Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

On Oct 4, 4:05*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:

I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in the first place.

I believe you are correct. I have provided the exact official
definition and source of both runway incursions and surface incidents,
as well as a statement of clarification of what the term "runway
incursion" is intended to mean, as well as material that specifically
states what -isn't- an incursion. Nobody else provided that, so I
asked the FSDO. They gave me authoritative source material and I
shared it here.

Apparently, "everybody" was unable or unwilling to do that. But I'm
not out here for some sort of forum-bragging-rights penis-measuring
contest, and what you think you know doesn't change my responsibility
to teach what I believe to my students until I have sufficient
authoritative source material to teach otherwise. Some Guy on the
Internet and His Buddies doesn't count for "authoritative source
material," and a URL doesn't either given the circumstances of being
told otherwise by several professional sources including the FAA. You
guys made it personal. I don't care about that.

But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway
incursions.

Do you feel better about yourself now?

I'm sure General Aviation is much safer overall now that we can all
agree on the bureaucratic distinction between a Runway Incursion and
Surface Incident. It'll never change what I teach my students, though,
which is: Don't cross onto the taxiway without clearance.

If you have a problem with THAT, contact the nearest FSDO.

-c

On Oct 4, 8:37*pm, C Gattman wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:05*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:

I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in the first place.

I believe you are correct. I have provided the exact official
definition and source of both runway incursions and surface incidents,
as well as a statement of clarification of what the term "runway
incursion" is intended to mean, as well as material that specifically
states what -isn't- an incursion. Nobody else provided that, so I
asked the FSDO. They gave me authoritative source material and I
shared it here.

Apparently, "everybody" was unable or unwilling to do that. But I'm
not out here for some sort of forum-bragging-rights penis-measuring
contest, and what you think you know doesn't change my responsibility
to teach what I believe to my students until I have sufficient
authoritative source material to teach otherwise. Some Guy on the
Internet and His Buddies doesn't count for "authoritative source
material," and a URL doesn't either given the circumstances of being
told otherwise by several professional sources including the FAA. You
guys made it personal. I don't care about that.

But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway
incursions.

Do you feel better about yourself now?

I'm sure General Aviation is much safer overall now that we can all
agree on the bureaucratic distinction between a Runway Incursion and
Surface Incident. It'll never change what I teach my students, though,
which is: Don't cross onto the taxiway without clearance.

If you have a problem with THAT, contact the nearest FSDO.

-c

Bravo.

The 'net provides a screen so people can type things that would not be
said in person. Mixed Martial Arts -- protect yourself at all times.
People tend to be more polite in states like North Carolina, not
because we are in the southeast, but because it is fairly easy to get
a permit to carry a sidearm.

An armed society is a polite society!

C Gattman wrote:

I believe you are correct. I have provided the exact official
definition and source of both runway incursions and surface incidents,
as well as a statement of clarification of what the term "runway
incursion" is intended to mean, as well as material that specifically
states what -isn't- an incursion. Nobody else provided that, so I
asked the FSDO. They gave me authoritative source material and I
shared it here.

Apparently, "everybody" was unable or unwilling to do that.


The subject was runway incursions, I don't believe anyone asked for the
definition of surface incident.

On Oct 4, 5:23*pm, C Gattman wrote:

Spoke with the Renton FSDO and they sent me the following link to the
2002 Runway Safety Order 7050-1. As promised, I'll share the word:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...2%20Runway%20S...


Links to that Order and to Notice 7050.2 which revised it were posted
in the runway incursions thread on September 17th.

On Oct 5, 10:15*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...2%20Runway%20S...

Links to that Order and to Notice 7050.2 which revised it were posted
in the runway incursions thread on September 17th.

In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? Any one of us
could have fallen into this trap.

Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?

On Oct 5, 1:10*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:15*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...2%20Runway%20S....

Links to that Order and to Notice 7050.2 which revised it were posted
in the runway incursions thread on September 17th.

In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? * *Any one of us
could have fallen into this trap.


I do not understand your question. What trap? Gattman has cronies?



Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?


?

On Oct 5, 2:24*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

I do not understand your question. *What trap? *

Read below what I said.... If you provided a later notice Notice
7050.2, the FAA website still has 7050.1. Which is correct?

Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?

On Oct 5, 2:49*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:24*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

I do not understand your question. *What trap? *

Read below what I said.... *If you provided a later notice Notice
7050.2, the FAA website still has 7050.1. *Which is correct?


You can answer that question by reading them.

On 10/05/09 11:10, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...2%20Runway%20S...

Links to that Order and to Notice 7050.2 which revised it were posted
in the runway incursions thread on September 17th.

In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? Any one of us
could have fallen into this trap.

Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?

What cronies?



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