Runway incursions

C Gattman wrote:
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


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.

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.

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.

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

"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
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)

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?

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.

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.

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