Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

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...r%207050-1.pdf

Relevant part is Appendix 2, parts 1 and 2a:

1: "In April 1987, the FAA Administrator approved the following
definition of the term "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 loss of separation with
an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing or intending to
land.""

Well, that's obsolete, but, not substantially different. Further:

2a "Although the definition is broad, it was always intended that
runway incursions include problems on the runway, but not on the
taxiways or ramps (in this case, the runway is considered that part of
the area intended for landing and takeoff and includes the runway as
well as parts of taxiways located between the hold line and the
runway)."

2d. "Runway incursions should not include aircraft, vehicles,
pedestrians, or objects on the runway without permission when there is
no collision hazard or loss of separation... Although these and other
similar unauthorized or unapproved movements occur on the airport
surface, they are surface incidents, not runway incursions."

And, finally, an official definition of a Surface Incident:

3l: Surface Incident: "Any event, including runway incursions, other
than an accident, where unauthorized or unapproved movement occurs
within the airport surface movement area or an occurrence in the
airport surface area associate with the operation of an aircraft that
affects or could affect the safety of flight."

That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position.
According to the FSDO, in a nutshell, if you cross the yellow single-
solid/single-dash without authorization it's considered a surface
incident. If you cross the yellow double-solid/double-dash it's likely
to be reported as a runway incursion. A runway incursion is also a
surface incident.

Fly safe.

-Chris
CFI, KTTD

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

* That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position.

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

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.

On 10/04/09 16:05, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:23 pm, C Gattman wrote:

That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position.

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

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.

For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's
a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the
forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
folks left :-(


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

On Oct 4, 5:12*pm, Mark Hansen wrote:

For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
folks left :-(

Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO
last week:

"Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was
posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the
definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and
the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA.

I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I
sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to
clear this up..."

Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a
Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a
very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly
explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here
somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared
this information with the local FBO and instructors.

One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have
inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating
he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs
who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but
not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would
appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting
disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're
a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question
their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I
have chosen not to bring this to their attention.

Be careful what you say out here, everybody.

-c

On 10/04/09 18:00, C Gattman wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:12 pm, Mark Hansen wrote:

For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
folks left :-(

Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO
last week:

"Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was
posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the
definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and
the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA.

I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I
sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to
clear this up..."

Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a
Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a
very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly
explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here
somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared
this information with the local FBO and instructors.

One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have
inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating
he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs
who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but
not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would
appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting
disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're
a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question
their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I
have chosen not to bring this to their attention.

Well, I'm sure whoever that was, they have their own reasons for doing
so, and I'm just as sure it has nothing to do with safety :-(
But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common
good of all humanity ;-)

I think the important lesson to be had here is that even when getting
information from an authoritative source, it's still being provided by
a Human Being, which like the rest of us, is susceptible to errors and/or
mistakes.


Be careful what you say out here, everybody.

Always good advice.

Best Regards Chris (and others),

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

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:21:05 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:

On 10/04/09 18:00, C Gattman wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:12 pm, Mark Hansen wrote:

For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
folks left :-(

Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO
last week:

"Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was
posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the
definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and
the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA.

I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I
sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to
clear this up..."

Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a
Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a
very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly
explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here
somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared
this information with the local FBO and instructors.

One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have
inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating
he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs
who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but
not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would
appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting
disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're
a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question
their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I
have chosen not to bring this to their attention.

Well, I'm sure whoever that was, they have their own reasons for doing
so, and I'm just as sure it has nothing to do with safety :-(
But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common
good of all humanity ;-)

I sent it and why not? It was for safety, common good, education and to
point out this resource called Usenet to the FAA cyberdummies.

All winkers ( from you aside, why didn't you?

I think the important lesson to be had here is that even when getting
information from an authoritative source, it's still being provided by
a Human Being, which like the rest of us, is susceptible to errors and/or
mistakes.


Be careful what you say out here, everybody.

Always good advice.

Best Regards Chris (and others),

Be careful of what? I missed ti, what exactly is there to be afraid of?

On Oct 4, 7:12*pm, Mark Hansen wrote:

For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's
a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

For crying out loud, least he could do was apologies for the rude
replies he gave me. I feel he deserved my sharp reply.

Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the
forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
folks left :-(

Only hats off when he recognizes his errors of his ways, not only with
the regulations but on how he handles dealing with other people.

On Oct 4, 6:54*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:

Only hats off when he recognizes his errors of his ways, not only with
the regulations but on how he handles dealing with other people.


If you don't invest too much of your ego on usenet, it doesn't matter
what people think. There is/was a pilot out here who used to get no
end of grief from a few posters for grammar and spelling errors, what
they perceived to be judgment errors, and after awhile, just about any
reason they wanted. The next thing you know, he's got his own business
ferrying brand new SR-22s and other airplanes all over the world,
making a bunch of money, flying as often as he wants and posting his
photos on the internet, living the dream of a lot of pilots and simply
ignoring people who criticized him. His critics never left
rec.aviation.piloting...

I haven't had a bad experience with a passenger, customer, student,
examiner or instructor yet. Once again, I'm not convinced I should
change my behavior just because somebody on the internet says to, but,
I'll certainly take it under consideration. If my way means that we'll
never fly an airplane together, I'm okay with that.

Thanks for the advice.

-c

On Oct 5, 9:43*pm, C Gattman wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:54*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:

I haven't had a bad experience with a passenger, customer, student,
examiner or instructor yet. *Once again, I'm not convinced I should
change my behavior just because somebody on the internet says to, but,
I'll certainly take it under consideration.


Chris, don't also discount the fact - and this is actually more
serious than people probably realize - that emails and posts can often
look impersonal and confrontational. Mails are IMO great for two
reasons - (a) you can address many people in one go and (b) they're
non-intrusive in the sense that the recipients can read/respond at the
times they choose. That doesn't take away the fact that its big minus
is that it can't, unless carefully written, convey what the tone of a
human voice can.

Each time I've trouble sleeping, I begin counting the number of people
I've met in real life who in person are markedly nicer than the
general tenor of their mails.

Ramapriya

Mark Hansen schreef:
On 10/04/09 16:05, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:23 pm, C Gattman wrote:

That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position.
I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in
the first place.

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.

For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's
a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder?

Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the
forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal"
folks left :-(

Seconded.