Runway incursions

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

C Gattman wrote:

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.


Something in the water out there?

I'll contact FSDO dude and tower dudes tomorrow, I contacted Gene Benson
today. Here is my message to him followed by his reply:


Dear Mr. Benson,

Your web page on Runway Incursions has been brought to my attention. I
noted the following:

"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.
Runway incursions are not limited to controlled airports or to runways. If
reported, an airplane taxiing onto a runway at an uncontrolled airport while
another airplane is on final approach would be considered to be a runway
incursion. 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."

That's not correct, runway incursions pretty much ARE limited to runways.
Almost a year ago the definition of Runway Incursion in FAA Order 7050.1 was
amended to be consistent with the ICAO definition:

"Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an
aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated
for the landing and take-off of aircraft."

The previous definition, which had been in use since 1987, was:

"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 take off, landing, or
intending to land."


Unauthorized operation on a taxiway at a towered airport would be a Pilot
Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or a Pedestrian Deviation, depending on the
culprit.

Sincerely,

Steven P McNicoll
GRB ATCT


http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../ND/7050.1.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...N%207050.2.pdf



His reply:



Thanks for the correct info. My notes show that I got that information from
a
JFK controller who spoke at a designated examiner meeting in 2004. Anyway,
the
article was rather dated so I took it down.

Regards,
Gene

On 09/17/09 16:03, C Gattman wrote:
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

Chris,

I think you may be placing too much faith in what you heard from
one FSDO guy and your local tower controllers. You argued that it
doesn't matter whether or not they're right, because they're the
ones making the rules in your area, but that's not really true.

Even if they report something as a runway incursion, that doesn't
make it one if it is not.

Best Regards,

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

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