Jim Logajan wrote:

Sorry, but the second sentence indicates the _runway_, _not_ the
_runway safety area_ contained an obstacle. Neither sentence use the
terms "protected surface" or "runway safety area" - and the authors
could and should have if that was their intent. The definition of
"runway incursion" doesn't do anything to resolve the contradiction
in the example because the sentences can be reduced using standard
logical reduction to:

"Although X was not an obstacle on R, X was an obstacle on R."

The "separation rules" and definition of "runway incursion" (or any
other written material in the universe) cannot change a statement of
the form "A and not A" from a contradiction to a tautology.

So you appear be be engaging in the same mistake Gattman was accused
of: reading the wrong meaning in a segment of text because of your
preconceived ideas.


Does Case 1 fit the definition of runway incursion?



You are not in a position to make that assertion unless you have ESP.


Actually, I am the sole person in a position to make that assertion