. The first
of those has to do with "aircraft of the same category [that] are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or
nearly so)". The phrase "converging at the same altitude" and the
parenthetical are clearly qualifiers of the "aircraft of the same
category" The second sentence and three following numbered sentences
talk about aircraft of different categories, still within the
paragraph labeled "Converging", but without any of the qualifiers
about approximately the same altitude or the parenthetical excluding
head-on.

Paragraph (e) talks about head-on convergence, and the requirement
that both alter course to the right would seem to me to over-ride the
ROW rules by category stated in the previous paragraph. But to claim
that it is unambiguous is a stretch.


My $0.02, worth what you paid for it!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.