Runway incursions

Jim Logajan wrote:
Probably none...but if the issuing authority calls a piece of paper or
plastic a "certificate", why would anyone call it something
else?

In your case, I think pedantry.

Or ICAO compliance, although I doubt this was the reason.

Convention on Inernational Civil Aviation
Annex 1 - Personnel Licensing

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

But it doesn't explain why anyone would consider the unauthorized
presence on a taxiway in the US to be a runway incursion because the
FAA definition of runway incursion has never included taxiways.


Probably because the FAA manages to contradict itself on what
constitutes a runway and a taxiway. Consider "Case 1" on page B-1 of
the 2008 Runway Safety Report:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...RSReport08.pdf

"Although he is not on the runway, the aircraft's nose is across
the hold-short line, usually 175 feet from the runway.

A runway incursion has occurred since separation rules
require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before an
aircraft can land or take off on that runway."

So here we have an FAA document saying in the first sentence that
example aircraft B was _not_ on the runway. In fact it indicates
aircraft B's nose could be as far as 175 feet from the runway. But in
the second sentence it says a runway incursion happened anyway
because aircraft B _was_ on the runway! In order for me to make sense
of those two sentences, either the definition of what constitutes a
runway has to change between them or the definition has to contain a
non-trivial conditional. If they said the runway was that portion
past the hold-short line then their discussion wouldn't contradict
itself (on the other hand, what would one then call 175 feet of
pavement between the hold-short line and the runway proper in their
example other than a "taxiway?")


The second sentence does not say a runway incursion happened anyway because
aircraft B was on the runway. It says, "A runway incursion has occurred
since separation rules require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before
an aircraft can land or take off on that runway." The aircraft had crossed
the hold-short line, which put it in the Runway Safety Area, a protected
surface. Since a Runway Incursion is defined as "any occurrence at an
aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person
on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of
aircraft", the aircraft's incorrect presence in the Runway Safety Area
constitutes a Runway Incursion.

Runway Safety Areas are explained on page C-13, you obviously did not read
the
entire document.



Based on the evidence so far, I have no confidence that you know (or
the FAA actually has) a consistent definition of "runway," "taxiway,"
or "runway incursion."


You might have greater confidence if you bothered to read fully and
attempted to understand these documents. It's clear to me you're Googling
keywords in an attempt to support a predetermined, and incorrect, position.



So if you could stop insulting others until
you or they collectively get your acts together, it would be
appreciated. Otherwise you come across (as you have put it) as a
"wacko."


I've insulted nobody.

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:46 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Bloviating gasbag", "pompous-ass newsgroup addict",
"holier-than-thou
attitude". I'm sure you can't see the hypocrisy in your message.


You wrote: "I did not insult you" and then IN THE VERY SAME POST you
wrote: "There's nothing at all professional about you, your attitude
makes you unfit to teach." Why did you lie when you said you didn't
insult me, when you said I was "big on ego and short on knowledge",
insult me again, and then expect me to respect you at all?


Those aren't insults. I posted them AFTER you demonstrated an
unprofessional attitude that renders you unfit to teach. It was you that
made an issue of credentials and insisted an unauthorized presence on a
taxiway was a runway incursion even after documentation had been posted
proving it wasn't, thus demonstrating that your'e "long on ego and short on
knowledge". (If you're qoing to quote me, please quote me accurately.)

I don't expect you to respect me, I don't care if you respect me, I place no
value on your respect.

On Sep 21, 2:44*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

I don't expect you to respect me, I don't care if you respect me, I place no
value on your respect.


I wager that line figuring on someone's sig in a few years

Ramapriya

On Sep 17, 10:09*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting..

Jim,

Normally I agree with you but the above was not unfairly insulting.
Below my name is earlier in this thread when I questioned Gattman.
Not sure how you feel about instructors saying "becauese I am an
instructor" being an answer to a request for source of information,
even by word of mouth, but that is not representative of a good
instructor in my eyes. His response to me was very insulting
especially when I provide a FAA reference and he had nothing tangible
to support his position..

I would hope good quality instructors would provide IN WRITING
something they are trying to teach to back up their statements.
Gattman did not do this at least for my initial questioning nor would
I want him as my CFI with that kind of attitude.

I am not a CFI but that kind of response "because I am instructor"
doesn't cut it when a student challenges his or her position. They
should be ready to say, I don't know but I will LOOK UP the
appropriate reference and give it to the student, not just say "I am
instructor" especially in a student forum.


ALLEN"s question.
Steven and I gave you the FAA source "read on the internet" surely you can reciprocate? http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/as a
reminder. Otherwise, why would your word be of higher probative value then the FAA website?

(GATTMAN replied)
Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I
feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.
Apparently, telling you what I saw happen has no value to you so
clearly you don't respect my word.

On 09/20/09 22:28, Mike Ash wrote:
As to why you'd call it someone else, if it looks like a license, walks
like a license, and waddles like a license, I'm going to call it a
"license". It's easier to say and much more widely understood. Do you
refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls
it, after all....


Hmmm. I've referred to my certificate as a certificate to aviation-
knowledgeable and non-aviation-knowledgeable folks alike and have
never been asked "what is a certificate".

Even though I assume some didn't know that what we have is called
a certificate, none found it necessary to ask me to clarify what I
was referring to.

Perhaps I just run in smaller circles :-)

Best Regards,


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Robert Moore wrote:
C Gattman wrote
Ah, I see. So everybody is wrong but you. You're attacking
professional pilots, instructors, controllers and FAA representatives
credentials, but, strangely, you've nothing to offer about your own
credential.

Chris...you've really stepped on it this time. In the 12 or so years
that I have been a contributor to RAP, I have never known Steven
McNicoll to be wrong. He is the without doubt, the most knowledgeable
Air Traffic Controller that I have ever encountered. In my 50 years of
flying, I have had occaison to deal with both local and national FAA
offices in many capacities from Flight Instructor to Managing a couple
of Part 141 Flight Training Centers to Director of Flight Operations for
International Jet Air Carriers. I have had very little respect for the
FSDO types who, often are there simply because they can't get a job flying
for an Air Carrier.

I have kept quiet in this discussion before now because I had erronously
assummed that you were aware of Steven's qualifications and were just
making an ass of yourself for some strange enjoyment.

Now... I really do think that you owe Steven a huge apology.

Bob Moore
ATP ASMEL B-707 B-727 L-188
Flight Instructor ASEL IA
Ground Instructor ADV INST
USN S-2F P-2V P-3B
PanAm (retired)

I am glad you said that before I got to answer. I have learned from
Steven's responses and subject knowledge. In the past I have even
emailed directly to him on questions I had and got good answers. Now, I
will admit, Steven can come across a little sharp on his responses, but
I have learned to listen anyway.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI

On Sep 21, 6:23*am, BeechSundowner wrote:


Not sure how you feel about instructors saying "becauese I am an
instructor" being an answer to a request for source of information,

You have taken my words completely out of context.

His response to me was very insulting especially when I provide a FAA reference and he had nothing tangible
to support his position..

Awfer... are you saying I didn't quote sources? Why, McNicoll
corrected one of them. How'd he do that if I offered "nothing
tangible"?

What in hell is going on out here?

I am not a CFI but that kind of response "because I am instructor" doesn't cut it when a student challenges his or her position. *

What I said was:

Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.

I don't see how you could interpret that as "I'm right because I am an
instructor." My point was that as an instructor I feel obligated to
clarify in a case where I say something and somebody challenges it or
asks for clarification. If I say something incorrect or, in reply, you
say something in correct, I feel obligated to sort it out rather than
have one fallacy or another (mine or yours) ending the discussion.
Previously and otherwise, I'd have simply told a few people out here
to go **** up a rope.

The next thing I said was: "Apparently, telling you what I saw happen
has no value to you so clearly you don't respect my word." To
clarify, that means there's no regulation or official definition that
says I heard an FBO consultant tell me that tower said there were two
runway incursions reported that day. I can't provide anything
"tangible" without divulging people's information in the internet who
may not appreciate it.

I'm starting to think that if I saw a C-172 accident, somebody would
take issue with me. (Some people insist it's a CE-172, when I'll I'm
saying is, I saw the goddam plane crash.)

Our competitor just had their third R22 accident in about a month
yesterday. Unfortunately, the last one crashed and burned with the
student and instructor onboard. Let's keep things in perspective here.
I have more important things to worry about in my job than what
somebody on the usenet thinks of me, having never met me, and I have
lots of better things to do than rifle through the internet looking
for "taxiway incursion" definitions or trying to make sure that
somebody isn't seeming to look for ways to take my words out of
context.

Guys...everybody. Stop picking fights where there are none. If you
disagree with something somebody says, say so and ask for
clarification or find a constructive way to disagree. It's perfectly
okay to say "I think you're wrong, and here's why," but, you don't
have to be a dick about it. Otherwise, the forum will continue to
devolve into flamewars and spam as it has for the last years.

-c

In article ,
Mark Hansen wrote:

On 09/20/09 22:28, Mike Ash wrote:
As to why you'd call it someone else, if it looks like a license, walks
like a license, and waddles like a license, I'm going to call it a
"license". It's easier to say and much more widely understood. Do you
refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls
it, after all....


Hmmm. I've referred to my certificate as a certificate to aviation-
knowledgeable and non-aviation-knowledgeable folks alike and have
never been asked "what is a certificate".

Even though I assume some didn't know that what we have is called
a certificate, none found it necessary to ask me to clarify what I
was referring to.

Perhaps I just run in smaller circles :-)

How do you know they got the right meaning if they didn't ask?

Maybe it works better than I think it would. I don't believe I've
actually tried it. It's just that, to me, "certificate" conjures up a
cheap piece of paper that comes from completing a short training class
or something of the like. For example, I would expect a "bus driver
certificate" to *possibly* be a prerequisite for driving a bus, but not
cover the practical aspects of driving one.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike Ash wrote:
...Do you
refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls
it, after all....


Funny you should mention that.
I carry mental baggage that says though policemen may well pronounce it
vee-HICK-ul, I want to say vee-icle, and so I do!

Brian W