![]() |
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 16, 2:37*pm, 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. "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. -c |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 16, 2:37 pm, 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. "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. -c I'll do it. Can you provide the name of the FSDO dude that supplied the incorrect information? If you're unwilling to give out the name can you provide the date of the CFI seminar? I can identify him that way. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C Gattman wrote:
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. I'll do it. Can you provide the name of the FSDO dude that supplied the incorrect information? If you're unwilling to give out the name can you provide the date of the CFI seminar? I can identify him that way. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 16, 2:37 pm, 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. "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. -c I'll do it. Can you provide the name of the FSDO dude that supplied the incorrect information? If you're unwilling to give out the name can you provide the date of the CFI seminar? I can identify him that way. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 17, 4:33*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: I'll do it. *Can you provide the name of the FSDO dude that supplied the incorrect information? *If you're unwilling to give out the name can you provide the date of the CFI seminar? *I can identify him that way. 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. The FAA didn't tell you that, a misinformed guy from FSDO told you that. He was wrong, Benson's wrong, and if the tower did what you claim they were wrong too. 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. 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. 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. Let us know what they say. We're about to call them ourselves. -c CFI, KTTD |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 17, 2:09*pm, Robert Moore wrote:
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. I certainly make mistakes, but not this time. I have verified this through mulitiple sources, we just spoke with Troutdale Tower, and, except for rec.aviation.piloting, the answer is uniform. 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. The FSDO type who gave the seminar is a furloughed airline pilot. I've heard people say that ATC jobs are for people who can't fly airplanes. I don't pay heed to that stuff. Let's stick with facts as we are able to determine them. Now... I really do think that you owe Steven a huge apology. I sincerely respect your opinion and experience, but, I cannot do that. The rules as you may have known them have changed. Here is the word, directly from the FAA: "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 Furthermore, three CFIIs and myself just contacted Troutdale Tower. The controller told us taxiway incursions are still classified as runway incursions but that the incident would be further detailed as a "pilot deviation." (In an example where the aircraft enters a "protected area" such as a taxiway without permission.) They report it as a runway incursion and the cause will be determined as a pilot deviation. That's how it's done now. With regard to McNicoll's experience, I respect that. But, I'm going to make my case based on what the on-duty controller just told me from the tower at the field where I work, teach and fly. If I or a student of mine cross the non-movement boundary area onto the taxiway without clearance, it is the local ATC and FSDO that I'm going to have to explain myself to. I'm sure you understand that for this reason, I must consider them authoritative. I have e-mailed Renton since I was unable to contact a live person there. I will post my question with their reply. -c |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C Gattman wrote:
I certainly make mistakes, but not this time. I have verified this through mulitiple sources, we just spoke with Troutdale Tower, and, except for rec.aviation.piloting, the answer is uniform. Please list those multiple sources. The FSDO type who gave the seminar is a furloughed airline pilot. I've heard people say that ATC jobs are for people who can't fly airplanes. Interesting. You'll find people in FSDO that got there by washing out of ATC. I've yet to find a controller that washed out of FSDO. I don't pay heed to that stuff. Let's stick with facts as we are able to determine them. Hold that thought. I sincerely respect your opinion and experience, but, I cannot do that. The rules as you may have known them have changed. Here is the word, directly from the FAA: "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 is nothing there that supports your position. Why did you choose to cut and paste just that paragraph? Why didn't you include the preceding paragraph, which actually defined Runway Incursion? "What is a Runway Incursion? A runway incursion is any unauthorized intrusion onto a runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential conflict. This is the international standard, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization and adopted by the FAA in fiscal year 2008." Now, about that thought you were holding... . Furthermore, three CFIIs and myself just contacted Troutdale Tower. The controller told us taxiway incursions are still classified as runway incursions but that the incident would be further detailed as a "pilot deviation." (In an example where the aircraft enters a "protected area" such as a taxiway without permission.) They report it as a runway incursion and the cause will be determined as a pilot deviation. That's how it's done now. 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. http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi.../media/AAI.pdf |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
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 |