Runway incursions

On Sep 21, 6:14*pm, C Gattman wrote:

Awfer... are you saying I didn't quote sources? *Why, McNicoll
corrected one of them. How'd he do that if I offered "nothing
tangible"?

Only when Steve push you to put up or shut up did you offer anything.
When I provided my link at that time (READ this thread), you offered
me nothing. It's here in this thread if you don't believe me.

What I said was:

Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.

I don't see how you could interpret that as "I'm right because I am an
instructor." *My point was that as an instructor I feel obligated to
clarify in a case where I say something and somebody challenges it or
asks for clarification.

Which I did, I challenged you to give me a source of your information
OUTSIDE hearsay.. I asked you for a source you wouldn't produce WHEN
I ASKED. Your answer was

Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I
feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.
Apparently, telling you what I saw happen has no value to you so
clearly you don't respect my word. I'm not out here to engage in some
sort of penis-measuring contest with a couple of usenet know-it-alls,
if that's what this is going to turn into.

Nothing taken out of context, word for word I copied and pasted your
response above. What kind of CRAP instructor are you? You want
respect GIVE RESPECT. I see nothing respectful out of your response
to me.

I didn't say I know it all, I responded back with a source supporting
what I thought was a definition of a runway incursion. You my friend
did not return that courtesy TO ME for which I asked from you. It's
all here in this thread.

In article ,
brian whatcott wrote:

Mike Ash wrote:
...Do you
refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls
it, after all....

Funny you should mention that.
I carry mental baggage that says though policemen may well pronounce it
vee-HICK-ul, I want to say vee-icle, and so I do!

That is funny. I've never heard that pronunciation outside of movies,
although I don't doubt that it exists. Anyhow, I doubt either of you
adds the "motor" to the front of it.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"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.

On Sep 9, 11:41*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:13*pm, Steve Hix wrote:

And got my act together. Although to this day, I'm a bit twitchy about
ground operations and clearances.

I absolutely can relate Steve as I work out of an uncontrolled
airport. * Taxiways wider then my home base runway, I can fully
understand how that kind of mistake can be made (I haven't done that
myself!) *There is a vast amount of concrete out there!


I'm intrigued to read your and Steve Hix's incidents - had somehow
missed reading them earlier - and how a taxiway could be mistaken for
a runway.

I get to see taxiways and runways all the time (at least twice a
week), but only as a passenger, on the ground maneuvering camera
system displays. I must say that the two paths have always looked
rather distinctively different, with runways having the thick single
yellow centerline flanked by yellow dashes and green lights, and
runways being very wide, with a multitude of yellow lights and a white
dashed centerline. I don't get to see all the backlit signage clearly
but I think they too are different for runways and taxiways.

Since the confusion has actually happened to you, I guess there still
is room for bettering taxiway and runway markings.

Ramapriya

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 Sep 22, 3:13*am, D Ramapriya wrote:

Since the confusion has actually happened to you, I guess there still
is room for bettering taxiway and runway markings.

Ramapriya

Ramopriya

I call it "sensory overload" when confronted with a myriad of things
to take in and absorb. One would think that a yellow line in front of
you should be a clear indication that you are still on a taxiway, but
when confronted with signage that isn't exactly clear on directions,
for me, I lose that yellow line in front of me trying to figure out,
ok, which way do I turn especially when multiple taxiway entrances and
exits are there. Then of course, you listen to ground and you
concentrate so hard on not doing something dumb like a runway
incursion as you are concentrating on staying on the right taxiway.

Even when I ask for progressives with turns, it's quite overwhelming
to me as like I said earlier, an aweful lot concrete presented to me
and I really think the signage is designed for viewing downward from
the cockpit of a jet rather then my measily ole Sundowner. Is it
really a right turn, a sharp right turn or what when looking at a
taxiway arrow. Looks sharp right on the sign but in actually it's
like a yield. I stare at the AFD and look ahead and it sure looks
different LOL

You are absolutely right, there is a distinct difference in markings
for runways and taxiways, but human nature for me almost wants to lose
that detail in trying to "fly the plane" just taxiing. I do believe
distractions are much more prevalent at the larger airports allowing
for simple mistakes such as lining up on a 200 foot wide taxiway for
takeoff. Add in "inexperience" such as myself at controlled airports
and I am sure the error potential goes even higher.

One thing I learned big time especially at airports with multiple
runways is that I always check the DG against the runway numbers
before take off. Comair accident in Lexington taught me that lesson
and I can fully understand how that accident happened as I took off
from the very same runway and even after the accident the signage was
pretty crappy and I had asked for progressives!

The best way I can equate this to a non pilot is that when you drive
on an interstate you know to stay between the dashed white lines but
do you really see the white lines while you are driving? You do, but
it's not the focus of your attention as your attention really is
focused on avoiding the cars around you.

On Sep 22, 4:28*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:13*am, D Ramapriya wrote:

One thing I learned big time especially at airports with multiple
runways is that I always check the DG against the runway numbers
before take off. *Comair accident in Lexington taught me that lesson
and I can fully understand how that accident happened as I took off
from the very same runway and even after the accident the signage was
pretty crappy and I had asked for progressives!


Regarding that LEX crash, I know that everyone busied himself
pillorying the pilots but I think I'll place at least 20% culpability
(whatever that means ) on the sod within Comair who scheduled those
pilots on that trip. From what I've read, they'd returned from flights
the previous night at 11.30 pm and midnight respectively. It's
anybody's guess how well-rested and/or alert they'd have been ere a
6.45 am takeoff the following morning. I don't have the credentials to
either condemn or condone pilot actions but my guess is that since
neither pilot would've had more than 4 hours' sleep the previous
night, they may have been a touch short on the eagle alertness called
for in a high-workload job. You might laugh at the suggestion of pilot
fatigue on a flight that hasn't even commenced but there was fatigue
of *some* sort that contributed to that incident.

Does anyone here have a copy of the accident report of that crash? I
Googled but came up empty...

Ramapriya

On Sep 22, 9:29*am, D Ramapriya wrote:

Does anyone here have a copy of the accident report of that crash? I
Googled but came up empty...

I agree, fatique doesn't start with a flight, it starts when you wake
up if you didn't get adequate rest the night before..

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2007/AAR0705.pdf is the accident report

On Sep 22, 7:12*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Sep 22, 9:29*am, D Ramapriya wrote:

Does anyone here have a copy of the accident report of that crash? I
Googled but came up empty...

I agree, fatique doesn't start with a flight, it starts when you wake
up if you didn't get adequate rest the night before..

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2007/AAR0705.pdfis the accident report


Thanks a bunch, mate. It's apparent that both my earlier sources - a
FOX News analysis and a news article (Reuters, probably) - had
erroneous information about the pilots having returned from flights
late the previous night... wow!

Ramapriya

On Sep 21, 7:37*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:14*pm, C Gattman wrote:

Awfer... are you saying I didn't quote sources? *Why, McNicoll
corrected one of them. How'd he do that if I offered "nothing
tangible"?

Only when Steve push you to put up or shut up did you offer anything.

Oh, so now you're saying I -did- offer something. Get your bull****
straight. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

*I asked you for a source you wouldn't produce WHEN I ASKED. *

LOL! You must think I owe you something? Do I work for you? Save
that crap for your wife or your kids whatever.

Your answer was

Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.

So WTF is your problem with that, besides reading comprehension?
(It's a rhetorical question. You lost my respect with your insult
below.)

I didn't say I know it all, I responded back with a source supporting what I thought was a definition of a runway incursion. *You my friend
did not return that courtesy TO ME

Do not call me your friend. You apparently didn't bother to read the
material I presented to McNicoll on the forum. I see no need to repeat
myself in a print forum and I don't owe you courtesy. I posted all
kinds of URLs in this thread including some from the FAA and one--
we've already gone over this, but---that McNicoll e-mail and had
removed.

Whether you agree with them or not, you know I posted them. So now
you're saying what I told you I observed was "hearsay." If I say I
went to the Hillsboro Airshow, is that "hearsay" too? Sorry to the
other readers here, but, I'm not going to post my coworkers' phone
numbers or whatever just so some pompous internet asshole with a
pseudonym can verify "hearsay."

If you think I'm obligated to prove what I say I saw to every obtuse
usenet jackass on the forum, you're wildly mistaken. I already
clarified what I meant, and you still want to fight about it, so,
clearly you're more interested in fighting than trying to understand
me. As proof:

What kind of CRAP instructor are you?

One that doesn't indulge snide, obtuse usenet jackasses. Glad you
asked. You have one hell of a lack of a clue if you think I -owe- you
anything. I should have just ignored your reply completely, huh? And
now you're insulting me too, so, whatever.

If I disagree with you you don't see me out here blathering about what
kind of CRAP PILOT you are or CRAP CONTROLLER somebody else is.
(Assuming you're a pilot. I mean, it's all just hearsay until somebody
proves it, right?) I'm sorry, I figured you were older than that.
Again, that tells me absolutely everything I need to know about you.

If I don't bow to your disagreement or jump to your satisfaction on
demand, the character assassination begins. You and your little
chronies here can pat each other on the backs. You really told -me-,
didn't you? *cackle*

Bye. The last word is yours.

-c