Runway incursions

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:03 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
C Gattman wrote:

At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered
a runway incursion.

No it isn't. A runway incursion is

Mr. McNicoll, I was standing next to an FAA official guest from the
Seattle FSDO after he had just given a CFI seminar on teaching runway
incursion avoidance when this happened. I'm quoting official FAA
sources, firsthand. Your sourceless contradiction of this puts
readers of this forum who fly at risk by providing faulty and bad
information, so I am compelled to respond. I'm trying to tell you that
I witnessed the FAA Runway Safety official call the tower and then
turn to tell me that ATC had reported TWO runway incursions: One for
a pedestrian on the taxiway, and another for an airplane that roamed
back onto Alpha without clearance.

So, if you have something in an official context that you'd like to
share, do so. According to airlinesafety.com, "The FAA defines a
runway incursion as Any occurrence at an airport involving an
aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a
collision hazard or results in loss of separation with an aircraft
taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land."

Strictly speaking, an incursion onto a taxiway is a taxiway incursion.
But, straight from the horse's mouth, the result is the same. There
are only three sources to which they assign blame and unless it's
ATC's fault or you're a pedestrian, the weight of the investigation
falls on the pilot of the aircraft.

I strongly encourage you to discuss this with your local FSDO
directly. If you walk, drive or operate your aircraft on a taxiway at
a towered airport, without clearance, your opinion of the what a
runway incursion is won't prevent them from taking action against
you.

-chris
Commercial Pilot, Certified Flight Instructor
Troutdale, Oregon


Mr. Gattman, I did not offer an opinion.


FAA Notice N JO 7050.2
Effective October 1, 2007, the FAA Administrator approved the use of the
following ICAO definition of runway incursion:

"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 take-off of aircraft"

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...N%207050.2.pdf

I strongly encourage you to discuss this with your FAA official guest from
the Seattle FSDO that gave that CFI seminar and bring him up to speed.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
C Gattman wrote:
At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered a
runway incursion.

No it isn't. A runway incursion is "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 take
off of aircraft."

At the same airport, taxiing onto an active taxiway without clearance
is a runway incursion.

Only if it's been designated for the landing and take off of aircraft.

I believe I've found additional material that contradicts the view that
only areas designated for "landing and take off" are included in the
ICAO definition of runway incursion. The following PowerPoint
presentation (specifically slide 2) seems to me to indicate that at
least one person at the NTSB believes that the ICAO definition of
"runway incursion" includes taxiway protected areas (the definition
of which I'm not sure):

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_ri/R...esentation.ppt

Here's the relevant text for those not having a PowerPoint veiwer (the
first bullet point, "This differs..." is the point at which taxiways
make their way into the discussion):

FAA Definition of Incursion

Runway Incursion (U.S.) - "Any occurrence at an airport involving an
aircraft, person or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard
or results in loss of separation _with an aircraft taking off, intending
to take off, landing or intending to land._"

o This differs from the ICAO definition* which covers any incursion of a
runway or taxiway "protected area."

o The ICAO standard* for taxi instructions to an active runway mandates
clearances across every runway en route to that active runway for
takeoff. In the U.S., a clearance to the active runway implies
clearance to cross all runways en route.

* ICAO PansOps publication 4444

The 2009/2010 edition of the ICAO publication in question appears to
cost $258, and the only "free"/"copyright theft" version I found on the
net[*] is about 13 years old (and doesn't seem to mention the concept in
any set of words I can find.) It may not even be the publication with
the proper definition. Since this is an argument over an FAA policy
classification definition, and doesn't appear to involve anything a
pilot needs to know for safe operations, I'm not going to do further
research along those lines.
[*] A local NATCA union web site had a copy of the 13th edition of said
publication:
http://www.thetracon.com/docs/4444.pdf

Jim Logajan wrote:

I believe I've found additional material that contradicts the view
that only areas designated for "landing and take off" are included in
the ICAO definition of runway incursion.


I don't believe the ICAO definition of "runway incursion" has been at issue
here.



The following PowerPoint
presentation (specifically slide 2) seems to me to indicate that at
least one person at the NTSB believes that the ICAO definition of
"runway incursion" includes taxiway protected areas (the definition
of which I'm not sure):

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_ri/R...esentation.ppt

Here's the relevant text for those not having a PowerPoint veiwer (the
first bullet point, "This differs..." is the point at which taxiways
make their way into the discussion):

FAA Definition of Incursion

Runway Incursion (U.S.) - "Any occurrence at an airport involving an
aircraft, person or object on the ground that creates a collision
hazard or results in loss of separation _with an aircraft taking
off, intending to take off, landing or intending to land._"

o This differs from the ICAO definition* which covers any incursion
of a runway or taxiway "protected area."


Old definitions. ICAO adopted this definition of "Runway Incursion" in
2004:

"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 take off of aircraft."

The FAA followed suit last year.

On Sep 19, 12:00*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_ri/R...%20Presentatio...

* *FAA Definition of Incursion

* *Runway Incursion (U.S.) - "Any occurrence at an airport involving an *aircraft, person or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard
* *or results in loss of separation _with an aircraft taking off, intending *to take off, landing or intending to land._"

The "intending to take off" and "intending to land" reoccurs in other
publications, some self-contradictory.

It may be that ATC doesn't interpret regs uniformly, but, "Any
occurence at an airport... that creates a collision hazard" could be
interpreted a lot of ways by the staff at a control tower. Especially
if the FAA is around. But, word by everybody I've spoken to about it
at Troutdale so far is, they call it a runway incursion.

-c

On Aug 11, 4:16*pm, C Gattman wrote:

Instructors, FBOs: Teach this stuff. Safety and etiquette. If you see
random people showing up, remember that feeling you get when you see
your favorite airplane at your local airport. An off-duty instructor
saying "Here, I'll walk you around and see how close we can get" is a
great opportunity to promote GA and fuel interest in flying. It's an
opportunity for you to teach safety, by example, to aviation
enthusiasts, reporters, etc.

Great post Chris,

I also think training fails miserably when it comes to airport
ettiquette. Case in point would be runup. Where exactly should be
run up be done at some airports that don't have runup pads. End of
the taxiway, empty area of the ramp.

Rhetorical questions as common sense says do it at the hold short
line, but there are some airports that don't have taxiways, you taxi
onto the ramp and "back taxi" for departure.

Lots of this is common sense, but I have actually seen pilots do a
runup "into the wind" and send the prop blast back to areas that prop
blast doesn't belong.