Runway incursions

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

But it doesn't explain why anyone would consider the unauthorized
presence on a taxiway in the US to be a runway incursion because the
FAA definition of runway incursion has never included taxiways.


Probably because the FAA manages to contradict itself on what
constitutes a runway and a taxiway. Consider "Case 1" on page B-1 of
the 2008 Runway Safety Report:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...RSReport08.pdf

"Although he is not on the runway, the aircraft's nose is across
the hold-short line, usually 175 feet from the runway.

A runway incursion has occurred since separation rules
require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before an
aircraft can land or take off on that runway."

So here we have an FAA document saying in the first sentence that
example aircraft B was _not_ on the runway. In fact it indicates
aircraft B's nose could be as far as 175 feet from the runway. But in
the second sentence it says a runway incursion happened anyway
because aircraft B _was_ on the runway! In order for me to make sense
of those two sentences, either the definition of what constitutes a
runway has to change between them or the definition has to contain a
non-trivial conditional. If they said the runway was that portion
past the hold-short line then their discussion wouldn't contradict
itself (on the other hand, what would one then call 175 feet of
pavement between the hold-short line and the runway proper in their
example other than a "taxiway?")


The second sentence does not say a runway incursion happened anyway because
aircraft B was on the runway. It says, "A runway incursion has occurred
since separation rules require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before
an aircraft can land or take off on that runway." The aircraft had crossed
the hold-short line, which put it in the Runway Safety Area, a protected
surface. Since a Runway Incursion is defined as "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 takeoff of
aircraft", the aircraft's incorrect presence in the Runway Safety Area
constitutes a Runway Incursion.

Runway Safety Areas are explained on page C-13, you obviously did not read
the
entire document.



Based on the evidence so far, I have no confidence that you know (or
the FAA actually has) a consistent definition of "runway," "taxiway,"
or "runway incursion."


You might have greater confidence if you bothered to read fully and
attempted to understand these documents. It's clear to me you're Googling
keywords in an attempt to support a predetermined, and incorrect, position.



So if you could stop insulting others until
you or they collectively get your acts together, it would be
appreciated. Otherwise you come across (as you have put it) as a
"wacko."


I've insulted nobody.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

But it doesn't explain why anyone would consider the unauthorized
presence on a taxiway in the US to be a runway incursion because the
FAA definition of runway incursion has never included taxiways.


Probably because the FAA manages to contradict itself on what
constitutes a runway and a taxiway. Consider "Case 1" on page B-1 of
the 2008 Runway Safety Report:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...RSReport08.pdf

"Although he is not on the runway, the aircraft's nose is across
the hold-short line, usually 175 feet from the runway.

A runway incursion has occurred since separation rules
require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before an
aircraft can land or take off on that runway."

So here we have an FAA document saying in the first sentence that
example aircraft B was _not_ on the runway. In fact it indicates
aircraft B's nose could be as far as 175 feet from the runway. But in
the second sentence it says a runway incursion happened anyway
because aircraft B _was_ on the runway! In order for me to make sense
of those two sentences, either the definition of what constitutes a
runway has to change between them or the definition has to contain a
non-trivial conditional. If they said the runway was that portion
past the hold-short line then their discussion wouldn't contradict
itself (on the other hand, what would one then call 175 feet of
pavement between the hold-short line and the runway proper in their
example other than a "taxiway?")


The second sentence does not say a runway incursion happened anyway
because aircraft B was on the runway. It says, "A runway incursion
has occurred since separation rules require that a runway be clear of
any obstacle before an aircraft can land or take off on that runway."
The aircraft had crossed the hold-short line, which put it in the
Runway Safety Area, a protected surface. Since a Runway Incursion is
defined as "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 takeoff of aircraft", the
aircraft's incorrect presence in the Runway Safety Area constitutes a
Runway Incursion.

Sorry, but the second sentence indicates the _runway_, _not_ the _runway
safety area_ contained an obstacle. Neither sentence use the terms
"protected surface" or "runway safety area" - and the authors could and
should have if that was their intent. The definition of "runway
incursion" doesn't do anything to resolve the contradiction in the
example because the sentences can be reduced using standard logical
reduction to:

"Although X was not an obstacle on R, X was an obstacle on R."

The "separation rules" and definition of "runway incursion" (or any other
written material in the universe) cannot change a statement of the form
"A and not A" from a contradiction to a tautology.

So you appear be be engaging in the same mistake Gattman was accused of:
reading the wrong meaning in a segment of text because of your
preconceived ideas.

Runway Safety Areas are explained on page C-13, you obviously did not
read the entire document.

I skimmed the entire document, including that section. If the authors had
meant to write "runway safety area" instead of "runway" in the second
sentence of Case 1 on page B-1 there was nothing stopping them. You are
reading words into the text that aren't there.

Based on the evidence so far, I have no confidence that you know (or
the FAA actually has) a consistent definition of "runway," "taxiway,"
or "runway incursion."


You might have greater confidence if you bothered to read fully and
attempted to understand these documents. It's clear to me you're
Googling keywords in an attempt to support a predetermined, and
incorrect, position.

You are confusing me with Gattman. I have no predetermined position - I
was a lurker with nothing to gain or lose by posting one way or the
other. I know neither of you personally and had no reason to pick sides
or a position because the definition of "runway incursion" per se is of
no consequence to me. I haven't bothered to reply to Gattman's posts
because others have already pointed out his reading error, though in ways
I deplore.

I heartily admit to attempting to do research on "runway incursion" - I
can hardly expect you to do so in an unbiased manner at this point!

So if you could stop insulting others until
you or they collectively get your acts together, it would be
appreciated. Otherwise you come across (as you have put it) as a
"wacko."


I've insulted nobody.

You are not in a position to make that assertion unless you have ESP.

Jim Logajan wrote:

Sorry, but the second sentence indicates the _runway_, _not_ the
_runway safety area_ contained an obstacle. Neither sentence use the
terms "protected surface" or "runway safety area" - and the authors
could and should have if that was their intent. The definition of
"runway incursion" doesn't do anything to resolve the contradiction
in the example because the sentences can be reduced using standard
logical reduction to:

"Although X was not an obstacle on R, X was an obstacle on R."

The "separation rules" and definition of "runway incursion" (or any
other written material in the universe) cannot change a statement of
the form "A and not A" from a contradiction to a tautology.

So you appear be be engaging in the same mistake Gattman was accused
of: reading the wrong meaning in a segment of text because of your
preconceived ideas.


Does Case 1 fit the definition of runway incursion?



You are not in a position to make that assertion unless you have ESP.


Actually, I am the sole person in a position to make that assertion

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:20:25 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

So if you could stop insulting others until
you or they collectively get your acts together, it would be
appreciated. Otherwise you come across (as you have put it) as a
"wacko."


I've insulted nobody.

You are not in a position to make that assertion unless you have ESP.

The real problem is that there is any discussion on Usenet insulting
anyone fer Chrissakes it's Usenet, it's print on screen.