Runway incursions

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.

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

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.

On Sep 15, 8:35*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

"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.

I'll be sure to tell him some guy on the internet said he was wrong,
after ATC--totally different people that the guest--filed two runway
incursion reports for taxiway incursions.

Enter a taxiway or other "protected area" at a towered airport without
clearance, it's an incursion. I've seen it happen, confirmed that it
was reported, and discussed it with the FAA after their Runway
Incursion seminar. I don't care what you read on the internet.

Readers are free to form their own opinions and choose their own
safety practices. I'm just telling people what happened.

-c

On Sep 16, 4:22*am, C Gattman wrote:

Enter a taxiway or other "protected area" at a towered airport without
clearance, it's an incursion. I've seen it happen, confirmed that it
was reported, and discussed it with the FAA after their Runway
Incursion seminar. *I don't care what you read on the internet.

If your FAA source says that an incorrect entry on a taxiway is
defined as a runway incursion, surely you can find it on the FAA
website to back up his opinion.

Steven and I gave you the FAA source "read on the internet" surely
you can reciprocate? http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/ as a
reminder. Otherwise, why would your word be of higher probative value
then the FAA website?

On Sep 16, 6:05*am, BeechSundowner wrote:

Steven and I gave you the FAA source "read on the internet" *surely you can reciprocate? *http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/as a
reminder. *Otherwise, why would your word be of higher probative value then the FAA website?

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.

All current US pilots should be familiar with the NonMovement Area
Boundary. (AIM 2-3-6 c.) It's a solid yellow line with a broken yellow
line next to it. ."

The NMAB "delineates movement area under control of ATCT, from non-
movement area." According to the AIM, "These markings delineate the
movement area, ie, AREA UNDER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL" [emphasis mine]
Specifically, per AC 150/340-18D :Standards for Airport Sign Systems"
and AC 150/5340-1J "Standards for Airport Markings", the NMAB is
"located on the boundary between movement and non-movement area" and
it's located to unsure wing clearance for taxiing aircraft. Additional
sources: AC-90-67 "Light Signals from the Control Tower for Ground
Vehicles, Equipment, an Personnel"

At KTTD, the Movement Area Boundary separates the Alpha and Bravo
taxiways from the parking areas, and according to Troutdale Tower
(Class D), it's a violation to cross it. It's been that way at least
since I started flying there in 1989.

I hope I have established clearly what a movement area is, and what
the boundary looks like.

The Pilot Guide to Airport Signs and Markings which is produced by the
FAA and available from the FAA Office of Runway Safety in Renton, WA,
says in bold, red, italicized letters: "ATC permission is ALWAYS
required to cross from the solid side to the dashed side." [emphasis
theirs] This source is freely available as a full-color quick
reference card that fits in the approach plate book. I'm not going to
post her e-mail address but I can post the mailing address if you
want. You might also order "A Pilot's Guide to Surface Operations",
"Airfield Procedures for Vehicles and Pedestrians" (it's a poster) and
the "Safe Surface Operations" CD-ROM.

I bet there isn't a CFI out here who hasn't taught students that you
need to get tower clearance before you cross the Non Movement Area
Boundary onto the taxiway.

Finally, from your own source: http://www.faa.gov/aso/runwaysafety/Docs/Training.ppt
defines the following:

" * Movement Area – Runways, taxiways, and other areas of an
airport which are used for taxiing, or hover taxiing, air taxiing,
takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and
aircraft parking areas. [Read that again.]

* Runway Incursion – Any occurrence at an airport involving an
aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a
collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft
taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land."

I trust all of this has sufficient "probative value" to simply
reinforce my observation that two runway incursions were reported by
KTTD ATC to Seattle when a pedestrian (one) and an aircraft (two)
entered the Alpha Taxiway without clearance. It's not like I'm
claiming to have seen a flying saucer. I have the FAA rep's business
card but I'm certainly not about to post it here.

As for what's on the FAA website, I haven't found an official
definition of "holding out", but don't let them catch you doing it.
You don't want to make all of your aeronautical decisions based solely
on what you read on the FAA website.

-c
Commercial Pilot, CFI. KTTD

C Gattman wrote:

I'll be sure to tell him some guy on the internet said he was wrong,
after ATC--totally different people that the guest--filed two runway
incursion reports for taxiway incursions.


Why don't you tell him some guy on the internet posted verifiable
documentation that proved him wrong? Wouldn't that be more beneficial?
Then he might stop providing CFIs with incorrect information and they
wouldn't be passing it on to their students or posting it on the internet.


Enter a taxiway or other "protected area" at a towered airport without
clearance, it's an incursion.


It's a runway incursion only if that other "protected area" is designated
for the landing and take-off of aircraft, aka a runway. Do you understand
that?



I've seen it happen, confirmed that it
was reported, and discussed it with the FAA after their Runway
Incursion seminar.


It's likely you misunderstood what you saw and heard.



I don't care what you read on the internet.


No? You wrote, "So, if you have something in an official context that you'd
like to share, do so." I did exactly that, and now you say you don't care.
I'm hurt!



Readers are free to form their own opinions and choose their own
safety practices.


Yes, your memories versus verifiable, definitive FAA documents. I know
which way that will go.



I'm just telling people what happened.


As best you can.

C Gattman wrote:

* Runway Incursion – Any occurrence at an airport involving an
aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a
collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft
taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land."


Actually, 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 take-off of
aircraft."



I trust all of this has sufficient "probative value" to simply
reinforce my observation that two runway incursions were reported by
KTTD ATC to Seattle when a pedestrian (one) and an aircraft (two)
entered the Alpha Taxiway without clearance.


It doesn't.



As for what's on the FAA website, I haven't found an official
definition of "holding out", but don't let them catch you doing it.
You don't want to make all of your aeronautical decisions based solely
on what you read on the FAA website.


Or from what a CFI that's long on ego and short on knowledge posts on the
internet.

On 09/16/09 12:33, C Gattman wrote:

* Runway Incursion – Any occurrence at an airport involving an
aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a
collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft
taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land."


-c
Commercial Pilot, CFI. KTTD


Chris,

While reading this thread, I wonder if it's possible that folks are
not seeing eye to eye on what constitutes:

"... with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or
intending to land."

In that some believe operating on the taxiway on the way to the
runway is included in this, while some others think that it is not?

I know that at a towered airport, you must have a clearance before
you may operate on the taxiway. I don't think anyone is trying to
dispute that. But I think the two conversations are focusing on different
aspects of the issue, which is causing some confusion.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Mark Hansen wrote:

I know that at a towered airport, you must have a clearance before
you may operate on the taxiway. I don't think anyone is trying to
dispute that. But I think the two conversations are focusing on
different aspects of the issue, which is causing some confusion.


A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway
without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion.