Runway incursions

"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?")

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." 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."

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.

On Sep 19, 12:00*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_ri/R...%20Presentatio...

* *FAA Definition of Incursion

* *Runway Incursion (U.S.) - "Any occurrence at an airport involving an *aircraft, person or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard
* *or results in loss of separation _with an aircraft taking off, intending *to take off, landing or intending to land._"

The "intending to take off" and "intending to land" reoccurs in other
publications, some self-contradictory.

It may be that ATC doesn't interpret regs uniformly, but, "Any
occurence at an airport... that creates a collision hazard" could be
interpreted a lot of ways by the staff at a control tower. Especially
if the FAA is around. But, word by everybody I've spoken to about it
at Troutdale so far is, they call it a runway incursion.

-c