On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:45:56 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

There's no downside to filing it, other than the nominal time
spent filling it out ...

Actually, that is a positive thing to the extent that it causes a
pilot to thoughtfully reflect on the actions that led to the
violation. Also good, might be a little investigation into CRM:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?x=op&...59-1&vm=p&n=20

And the best guidance you can get in dealing with the FAA is available
through AOPA's Legal Plan:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../00-3-013.html


I doubt this incident qualifies as a runway incursion, but here's some
reassuring information just in case:


The FAA defines a runway incursion as:
Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person,
or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in
loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, or intending to take
off, landing, or intending to land.

-------------------------------------------------------------
FAA immunity for runway incursions
By John S. Yodice (From AOPA Pilot, June 2000.)

It seems that we can expect more uncomfortable one-on-one
discussions between pilots and FAA inspectors about possible
regulatory violations. We previously reported on the relatively new
FAA Streamlined Administrative Action Process (SAAP) program now in
effect (see "Pilot Counsel: FAA’s Ticket Program," September 1999
Pilot) and offered some legal guidance to pilots. Now pilots may need
some legal guidance about participating in another new FAA program,
the Runway Incursion Information and Evaluation Program (RIIEP).

The title of the program tells us the purpose of the program—to
gather and evaluate information on runway incursions. It was announced
on March 19, 2000, and runs through March 19, 2001. The announcement
encourages pilots (and others) to give information to the FAA that
could help the agency get at the root causes of runway incursions.
Under the program, FAA field inspectors will seek to interview pilots
involved in such incidents, either in person or by telephone. In
exchange, the FAA offers cooperating pilots a limited immunity against
FAA enforcement.

No pilot needs to be convinced that the threat of a collision
between an aircraft taking off or landing and another aircraft, or
vehicle, or person, or other object on the runway is a serious safety
problem. According to the FAA, there has been an increase in such
incidents in recent years. The FAA says that pilot deviations are the
leading cause of runway incursions, increasing by 38 percent from 1997
to 1998. Not surprisingly, the runway incursions most likely to cause
accidents generally occur at complex, high-volume airports.

The FAA usually has little problem in learning about runway
incursions and the pilots involved, since they happen at airports with
control towers. And the FAA has little trouble finding some infraction
of the federal aviation regulations that it can charge against one or
more of the pilots involved. The usual procedure in the past has been
for an FAA inspector to open an investigation when a controller
reports a runway incursion. An investigation often resulted in a
suspension of the certificate of one or more of the pilots, or less
drastically, an administrative action in the form of a warning notice
or letter of correction sent to the pilots.

This new program presents a dilemma for pilots. We certainly want
to cooperate with the FAA to solve the problem of runway incursions;
but in the process we don’t want to be cooperating ourselves into a
suspension of our pilot certificates or a black mark on our FAA
records. In the program, the FAA attempts to resolve this dilemma for
pilots by giving assurances that the usual enforcement action will not
be taken.

The FAA assurances take two forms. First, if a pilot cooperates,
subject to certain qualifications, "the FAA ordinarily does not expect
to take punitive legal enforcement action." Second, the FAA "does not
expect to use information provided by airmen during interviews
conducted by FAA inspectors under the RIIEP in any FAA punitive legal
enforcement action," according to the program.

Unfortunately, the assurances don’t seem to go far enough, using
qualifying words such as ordinarily and does not expect. They don’t
provide as much protection for the pilot as does the Aviation Safety
Reporting System, which is the time-honored method for anonymously and
confidentially getting safety information to the FAA in exchange for a
waiver of a disciplinary action.

So, what should a pilot do who gets a call from the tower or some
FAA inspector wanting to talk about an incident that is, or seems to
be, a "runway incursion"? In making a decision whether to cooperate, a
pilot needs to know his or her legal rights and the specifics of the
assurances that the FAA is offering. As we will see, the answer to
this question is complicated by the fact that a great deal of
discretion is given to the individual inspector in interpreting these
assurances.

To their credit, most pilots instinctively want to cooperate with
the FAA. That instinct is a good one. But pilots should understand
that participation in the program is strictly voluntary. A pilot has
no legal obligation to respond to an FAA inspector’s questions on a
possible runway incursion incident. Yet, answering the inspector’s
questions could cause the inspector to conclude that the program’s
immunity does not apply, or it could open the door to other
incriminating facts and circumstances.

Here is some general guidance. If there is anything aggravated
about the incident, it is probably best not to participate. For
example, if the circumstances are such that the FAA could allege that
the infraction was intentional (I don’t know of a runway incursion
that was intentional, but that is within the discretion of the
inspector to determine), the limited immunity would not apply. Or if
there was an accident as a result of the incursion, the immunity
aspect of the program would not apply. A pilot could be facing an
enforcement action to suspend or revoke the pilot certificate. The
pilot should seek some legal help before talking to the FAA, and
before completing an NTSB accident report.

The question becomes a muddy one if the incident is clearly
unintentional but does raise a question about the pilot’s
qualifications—for example, a runway incursion under circumstances
that suggest to the FAA that the pilot does not understand the air
traffic rules that govern an aircraft operating at an airport with a
control tower. The FAA will then ask the pilot to consent to a
reexamination or suffer a suspension of the pilot certificate. The
program says: "If alleged violation(s) resulting from the runway
incursion or the circumstances surrounding the runway incursion
demonstrate, or raise a question of, a lack of qualification of the
airman, then the FAA will proceed with appropriate remedial action,
which might include reexamination and/or certificate revocation or
certificate suspension pending reexamination."

If the incursion was unintentional, and the pilot does understand
the rules but just became confused or disoriented—which should be the
case in the majority of such events involving a pilot deviation—then
participation in the program is probably in order. That is a situation
where the FAA should be able to benefit most from an interview with
the pilot. We should expect that a reasonable inspector would take no
enforcement or administrative action against a cooperating pilot.
However, pilots should understand that even in such a situation, the
inspector has the discretion under the program of taking an
administrative action against the pilot. An administrative action does
not suspend or revoke a pilot certificate, but it will take the form
of a warning notice or letter of correction, which will be a matter of
record against the pilot for two years.

In any event, whether a pilot cooperates in the RIIEP or not,
there would seem to be no good reason not to file a NASA Safety Report
(do not report an accident or criminal activity, however) on NASA ARC
Form 277 and get whatever immunity, anonymity, and confidentiality
that is available through that program.