![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 15, 8:35*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "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 take-off of aircraft" http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...N%207050.2.pdf I strongly encourage you to discuss this with your FAA official guest from the Seattle FSDO that gave that CFI seminar and bring him up to speed. I'll be sure to tell him some guy on the internet said he was wrong, after ATC--totally different people that the guest--filed two runway incursion reports for taxiway incursions. Enter a taxiway or other "protected area" at a towered airport without clearance, it's an incursion. I've seen it happen, confirmed that it was reported, and discussed it with the FAA after their Runway Incursion seminar. I don't care what you read on the internet. Readers are free to form their own opinions and choose their own safety practices. I'm just telling people what happened. -c |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 16, 4:22*am, C Gattman wrote:
Enter a taxiway or other "protected area" at a towered airport without clearance, it's an incursion. I've seen it happen, confirmed that it was reported, and discussed it with the FAA after their Runway Incursion seminar. *I don't care what you read on the internet. If your FAA source says that an incorrect entry on a taxiway is defined as a runway incursion, surely you can find it on the FAA website to back up his opinion. 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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 16, 6:05*am, BeechSundowner wrote:
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? 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. I'm not out here to engage in some sort of penis-measuring contest with a couple of usenet know-it-alls, if that's what this is going to turn into. All current US pilots should be familiar with the NonMovement Area Boundary. (AIM 2-3-6 c.) It's a solid yellow line with a broken yellow line next to it. ." The NMAB "delineates movement area under control of ATCT, from non- movement area." According to the AIM, "These markings delineate the movement area, ie, AREA UNDER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL" [emphasis mine] Specifically, per AC 150/340-18D :Standards for Airport Sign Systems" and AC 150/5340-1J "Standards for Airport Markings", the NMAB is "located on the boundary between movement and non-movement area" and it's located to unsure wing clearance for taxiing aircraft. Additional sources: AC-90-67 "Light Signals from the Control Tower for Ground Vehicles, Equipment, an Personnel" At KTTD, the Movement Area Boundary separates the Alpha and Bravo taxiways from the parking areas, and according to Troutdale Tower (Class D), it's a violation to cross it. It's been that way at least since I started flying there in 1989. I hope I have established clearly what a movement area is, and what the boundary looks like. The Pilot Guide to Airport Signs and Markings which is produced by the FAA and available from the FAA Office of Runway Safety in Renton, WA, says in bold, red, italicized letters: "ATC permission is ALWAYS required to cross from the solid side to the dashed side." [emphasis theirs] This source is freely available as a full-color quick reference card that fits in the approach plate book. I'm not going to post her e-mail address but I can post the mailing address if you want. You might also order "A Pilot's Guide to Surface Operations", "Airfield Procedures for Vehicles and Pedestrians" (it's a poster) and the "Safe Surface Operations" CD-ROM. I bet there isn't a CFI out here who hasn't taught students that you need to get tower clearance before you cross the Non Movement Area Boundary onto the taxiway. Finally, from your own source: http://www.faa.gov/aso/runwaysafety/Docs/Training.ppt defines the following: " * Movement Area – Runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport which are used for taxiing, or hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and aircraft parking areas. [Read that again.] * Runway Incursion – Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land." I trust all of this has sufficient "probative value" to simply reinforce my observation that two runway incursions were reported by KTTD ATC to Seattle when a pedestrian (one) and an aircraft (two) entered the Alpha Taxiway without clearance. It's not like I'm claiming to have seen a flying saucer. I have the FAA rep's business card but I'm certainly not about to post it here. As for what's on the FAA website, I haven't found an official definition of "holding out", but don't let them catch you doing it. You don't want to make all of your aeronautical decisions based solely on what you read on the FAA website. -c Commercial Pilot, CFI. KTTD |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C Gattman wrote:
* Runway Incursion – Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land." Actually, 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 take-off of aircraft." I trust all of this has sufficient "probative value" to simply reinforce my observation that two runway incursions were reported by KTTD ATC to Seattle when a pedestrian (one) and an aircraft (two) entered the Alpha Taxiway without clearance. It doesn't. As for what's on the FAA website, I haven't found an official definition of "holding out", but don't let them catch you doing it. You don't want to make all of your aeronautical decisions based solely on what you read on the FAA website. Or from what a CFI that's long on ego and short on knowledge posts on the internet. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 09/16/09 12:33, C Gattman wrote:
* Runway Incursion – Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land." -c Commercial Pilot, CFI. KTTD Chris, While reading this thread, I wonder if it's possible that folks are not seeing eye to eye on what constitutes: "... with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land." In that some believe operating on the taxiway on the way to the runway is included in this, while some others think that it is not? I know that at a towered airport, you must have a clearance before you may operate on the taxiway. I don't think anyone is trying to dispute that. But I think the two conversations are focusing on different aspects of the issue, which is causing some confusion. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Hansen wrote:
I know that at a towered airport, you must have a clearance before you may operate on the taxiway. I don't think anyone is trying to dispute that. But I think the two conversations are focusing on different aspects of the issue, which is causing some confusion. A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion. I agree fully with that. Isn't there an official term for operation on a taxiway without permission, or operating equipment that does not have a yellow blinking light? I seem to recall "unauthorized movement" or something like that. -- Jim in NC |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Morgans" wrote in message ... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion. I agree fully with that. Isn't there an official term for operation on a taxiway without permission, or operating equipment that does not have a yellow blinking light? I seem to recall "unauthorized movement" or something like that. -- Jim in NC I should have specified a vehicle (not an aircraft) that does not have a yellow blinking light. -- Jim in NC |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 16, 7:03*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion. I agree fully with that. *Isn't there an official term for operation on a taxiway without permission, I don't know. You tell us. Steven found the definition of Runway Incursion so I'm sure you guys will have no problem finding the definition of Taxiway Incursion or whatever. ... In the meantime, "By the way, a runway incursion is simply driving an airplane to somewhere it is not supposed to be on a particular airport at that particular time. ...an airplane at a controlled airport that entered a taxiway onto which it had not been cleared would also be considered a runway incursion." http://www.genebenson.com/Articles/r...rsions_new.htm Now, I'm telling you all one last time, that's JUST EXACTLY what the FAA told me, and also how the tower reported the incursions. Whether you choose to accept that is up to you. Goodbye. -c |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Morgans wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion. I agree fully with that. Isn't there an official term for operation on a taxiway without permission, or operating equipment that does not have a yellow blinking light? I seem to recall "unauthorized movement" or something like that. Unauthorized operation on a taxiway would be a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or Pedestrian Deviation, depending on the culprit. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ILS Runway 1, Visual approach runway 4 KMEI - Video | A Lieberma[_2_] | Owning | 0 | July 4th 09 06:13 PM |
Runway Red Lights to cut down on incursions. | Gig 601XL Builder[_2_] | Piloting | 23 | March 3rd 08 08:28 PM |
Runway incursions | James Robinson | Piloting | 6 | November 10th 07 06:29 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
Talk about runway incursions... | Dave Russell | Piloting | 7 | August 13th 03 02:09 AM |