C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 17, 2:33 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

If you had hopes of establishing some credibility in these forums you blew it big time.

I've been out here since 1998. Unlike, I guess, a lot of people here,
I'm not out here to "establish credibility." Maybe that's what you're
here to do, but if so, don't project that on me.

Also, I forwarded links and references including those from the FAA.
You chose to attack me personally and ignore my sources, and you wrote
" I cited the FAA notice that defines runway incursion and posted a
link to it." I cited the FAA as well, repeatedly, which you
consistently refused to acknowledge, so now I'm going to rub your nose
in it:

"It is important to note that the FAA formerly tracked incidents that
did not involve potential aircraft conflicts as surface incidents.
These incidents were not classified as “runway incursions” and were
tracked and monitored separately. Most of these events are now
considered Category C or D incursions, which are low-risk incidents
with either no conflict potential or ample time or distance to avoid a
collision. This means that the total number of runway incursion
reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now
classified as runway incursions." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166
Dated July 30, 2009.

You are, I trust, aware that www.faa.gov is the Federal Aviation
Administration and not some clueless FSDO rep or air traffic
controller.

No. That is not how it's done now. It's done in accordance with FAA Order 8020.16 Air Traffic Organization Aircraft Accident and Incident
Notification, Investigation, and Reporting. Unauthorized operation on a taxiway is properly reported as a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or
Pedestrian Deviation.

According to the ATC who is working right now, Pilot Deviation and
Vehicle Deviation are causes of the incursions, not the incursions
themselves. I trust our local Air Traffic Controller. Are you
suggesting that pilots shouldn't trust FAA ATC? Say it.

You'll find people in FSDO that got there by washing out of ATC.

You'll find people in ATC that washed out of flight school. So what?
Word from the conservatives is, Chicago is crawling with incompetent
criminals, liars and fools. Should we apply that to everybody out
there? "Something in the water?"

Between you and the local towers we can't even get ATC to agree on
what it is, but almost all of the local pilots around here know not to
cross the solid yellow line. WTF is it with ATC anyhow? There are,
according to the FAA, nearly 700,000 active pilots in the US but only
8,000 controllers, so, why are controllers "Operational Error"
responsible for 23% of all runway incursions? (http://www.faa.gov/
runwaysafety/ace/presentations/3.ppt.)

Take your "big on ego but short on knowledge," "Are you TRYING to look
stupid?" and 'Is there something in the water out there' and
"credibility" nonsense elsewhere and stop blathering about who is
blowing what big time.

As a professional pilot and instructor, I can't even get two
controllers to agree on what a runway incursion is, but according to
the FAA, ATC causes nearly a quarter of the incursions. Maybe it's
because they're big on ego an short on knowledge.

I'm done with you.


I'm sorry, but you're incorrect, Mr./Ms. Gattman. Stephen provided the
proper definition of a runway incursion and cited its official source
from the FAA. You can try to earn points with the debate club, but that
won't change the facts. Some news story, even cleverly excerpted, does
not replace nor supercede the FAA Orders anymore then a similar story
about FARs. Think about it, if a story appeared that an operator may
not operate VFR in Class A airspace even with a proper ATC authorization
to do so, and 14 CFR 91.135(d) says otherwise, would you believe the
story or the official regulation?

You can find official FAA regulations, orders, and polices at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/