If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Sep 17, 2:09*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: C Gattman wrote: "It is important to note that the FAA formerly tracked incidents that did not involve potential aircraft conflicts as surface incidents. These incidents were not classified as “runway incursions” and were tracked and monitored separately. Most of these events are now considered Category C or D incursions, which are low-risk incidents with either no conflict potential or ample time or distance to avoid a collision. This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 There you go. *Straight from the FAA. There I go what? *What is your point? What part of the official FAA documentation can't you grasp? You quoted the FAA at me but now that I quoted them back at you, you suddenly fail to grasp the point? Read it again: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 "This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." Runway incursions--again, straight from the FAA--are now categorized as A, B, C or D depending on the severity. I have offered you abundant FAA resource material to read about this yourself. So when the FAA refers to "Category C or D incursions," it shouldn't be too difficult to determine what they mean. Especially since I just confirmed this with an on-duty air traffic controller at Troutdale. Goodbye. -c |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On 09/17/09 13:36, C Gattman wrote:
"It is important to note that the FAA formerly tracked incidents that did not involve potential aircraft conflicts as surface incidents. These incidents were not classified as “runway incursions” and were tracked and monitored separately. Most of these events are now considered Category C or D incursions, which are low-risk incidents with either no conflict potential or ample time or distance to avoid a collision. This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 There you go. Straight from the FAA. I shot the Seattle FSDO an e-mail. Difficult to contact them by phone. -c Chris, I think you misunderstood what they said in that news release. At the top, they still said that a runway incursion dealt with a "runway" only. Is it possible that what they now call Cat C or D incursions still happened on a runway, but with such low probability for collision that they "used" to categorize them as "surface incidences"? That is how I read it. If so, then the bottom line is that a runway incursion must happen on a runway (or a surface used for take off/landing...). Also, if the FSDO guy was wrong, what would you do if you were a lowly tower controller in a small town airport? Especially if you weren't sure whether the FSDO guy was correct? Do what the FSDO guy said? Probably - just to be safe. Best Regards, -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Morgans wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion. I agree fully with that. Isn't there an official term for operation on a taxiway without permission, or operating equipment that does not have a yellow blinking light? I seem to recall "unauthorized movement" or something like that. Unauthorized operation on a taxiway would be a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or Pedestrian Deviation, depending on the culprit. I saw a Coyote Deviation a couple of days ago... |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
C Gattman wrote:
I certainly make mistakes, but not this time. I have verified this through mulitiple sources, we just spoke with Troutdale Tower, and, except for rec.aviation.piloting, the answer is uniform. Please list those multiple sources. The FSDO type who gave the seminar is a furloughed airline pilot. I've heard people say that ATC jobs are for people who can't fly airplanes. Interesting. You'll find people in FSDO that got there by washing out of ATC. I've yet to find a controller that washed out of FSDO. I don't pay heed to that stuff. Let's stick with facts as we are able to determine them. Hold that thought. I sincerely respect your opinion and experience, but, I cannot do that. The rules as you may have known them have changed. Here is the word, directly from the FAA: "It is important to note that the FAA formerly tracked incidents that did not involve potential aircraft conflicts as surface incidents. These incidents were not classified as "runway incursions" and were tracked and monitored separately. Most of these events are now considered Category C or D incursions, which are low-risk incidents with either no conflict potential or ample time or distance to avoid a collision. This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 There is nothing there that supports your position. Why did you choose to cut and paste just that paragraph? Why didn't you include the preceding paragraph, which actually defined Runway Incursion? "What is a Runway Incursion? A runway incursion is any unauthorized intrusion onto a runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential conflict. This is the international standard, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization and adopted by the FAA in fiscal year 2008." Now, about that thought you were holding... . Furthermore, three CFIIs and myself just contacted Troutdale Tower. The controller told us taxiway incursions are still classified as runway incursions but that the incident would be further detailed as a "pilot deviation." (In an example where the aircraft enters a "protected area" such as a taxiway without permission.) They report it as a runway incursion and the cause will be determined as a pilot deviation. That's how it's done now. No. That is not how it's done now. It's done in accordance with FAA Order 8020.16 Air Traffic Organization Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting. Unauthorized operation on a taxiway is properly reported as a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or Pedestrian Deviation. http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi.../media/AAI.pdf |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
C Gattman wrote:
What part of the official FAA documentation can't you grasp? I can't grasp why you're posting a portion of something that clearly indicates you're wrong while maintaining that you're right. Are you TRYING to look stupid? You quoted the FAA at me but now that I quoted them back at you, you suddenly fail to grasp the point? Read it again: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 "This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." Runway incursions--again, straight from the FAA--are now categorized as A, B, C or D depending on the severity. I have offered you abundant FAA resource material to read about this yourself. So when the FAA refers to "Category C or D incursions," it shouldn't be too difficult to determine what they mean. Especially since I just confirmed this with an on-duty air traffic controller at Troutdale. Perhaps YOU should read it again, or, more likely, read the preceding paragraph which you skipped for the first time: What is a Runway Incursion? A runway incursion is any unauthorized intrusion onto a runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential conflict. This is the international standard, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization and adopted by the FAA in fiscal year 2008. It is important to note that the FAA formerly tracked incidents that did not involve potential aircraft conflicts as surface incidents. These incidents were not classified as "runway incursions" and were tracked and monitored separately. Most of these events are now considered Category C or D incursions, which are low-risk incidents with either no conflict potential or ample time or distance to avoid a collision. This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions. There are four categories of runway incursions: a.. Category A is a serious incident in which a collision was narrowly avoided b.. Category B is an incident in which separation decreases and there is a significant potential for collision, which may result in a time critical corrective/evasive response to avoid a collision. c.. Category C is an incident characterized by ample time and/or distance to avoid a collision. d.. Category D is an incident that meets the definition of runway incursion such as incorrect presence of a single vehicle/person/aircraft on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft but with no immediate safety consequences. Here's some friendly advice; you're in a hole, stop digging. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
More info: 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 a loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to takeoff, landing, or intending to land.” (FAA Safety report, 2006) http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...rireport06.pdf Note: "ANY OCCURRENCE AT AN AIRPORT"... That was in 2006. "The FAA's evolving safety management approach will include: - Making the transion to the ICAO standardized definition of a runway incursion...." -ibid "The biggest difference between the two definitions is that ICAO defines a runway incursion as any unauthorized intrusion onto a runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential conflict. For the FAA, an incident without an aircraft in potential conflict — such as an unauthorized aircraft crossing an empty runway — was defined as a “surface incident” and not a runway incursion. The new definition means that some incidents formerly classified as surface incidents will now be classified as C or D category runway incursions, which are low-risk incidents with ample time and/or distance to avoid a collision." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=9612 (effective Oct 1, 2007) [seems contradictory] "Although the official FAA definition of a runway incursion considers those incidents where an actual loss of separation occurs, for the purpose of Part 139, runway incursions or runway deviations (not involving a loss of separation) are based on any unauthorized entry of a ground vehicle onto the movement area or safety area." http://www.alaska.faa.gov/airports/s...ification.html We can debate whether they should be called "runway incursions" or just "incursions" all day long, but, where the rubber meets the taxiway, which is at present about 75 feet behind where I'm sitting, if you enter the taxiway without clearance, the tower, which is about 100 yards to the west of me right now, will report it as a runway incursion and, according to them, the FAA will generally rule that it was caused by pilot deviation. That's quite simply how it works, right now, at the Class D towered airport where I am presently writing this, according to the chief pilot, the CFIs, CFIIs and ATPs who are here right now, the FSDO and the FAA-licensed controller of the FAA control tower with whom we just spoke. -c |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
C Gattman wrote:
We can debate whether they should be called "runway incursions" or just "incursions" all day long, but, where the rubber meets the taxiway, which is at present about 75 feet behind where I'm sitting, if you enter the taxiway without clearance, the tower, which is about 100 yards to the west of me right now, will report it as a runway incursion and, according to them, the FAA will generally rule that it was caused by pilot deviation. That's quite simply how it works, right now, at the Class D towered airport where I am presently writing this, according to the chief pilot, the CFIs, CFIIs and ATPs who are here right now, the FSDO and the FAA-licensed controller of the FAA control tower with whom we just spoke. Something in the water out there? I'll contact FSDO dude and tower dudes tomorrow, I contacted Gene Benson today. Here is my message to him followed by his reply: Dear Mr. Benson, Your web page on Runway Incursions has been brought to my attention. I noted the following: "By the way, a runway incursion is simply driving an airplane to somewhere it is not supposed to be on a particular airport at that particular time. Runway incursions are not limited to controlled airports or to runways. If reported, an airplane taxiing onto a runway at an uncontrolled airport while another airplane is on final approach would be considered to be a runway incursion. Also, an airplane at a controlled airport that entered a taxiway onto which it had not been cleared would also be considered a runway incursion." That's not correct, runway incursions pretty much ARE limited to runways. Almost a year ago the definition of Runway Incursion in FAA Order 7050.1 was amended to be consistent with the ICAO definition: "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 previous definition, which had been in use since 1987, was: "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." Unauthorized operation on a taxiway at a towered airport would be a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or a Pedestrian Deviation, depending on the culprit. Sincerely, Steven P McNicoll GRB ATCT http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../ND/7050.1.pdf http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...N%207050.2.pdf His reply: Thanks for the correct info. My notes show that I got that information from a JFK controller who spoke at a designated examiner meeting in 2004. Anyway, the article was rather dated so I took it down. Regards, Gene |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On Sep 17, 3:14*pm, Mark Hansen wrote:
* Also, if the FSDO guy was wrong, what would you do if you were a lowly tower controller in a small town airport? Especially if you weren't sure whether the FSDO guy was correct? Do what the FSDO guy said? Probably - just to be safe. That sounds plausible, but, it couldn't have happened that way in this case. The FSDO guy didn't tell them what to do. He just called them to see if they had reported the incursion for the guy who walked onto the taxiway to take a picture of the B-17 (Sentimental Journey). They replied to him, while I was standing next to him, that they had reported two runway incursions including one against a homebuilt Velocity that taxied all over the place, made a 180-degree turn practically under the nose of the B-17 and then reentered the taxiway somewhere down the line without clearance. We all saw him roar right up to the bomber (after nearly striking his wing on final...are they all that unstable?) but we weren't aware until then that Tower had reported it as an incursion until the FSDO rep--a furloughed airline pilot, not some guy who couldn't get a flying job--said so. I told him "It's not normally that chaotic here. The B-17 is visible from the freeway so everybody's coming over to see." He said "It's August." Then he said that it's not nearly as bad as places like Aspen and Oshkosh, where certain elite types act as if they're above basic safety and courtesy procedures, let alone regulation. This all occurred on August 7. (I checked the date on the photos I took of the bomber swinging the gear.) BTW, the guy with the Velocity was an a-hole. He practically taxied INTO the group of people in the parking area even after the fuel guy was trying to wave him off. There was absolutely nowhere for him to go; he had the bomber to his left, a bunch of Cessnas to his right and a building in front of him. He had to turn around. Several of us including a couple of the CAF guys offered to help turn him around, but, instead, he started his engine, jacked the throttle and made a 180-degree turn spraying the B-17, the maintenance guys working under it, the public and FBO staff with propwash and tarmac debris before dashing off in a huff and then wandering back onto the taxiway. The woman that was with him looked clearly distressed, but she left with him the next day. -c |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
"C Gattman" wrote "It is important to note that the FAA formerly tracked incidents that did not involve potential aircraft conflicts as surface incidents. These incidents were not classified as “runway incursions” and were tracked and monitored separately. Most of these events are now considered Category C or D incursions, which are low-risk incidents with either no conflict potential or ample time or distance to avoid a collision. This means that the total number of runway incursion reports increased primarily because surface incidents are now classified as runway incursions." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=10166 There you go. Straight from the FAA. Your reading comprehension is very low, if you think anything in that report says that being in the wrong place on a taxiway is a runway incursion. In fact, there is nothing at all in the whole page that supports your position. The quoted section speaks about the reclassification of taxi incidents where the aircraft crossed a runway during taxi procedures, and did not cause an immediate conflict. It does clearly state the type of problem involved crossing runways incorrectly. -- Jim in NC |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Runway incursions
On 09/17/09 16:03, C Gattman wrote:
More info: 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 a loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to takeoff, landing, or intending to land.” (FAA Safety report, 2006) http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...rireport06.pdf Note: "ANY OCCURRENCE AT AN AIRPORT"... That was in 2006. "The FAA's evolving safety management approach will include: - Making the transion to the ICAO standardized definition of a runway incursion...." -ibid "The biggest difference between the two definitions is that ICAO defines a runway incursion as any unauthorized intrusion onto a runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential conflict. For the FAA, an incident without an aircraft in potential conflict — such as an unauthorized aircraft crossing an empty runway — was defined as a “surface incident” and not a runway incursion. The new definition means that some incidents formerly classified as surface incidents will now be classified as C or D category runway incursions, which are low-risk incidents with ample time and/or distance to avoid a collision." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=9612 (effective Oct 1, 2007) [seems contradictory] "Although the official FAA definition of a runway incursion considers those incidents where an actual loss of separation occurs, for the purpose of Part 139, runway incursions or runway deviations (not involving a loss of separation) are based on any unauthorized entry of a ground vehicle onto the movement area or safety area." http://www.alaska.faa.gov/airports/s...ification.html We can debate whether they should be called "runway incursions" or just "incursions" all day long, but, where the rubber meets the taxiway, which is at present about 75 feet behind where I'm sitting, if you enter the taxiway without clearance, the tower, which is about 100 yards to the west of me right now, will report it as a runway incursion and, according to them, the FAA will generally rule that it was caused by pilot deviation. That's quite simply how it works, right now, at the Class D towered airport where I am presently writing this, according to the chief pilot, the CFIs, CFIIs and ATPs who are here right now, the FSDO and the FAA-licensed controller of the FAA control tower with whom we just spoke. -c Chris, I think you may be placing too much faith in what you heard from one FSDO guy and your local tower controllers. You argued that it doesn't matter whether or not they're right, because they're the ones making the rules in your area, but that's not really true. Even if they report something as a runway incursion, that doesn't make it one if it is not. Best Regards, -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ILS Runway 1, Visual approach runway 4 KMEI - Video | A Lieberma[_2_] | Owning | 0 | July 4th 09 06:13 PM |
Runway Red Lights to cut down on incursions. | Gig 601XL Builder[_2_] | Piloting | 23 | March 3rd 08 08:28 PM |
Runway incursions | James Robinson | Piloting | 6 | November 10th 07 06:29 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
Talk about runway incursions... | Dave Russell | Piloting | 7 | August 13th 03 02:09 AM |