Runway incursions

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

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