(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
(b) General. 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.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories—
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
(2) A glider has the right-of-way over powered aircraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over all other powered aircraft, except for an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft.
(4) An aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other powered aircraft.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
[Docket 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004; FAA-2023-1275, Amdt. 91-379, 89 FR 92485, Nov. 21, 2024; Docket FAA-2023-1377, Amdt. 91-381, 90 FR 35220, July 24, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Evans v. Lima Lima Flight Team, Inc., 869 N.E.2d 195 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff next argues that the exculpatory agreement violates public policy because it exonerates the individual defendants for injuries caused by their “unlawful conduct.”
Turturro v. United States, 43 F. Supp. 3d 434 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
· cites it 3× “In addition, 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (b) provides that “[w]hen 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…”
Steering Comm. v. United States of Am., & Aeromexico, 6 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 1993).
“The current version of this regulation is 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (b) (1992). 3 . The parties to this case do not claim that the common carrier standard of the highest degree of care to passengers, see Cal.”
Ritchie v. Costello, 356 P.3d 337 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“See 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (providing right-of-way rules for aircraft); 14 C.”
Curtis v. United States, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (g). Moreover, all pilots are expected to maintain vigilance and “see and avoid” other aircraft in operation.”
In Re Greenwood Air Crash, 924 F. Supp. 1518 (S.D. Ind. 1995).
“14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (b). The United States argues in this case, as it has in many others, that this standard imposes something akin to strict liability upon the pilots.”
Scruggs v. United States, 959 F. Supp. 1537 (S.D. Fla. 1997).
· cites it 2× “14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (b). 88. 14 C.F.R. § 91.”
Thomas D. Ray, V. Vincent Davis Ditmore (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “He also contends that the trial court applied the wrong standard of care and erred by not concluding that Ray owed him a duty to “see and avoid” under 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (b) and (e), breached that duty, and caused or contributed to the collision.”
Brown v. United States (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (b) (“[V]igilance shall be 5 maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.”
Brown v. United States (D. Nev. 2025).
· cites it 2× “See 16 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (b) (“[V]igilance shall be maintained by each person operating an 17 aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.