![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 17, 5:48*pm, Jenny Taylor wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're incorrect, Mr./Ms. Gattman. *Stephen provided the proper definition of a runway incursion and cited its official source from the FAA. *You can try to earn points with the debate club, but that won't change the facts. *Some news story, even cleverly excerpted, does not replace nor supercede the FAA Orders "Some news story?" You mean this one? http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 Published by the FAA? The people who make the FAA Orders? Dated July 30, 2009? Which is more recent than, say, the 2009 FAR/AIM? About a week before the runway incursions the FAA told us were reported? The news story at the FAA.GOV site under "fact sheets" that says "This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." That news story? What's with the "debate club"? Are you being sarcastic now too? Why would you do that? Is that something you would say to me in person? Have I attacked you? No, you are not sorry, and I'm simply quoting the same FAA website that you're declaring authoritative. Maybe you can explain the FAA- sourced material I quoted above or explain how I'm misinterpreting it? Instead of tossing out some snarky-ass "debate club" comment? Maybe not? Who ARE you? -c |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C Gattman wrote:
"Some news story?" You mean this one? http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 Published by the FAA? The people who make the FAA Orders? Dated July 30, 2009? Which is more recent than, say, the 2009 FAR/AIM? About a week before the runway incursions the FAA told us were reported? The news story at the FAA.GOV site under "fact sheets" that says "This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." That news story? Yes, that one, the one that says: 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 09/18/09 22:03, C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:48 pm, Jenny Taylor wrote: I'm sorry, but you're incorrect, Mr./Ms. Gattman. Stephen provided the proper definition of a runway incursion and cited its official source from the FAA. You can try to earn points with the debate club, but that won't change the facts. Some news story, even cleverly excerpted, does not replace nor supercede the FAA Orders "Some news story?" You mean this one? http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 Published by the FAA? The people who make the FAA Orders? Dated July 30, 2009? Which is more recent than, say, the 2009 FAR/AIM? About a week before the runway incursions the FAA told us were reported? The news story at the FAA.GOV site under "fact sheets" that says "This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." That news story? What's with the "debate club"? Are you being sarcastic now too? Why would you do that? Is that something you would say to me in person? Have I attacked you? No, you are not sorry, and I'm simply quoting the same FAA website that you're declaring authoritative. Maybe you can explain the FAA- sourced material I quoted above or explain how I'm misinterpreting it? Chris, I believe you have misinterpreted that article. In my opinion, what it is referring to as incidents that are now being tracked as Category C and D runway incursions were still occurring on runways. It's just that they were considered low-risk, so they were previously "categorized" as surface incidences instead of runway incursions. I don't believe it is stating that incidents occurring on other parts of the airport are now going to be categorized as runway incursions. Of course, as you've stated, the bottom line is that you not operate on the airport without proper clearance, regardless of which specific rule would be violated. Best Regards, -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Hansen wrote:
I believe you have misinterpreted that article. In my opinion, what it is referring to as incidents that are now being tracked as Category C and D runway incursions were still occurring on runways. It's just that they were considered low-risk, so they were previously "categorized" as surface incidences instead of runway incursions. I don't believe it is stating that incidents occurring on other parts of the airport are now going to be categorized as runway incursions. Bingo. The definition of runway incursion was changed about a year ago. Under the former definition an unauthorized operation on a runway at a towered airport where there was no risk of collision or loss of separation, while still a surface incident, was not a runway incursion. Now it is. At no time has an unauthorized operation on a taxiway been considered a runway incursion. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:48 pm, Jenny Taylor wrote: I'm sorry, but you're incorrect, Mr./Ms. Gattman. Stephen provided the proper definition of a runway incursion and cited its official source from the FAA. You can try to earn points with the debate club, but that won't change the facts. Some news story, even cleverly excerpted, does not replace nor supercede the FAA Orders "Some news story?" You mean this one? http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 Yes, you might wish to *read* the URL you cite. It does not support your claim that runway incursions can occur on *taxiways*. Published by the FAA? The people who make the FAA Orders? Dated July 30, 2009? Which is more recent than, say, the 2009 FAR/AIM? The FAA doesn't publish regulations on an annual basis, so there is no "2009 FAR/AIM" published by the FAA. Your favorite publisher compiles regulations and publishes such a title when they feel like it, which is likely obsolete when the ink hits the paper. Federal regulations can and do change whenever the agency creating the regulations feels like it, with certain restrictions for public notification, public comment periods, etc. About a week before the runway incursions the FAA told us were reported? The news story at the FAA.GOV site under "fact sheets" that says "This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." That news story? What's with the "debate club"? Are you being sarcastic now too? Why would you do that? Is that something you would say to me in person? Absolutely! Have I attacked you? Not that I claimed. No, you are not sorry, and I'm simply quoting the same FAA website that you're declaring authoritative. Maybe you can explain the FAA- sourced material I quoted above or explain how I'm misinterpreting it? It states that a runway incursion involves a runway. Instead of tossing out some snarky-ass "debate club" comment? Wow! Guess I really hit home! Maybe not? Who ARE you? I am someone who *understands* what a runway incursion is. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ILS Runway 1, Visual approach runway 4 KMEI - Video | A Lieberma[_2_] | Owning | 0 | July 4th 09 06:13 PM |
Runway Red Lights to cut down on incursions. | Gig 601XL Builder[_2_] | Piloting | 23 | March 3rd 08 08:28 PM |
Runway incursions | James Robinson | Piloting | 6 | November 10th 07 06:29 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
Talk about runway incursions... | Dave Russell | Piloting | 7 | August 13th 03 02:09 AM |