Runway incursions

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

C Gattman wrote:

What part of the official FAA documentation can't you grasp?


I can't grasp why you're posting a portion of something that clearly
indicates you're
wrong while maintaining that you're right. Are you TRYING to look stupid?



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.


Perhaps YOU should read it again, or, more likely, read the preceding
paragraph which you skipped for the first time:



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.

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.

There are four categories of runway incursions:

a.. Category A is a serious incident in which a collision was narrowly
avoided
b.. Category B is an incident in which separation decreases and there is a
significant potential for collision, which may result in a time critical
corrective/evasive response to avoid a collision.
c.. Category C is an incident characterized by ample time and/or distance
to avoid a collision.
d.. Category D is an incident that meets the definition of runway
incursion such as incorrect presence of a single vehicle/person/aircraft on
the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of
aircraft but with no immediate safety consequences.




Here's some friendly advice; you're in a hole, stop digging.

"C Gattman" wrote

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."

Read it again in context. Preceding your quoted section is:

Quote:
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.

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.

You must not have made yourself fully understood, or the on duty ATC in
uninformed.

After your quoted section, the article you posted a link to says:

Outreach to Pilots
The majority of runway incursions are caused by pilots in violation of
regulations and air traffic control instructions – also known as pilot
deviations. The FAA completed an analysis of taxi clearances and found that
more explicit instructions are needed from controllers to pilots. The FAA
has issued new requirements for controllers to give explicit directions to
pilots on precise routes to travel from the gate to the runway. The FAA has
also issued new requirements for aircraft to have crossed all intervening
runways prior to receiving a takeoff clearance. Future requirements will
cover runway crossing clearances, take off and landing clearances and the
adaptation of international surface phraseology.

End quote

This speaks to the general ways the runway incursions are taking place, and
the efforts made to prevent them.

You really need to talk to someone off of this group that fully understands
what you think you understand, and get set right. I fear for the fact that
there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation.
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 17, 5:13*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

You really need to talk to someone off of this group that fully understands
what you think you understand, and get set right.

What part of contacting ATC, the Seattle FSDO, senior CFIIs and the
chief pilot here can you not wrap your head around as being "off of
this group"?

I fear for the fact that there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation.

What? That you can't cross onto a taxiway without clearance? You fear
for the fact that I "spread that level of misinformation" after I've
seen it happen and confirmed that Tower reports it as an incursion?

*whew* okeeee....

-c

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:13 pm, "Morgans" wrote:

You really need to talk to someone off of this group that fully understands
what you think you understand, and get set right.

What part of contacting ATC, the Seattle FSDO, senior CFIIs and the
chief pilot here can you not wrap your head around as being "off of
this group"?


I fear for the fact that there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation.

What? That you can't cross onto a taxiway without clearance?

Only if the taxiway is in a movement area. I can and do use taxiways
outside of the movement area at towered airports regularly without a
clearance and it is legal and proper to do so.


You fear
for the fact that I "spread that level of misinformation" after I've
seen it happen and confirmed that Tower reports it as an incursion?

On Sep 18, 4:13*am, "Morgans" wrote:
Quote:
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.


Sorry for trying to be flippant in what's evidently a serious thread
but at least one incident back home (http://tinyurl.com/lvezj8) makes
me want runway incursions to have a slightly broader definition

I hope the two sods in the newsitem aren't flying anymore.

Ramapriya

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