Runway incursions

C Gattman wrote:

Don't recall the name. The seminar was August 7 or 8 at Portland
Troutdale Airport (KTTD). He was out of the Renton office. I trust
you can find their office number yourself.


I'll shoot 'em an email.



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. You sound just exactly like a certain Microsoft simulator
jockey.


I'm not attacking anyone, I'm trying to correct a misconception shared by
you, Benson, a FSDO dude, and a few controllers. As for credentials, I
don't see why that matters. Anyone here can claim to be anything. Posting
definitive, verifiable documentation that clearly shows a runway incursion
takes place only on a runway should do it for any reasonable person. But
whatever spins your prop; I hold a commercial with instrument rating, I've
been an air traffic controller for 26 years, nine years at ZAU and 17 years
at GRB ATCT, where I also serve as an Airspace and Procedures Specialist.



There are a few instructors around here now talking about this, and,
just so you know, the salient point of the discussion is that when we
get guys who have attitudes like yours ('I'm right, and everybody else
including instructors, tower and the authorities are wrong because I
say so"), the appropriate thing to do is decline to sign their flight
review or check them out in the aircraft.


You still don't get it. I'm right not because I say so, I'm right because
my position agrees with the FAA position. You, FSDO dude, Benson, and the
tower folks are wrong because your positions are contrary to the FAA
position. That's all there is to it.



We recommend that they go
someplace else and politely send them packing. Doesn't matter if
they're student pilots or ATP. Flight instructors are certainly
fallible and the FAA can be confusing, but, your attitude is
dangerous. Attitudes like yours are WHY there are so many incursions.


Nonsense. It's not my attitude that's a problem here it's yours. You
posted something that was incorrect and I called you on it. I supplied
undeniable proof that you're incorrect and yet you maintain your position is
correct. If you had hopes of establishing some credibility in these forums
you blew it big time.

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.

-c

C Gattman wrote:

"Also, 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

You can find an FAA definition for "runway incursion," but, I bet you
can't find an official definition for "taxiway incursion."

I was just reporting what the FAA rep told me and what happened.I have
no interest in changing those facts for the purpose of argument. The
FAA representative told me that runway incursions had been reported,
and I choose to believe him (and the source I quoted above) over
somebody like McNicoll, who accuses me of being "long on ego and short
on knowledge," when Mr. McNicoll Wasn't Even There. 'Cause now he's
tossing personal insults, so, there's no point in arguing with him
further. We've all had enough of that nonsense.

If anybody thinks the FAA is incorrect, I challenge that person call
'em and correct 'em personally instead of expecting me to do it for
them. It's their argument, they can make it.


But it is you that thinks the FAA is incorrect on this. Why don't you take
up your own challenge and tell 'em Notice N JO 7050.2 is wrong?

"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

There you go. Straight from the FAA.

I shot the Seattle FSDO an e-mail. Difficult to contact them by phone.

-c

C Gattman wrote:

"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

There you go. Straight from the FAA.


There I go what? What is your point?

On Sep 17, 2:09*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
C Gattman wrote:

"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

There you go. *Straight from the FAA.

There I go what? *What is your point?

What part of the official FAA documentation can't you grasp? You
quoted the FAA at me but now that I quoted them back at you, you
suddenly fail to grasp the point? Read it again:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166

"This means that the total number of runway incursion reports
increased primarily because surface incidents are now
classified as runway incursions."

Runway incursions--again, straight from the FAA--are now categorized
as A, B, C or D depending on the severity. I have offered you abundant
FAA resource material to read about this yourself. So when the FAA
refers to "Category C or D incursions," it shouldn't be too difficult
to determine what they mean. Especially since I just confirmed this
with an on-duty air traffic controller at Troutdale.

Goodbye.

-c

On 09/17/09 13:36, C Gattman wrote:
"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

There you go. Straight from the FAA.

I shot the Seattle FSDO an e-mail. Difficult to contact them by phone.

-c

Chris,

I think you misunderstood what they said in that news release.
At the top, they still said that a runway incursion dealt with
a "runway" only.

Is it possible that what they now call Cat C or D incursions
still happened on a runway, but with such low probability for
collision that they "used" to categorize them as "surface incidences"?

That is how I read it. If so, then the bottom line is that a
runway incursion must happen on a runway (or a surface used for
take off/landing...).

Also, if the FSDO guy was wrong, what would you do if you were
a lowly tower controller in a small town airport? Especially if
you weren't sure whether the FSDO guy was correct? Do what the
FSDO guy said? Probably - just to be safe.

Best Regards,


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

More info:

The FAA defines a runway incursion as, “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 takeoff, landing, or intending to
land.” (FAA Safety report, 2006)
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...rireport06.pdf

Note: "ANY OCCURRENCE AT AN AIRPORT"... That was in 2006.

"The FAA's evolving safety management approach will include:
- Making the transion to the ICAO standardized definition of a runway
incursion...." -ibid

"The biggest difference between the two definitions is that ICAO
defines a runway incursion as any unauthorized intrusion onto a
runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential
conflict. For the FAA, an incident without an aircraft in potential
conflict — such as an unauthorized aircraft crossing an empty runway —
was defined as a “surface incident” and not a runway incursion. The
new definition means that some incidents formerly classified as
surface incidents will now be classified as C or D category runway
incursions, which are low-risk incidents with ample time and/or
distance to avoid a collision." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=9612
(effective Oct 1, 2007) [seems contradictory]

"Although the official FAA definition of a runway incursion considers
those incidents where an actual loss of separation occurs, for the
purpose of Part 139, runway incursions or runway deviations (not
involving a loss of separation) are based on any unauthorized entry of
a ground vehicle onto the movement area or safety area."
http://www.alaska.faa.gov/airports/s...ification.html

We can debate whether they should be called "runway incursions" or
just "incursions" all day long, but, where the rubber meets the
taxiway, which is at present about 75 feet behind where I'm sitting,
if you enter the taxiway without clearance, the tower, which is about
100 yards to the west of me right now, will report it as a runway
incursion and, according to them, the FAA will generally rule that it
was caused by pilot deviation.

That's quite simply how it works, right now, at the Class D towered
airport where I am presently writing this, according to the chief
pilot, the CFIs, CFIIs and ATPs who are here right now, the FSDO and
the FAA-licensed controller of the FAA control tower with whom we just
spoke.


-c

On Sep 17, 3:14*pm, Mark Hansen wrote:

* Also, if the FSDO guy was wrong, what would you do if you were a lowly tower controller in a small town airport? Especially if
you weren't sure whether the FSDO guy was correct? Do what the FSDO guy said? Probably - just to be safe.

That sounds plausible, but, it couldn't have happened that way in this
case. The FSDO guy didn't tell them what to do. He just called them to
see if they had reported the incursion for the guy who walked onto the
taxiway to take a picture of the B-17 (Sentimental Journey). They
replied to him, while I was standing next to him, that they had
reported two runway incursions including one against a homebuilt
Velocity that taxied all over the place, made a 180-degree turn
practically under the nose of the B-17 and then reentered the taxiway
somewhere down the line without clearance.

We all saw him roar right up to the bomber (after nearly striking his
wing on final...are they all that unstable?) but we weren't aware
until then that Tower had reported it as an incursion until the FSDO
rep--a furloughed airline pilot, not some guy who couldn't get a
flying job--said so.

I told him "It's not normally that chaotic here. The B-17 is visible
from the freeway so everybody's coming over to see." He said "It's
August." Then he said that it's not nearly as bad as places like
Aspen and Oshkosh, where certain elite types act as if they're above
basic safety and courtesy procedures, let alone regulation.

This all occurred on August 7. (I checked the date on the photos I
took of the bomber swinging the gear.)

BTW, the guy with the Velocity was an a-hole. He practically taxied
INTO the group of people in the parking area even after the fuel guy
was trying to wave him off. There was absolutely nowhere for him to
go; he had the bomber to his left, a bunch of Cessnas to his right and
a building in front of him. He had to turn around. Several of us
including a couple of the CAF guys offered to help turn him around,
but, instead, he started his engine, jacked the throttle and made a
180-degree turn spraying the B-17, the maintenance guys working under
it, the public and FBO staff with propwash and tarmac debris before
dashing off in a huff and then wandering back onto the taxiway. The
woman that was with him looked clearly distressed, but she left with
him the next day.

-c

"C Gattman" wrote

"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

There you go. Straight from the FAA.

Your reading comprehension is very low, if you think anything in that report
says that being in the wrong place on a taxiway is a runway incursion. In
fact, there is nothing at all in the whole page that supports your position.

The quoted section speaks about the reclassification of taxi incidents where
the aircraft crossed a runway during taxi procedures, and did not cause an
immediate conflict. It does clearly state the type of problem involved
crossing runways incorrectly.
--
Jim in NC