First NASA form filed

I'm sorry if it sounded that way, but I wasn't being condescending.

Well, ah, certainly no hard feelings (I'm just not like that), but
'remedial' does have a negative connotion to many, though it's true that
there's really nothing so about the dictionary definition of the word.

Airport operations and following taxi instructions are basic knowledge
required to fly safely. You might think it's safe to hold short of a
runway "just in case," but you could have caused a taxiway incursion
by stopping suddenly.

Well, yes, it's most certainly true that the sudden stop was not the
best way to have handled the situation! That said, I'd hope nobody is
on my tail so closely that that's going to cause a collision hazard.

The specific scenario I raised is, unfortunately, apparantly an area of
unclarity for a good number of active pilots. I fly out of D and C
airports quite regularly, and, for one thing, any other time this
situation has arisen I had in fact been explicitly told by the
controller to cross runway x when runway x was active. Seems that most
or many of them like to keep these things crystal clear despite what the
regs say. I cannot recall a single other time when I was given a taxi
instruction that implied crossing an active (but not the destination)
runway without a specific instruction to do so. This may happen at a
good many airports regularly, but I don't think it's the norm at some at
least.

that tower controller (it's possible you misunderstood each other while
discussing this). If he doesn't know it correctly, bring him along to
someone who does, or at least show him the book.

I didn't talk to him, the CFI I mentioned did, and I'm certain that said
CFI had complete understanding of what had occurred.

This reminds me of rules of water -- an unpowered boat has
right of way over powered. In other words, a sailboat has
RoW crossing in front of a large oil tanker.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. I
agree with the original poster. Doesn't hurt to stop at
the intersection and check -- just in case. There have been
reported incidents and accidents where the tower forgot
about the little aircraft taxiing around with jets coming
in.

No one is ever going to fault you for being careful. Tower/ground
may be annoyed at delays in a busy airport, but being safe
is better.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote

================
4-3-18. Taxiing
6. In the absence of holding instructions, a clearance to "taxi to" any
point other than an assigned takeoff runway is a clearance to cross ALL
runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.
============================================
(emphasis mine)

While some may argue that clearance to cross each and every runway should
be given by ATC, at least in the US, that is NOT the case.


--ron

A trick here is, if you are given clearance to taxi to 31, but have to get
to the opposite side of 31 to get to the taxiway that will take you to the
departure end of 31, you may cross any other runways, but may not cross 31
without clearance.
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:48:26 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

A trick here is, if you are given clearance to taxi to 31, but have to get
to the opposite side of 31 to get to the taxiway that will take you to the
departure end of 31, you may cross any other runways, but may not cross 31
without clearance.

That would only be the case if Rwy 31 were your assigned takeoff runway.
The paragraph I quoted (paragraph 6) had to do with clearances to OTHER
than an assigned take-off runway.

For clearances to an assigned takeoff runway see paragraph 5 which clearly
states the point you are making with regard to taxiing to an assigned
takeoff runway:

=====================================
AIM 4-3-18. Taxiing

5. When ATC clears an aircraft to "taxi to" an assigned takeoff runway, the
absence of holding instructions authorizes the aircraft to "cross" all
runways which the taxi route intersects except the assigned takeoff runway.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTHORIZATION TO "TAXI ONTO" OR "CROSS" THE ASSIGNED
TAKEOFF RUNWAY AT ANY POINT.
====================================

(emphasis mine)
--ron

You've gotten many good answers, but I wanted to reply to one comment
you made in passing where I think you have a serious misconception.
which many people share with you...


Paul Folbrecht wrote in message ...
And I sincerely hope it will be the last.

I sincerely hope it is NOT the last.
NASA forms are designed to report safety issues, not just as a "get
out of jail free card." The get out of jail free aspect is only used
as an added incentive to take the time to fill out the form.
Safety issues may come from something you did wrong, or they may come
from something somebody else did wrong, or they may come from
something where everything was done according to the book, yet an
unsafe condition resulted.
A NASA form should be filed for any of these situations.
Please use them to help others.

TJgirl sez:
NASA forms are designed to report safety issues, not just as a "get
out of jail free card."

There's a lot I didn't know about them, and we discussed them today at my BFR.
For one thing, I didn't know where you could get the form itself...or that
there's one among the back pages of the FAR/AIM! (Hey, I thought it was just
all ads for x-ray glasses and more comics back there)

Now I'm sorry I just threw away an old book. But the form's also online. I'm
going to study it, and while I hope I never have to use one, it's nice to know
it can be for something non-serious and will show intent to be a good pilot in
the case that something embarassing (or worse) happens...

Re- read my post. That is what I said.
--
Jim in NC

I've always understood that when directed to taxi TO a runway, you are
granted permission to cross any other runway except the one you are taxing
TO... not when you are taxing from a runway to the RAMP.

BT

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
news
And I sincerely hope it will be the last.

I landed at LSE (LaCrosse) on the way home from the twin cities last
week. I landed on 18 and asked for a progressive taxi to the FBO,
having never been there before. Controller told me to turn left on
taxiway bravo down to the construction cones at the end.

As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
had called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was
over the hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line.
I think it's important to note that the controller had not told me to
hold short of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a
pretty flagrant violation.

After a split second of uncertainty I told tower I was holding at 21.
She immediately told me to continue past in the chipper tone she had
been using all along. Note that nobody had landed on or departed 21
during the entire time of my taxi so there was no loss of separation.

I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
though no explicit instruction had been given, though I'm not 100% sure
of that (but in the future I'll be damn sure to in similar
circumstances!). And, unless the controller deliberately wanted to make
me believe nothing was wrong for some reason, I believe she either
didn't notice I was over the hold (this intersection is pretty close to
the tower) or didn't care. Her voice indicated nothing out of the
ordinary, as I said. I know they don't 'have to' ask you to call the
tower or let you know they're making a report, though.

Though the logical side of my brain tells me that the chances of some
enforcement action here would be slim, of course I filed the form
regardless. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
matter (the chance of some investigation).

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...
"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
news
As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
had
called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was over
the
hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line. I think
it's important to note that the controller had not told me to hold short
of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a pretty
flagrant
violation.


Some people may not like me saying this but I do not agree with the rule
that you are cleared to cross all runways on your way to where you are
taxiing. I think the default should be that they must explicitly tell you
you are cleared to cross ANY runway and when you don't hear that you must
stop and ask (or call and ask as you are approaching it).

I am frequently given instructions which make me cross an active runway
without explicitly saying so and I always ask before doing so and STILL
look
out for traffic on it before crossing.

Nevertheless, this is not what the FARs say. However, the FARs do not
prevent you from taking extra precautions such as these if you feel they are
justified.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
At the "Communicating for Safety" conference put on by NATCA in Dallas, I
got the impression that there is a lot of controller sentiment in favor of
changing the AIM's laissez faire approach to crossing runways enroute to
the
departure runway.

There is a significant amount of pilot sentiment in favor of changing the
default procedure as well. The current situation seems too open to
confusion.