Runway incursions

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

You did post a web page by Gene Benson that supported your position. After
I contacted Mr. Benson and pointed out the errors and provided
him with current documentation he thanked me for the correction and
took down his page. That's how reasonable behave.


That last sentence should have been, "That's how reasonable people behave."
My fingers apparently move faster than electrons.

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

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.

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
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.

Just to clarify the intent of my post and my sentence above: I believe it
was pointed out elsewhere in this thread that the FAA had adopted the
ICAO definition of runway incursion. So I went looking for the original
ICAO defining document and couldn't find it (at least not without
considerable expense.) While it now appears the PowerPoint file I found
may contain out of date information on the ICAO definition, it does
establish in my own mind why many people would continue to report taxiway
incursions (pardon; I don't know if there is an FAA or ICAO category
phrase for the concept of a collision hazard or actual collision on a
taxiway) as 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...20Presentation
.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."

Interesting. The NTSB PowerPoint document I reference above has a
creation date of July 21, 2005 (found by opening the Properties dialog
for the file in PowerPoint.) So if the ICAO changed the definition in
2004, it appears that even federal employees were slow to note the change
in the ICAO definition.

The FAA followed suit last year.

Since it appears that it took around 4 years for the FAA to officially
adopt that definition, I personally don't see why this definitional issue
is worth the amount of insults that were hurled at the OP.

Jim Logajan wrote:

Just to clarify the intent of my post and my sentence above: I
believe it was pointed out elsewhere in this thread that the FAA had
adopted the ICAO definition of runway incursion. So I went looking
for the original ICAO defining document and couldn't find it (at
least not without considerable expense.) While it now appears the
PowerPoint file I found may contain out of date information on the
ICAO definition, it does establish in my own mind why many people
would continue to report taxiway incursions (pardon; I don't know if
there is an FAA or ICAO category phrase for the concept of a
collision hazard or actual collision on a taxiway) as runway
incursion.


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.



Interesting. The NTSB PowerPoint document I reference above has a
creation date of July 21, 2005 (found by opening the Properties dialog
for the file in PowerPoint.) So if the ICAO changed the definition in
2004, it appears that even federal employees were slow to note the
change in the ICAO definition.


Most wouldn't notice or care. Nothing changes for them until the FAA takes
action.



Since it appears that it took around 4 years for the FAA to officially
adopt that definition, I personally don't see why this definitional
issue is worth the amount of insults that were hurled at the OP.


The FAA's adoption of the ICAO definition has nothing to do with it. Have
you read all of the messages in this thread? The OP insisted his position
was correct even after irrefutable, verifiable documentation had been
posted, multiple times, that proved it to be incorrect. He cited one FAA
website about four times to support his position that clearly stated runway
incursions occur only on runways. The guy's wacko.

Steven P. McNicoll schreef:
The guy's wacko.

Hm. Might be. Not sure, though.
But, err, what's the FAA definition for "wacko" ?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
[...] He cited one FAA website about four times [...]

"About"? I'm not sure I give any credence to someone who has difficulty
counting past three.

The guy's wacko.

Not nearly as wacko as you, who corrects others when they aren't precise on
an issue of no practical value to runway safety, but can't be bothered with
precision in something as trivial as counting.

"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?")

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." 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."