Runway incursions

"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.

Your reading comprehension is very low, if you think anything in that report
says that being in the wrong place on a taxiway is a runway incursion. In
fact, there is nothing at all in the whole page that supports your position.

The quoted section speaks about the reclassification of taxi incidents where
the aircraft crossed a runway during taxi procedures, and did not cause an
immediate conflict. It does clearly state the type of problem involved
crossing runways incorrectly.
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 17, 5:01*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

There you go. *Straight from the FAA.

Your reading comprehension is very low, if you think anything in that report
says that being in the wrong place on a taxiway is a runway incursion. *In
fact, there is nothing at all in the whole page that supports your position.

Comprehend this: I don't suppose the part where myself, the chief CFII
and three other CFIs spoke with ATC this afternoon and confirmed my
position means anything to you.

Call your local tower and ask them what happens if you enter a taxiway
without permission. I'm not claiming to be an authority; I can only
tell you what the Renton FSDO and KTTD Tower say, and what I was told
at the Runway Safety seminar on August 7.

It may not be good enough for you, but, if you enter the taxiway or
other "protected areas" at this towered airport, tower will report it
as a runway incursion. According to them. Once again, for the slower
readers, IF YOU CROSS ONTO THE TAXIWAY WITHOUT CLEARANCE, TROUTDALE
TOWER WILL REPORT IT AS A RUNWAY INCURSION. IT'S HAPPENED, IT HAPPENS,
AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.

-c

It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his ammunition
is blanks.

That is what has happened here. Every thing posted has been proven wrong,
but yet there is a total inability to admit wrong.

I hope at some time, you get set straight.
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 17, 7:43*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his ammunition
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

"BeechSundowner" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 7:43 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his
ammunition
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

Thanks, I needed a good laugh! :-)

BeechSundowner wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:43*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his
ammunit
ion
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting.
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting.
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

Ditto.

I think the amount of vitriol generated by this argument over semantics
only reinforces the OP's original call for etiquette.

The FAA is inconsistent with the interpretation of their own
regulations. Is that news?

Can we at least agree that blundering onto either a taxiway or runway
without clearance is wrong and can get your flying, if not your
breathing, privileges suspended?

Curt

On Sep 17, 8:09*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting..
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

Thank you sincerely, Jim. I'm not going to say that crossing the
taxiway is a runway incursion again until I hear it from the FAA
directly and can give you the name and direct quote. That's fair.

It's up to you guys whether you want to accept that an FSDO speaker
and tower reported the incidents I described as runway incursions. Out
here, though, every instructor, pilot and tower operator I've been
able to talk to about it considers it a runway incursion. I'm
repeating what several sources have taught me, and, they're all good
people. Maybe we're all wrong. In practice, our students do not cross
the line without clearance from tower. If anybody here finds fault
with -that-, please explain why.

The ONLY reason I posted it here after not posting so long is to share
to other pilots so that perhaps they will be more careful at
unfamiliar airports, and so that they don't get reported to the FAA,
because I saw it happen on August 7 and 8 at Troutdale. If anybody
truly "fears for the fact that there are CFI's out there spreading
this level of misinformation," then, take it up with the FAA because
they licensed me. Be sure to tell them that I am trying to get people
to stay off of taxiways without clearance, and make sure you give them
my name. If I'm indeed incorrect about what a runway incursion is, I
can tell them exactly why their documentation is misleading.
Otherwise, please keep that snarky nonsense to yourself because it
doesn't contribute to the discussion.

As for the civility, I am truly sorry if I have helped diminish it.
That is the opposite of my intent.

-Chris

C Gattman wrote:

If anybody
truly "fears for the fact that there are CFI's out there spreading
this level of misinformation," then, take it up with the FAA because
they licensed me.


That's a good idea. Thanks.

C Gattman wrote

there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation,"
then, take it up with the FAA because they licensed me.

Mr. Gattman.....First, you are NOT a CFI and second, the FAA did
NOT "license" you. The FAA has issued me a Certificate (not License)
as a Flight Instructor (not CFI).

Bob Moore
Flight Instructor Certificate Number CFI1450645