Runway incursions

BeechSundowner wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:43*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his
ammunit
ion
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting.
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

On Sep 18, 4:13*am, "Morgans" wrote:
Quote:
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.


Sorry for trying to be flippant in what's evidently a serious thread
but at least one incident back home (http://tinyurl.com/lvezj8) makes
me want runway incursions to have a slightly broader definition

I hope the two sods in the newsitem aren't flying anymore.

Ramapriya

Jim Logajan wrote:
Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting.
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

Ditto.

I think the amount of vitriol generated by this argument over semantics
only reinforces the OP's original call for etiquette.

The FAA is inconsistent with the interpretation of their own
regulations. Is that news?

Can we at least agree that blundering onto either a taxiway or runway
without clearance is wrong and can get your flying, if not your
breathing, privileges suspended?

Curt

On Sep 17, 5:43*pm, "Morgans" wrote:


That is what has happened here. *Every thing posted has been proven wrong,
but yet there is a total inability to admit wrong.

No, sir, and I don't respect the personal attack. The seminar happened
on August 7, provided by the Renton FSDO, on the second floor
classroom of the FBO. According to the FSDO official, two runway
incursions were reported that day for people wandering onto the
taxiway.

"Everything posted" has not been "proven wrong." There are arguments
over my (which is to say, local) interpretation of policy, which is
fair, except several of you are making it personal. Everybody I work
with at KTTD including ATC agrees with me. I have asked them. Prove
that wrong. In fact, your suggestion that this has been "proven wrong"
is either dishonest or demonstrates failure to grasp my original post.

If you are suggesting that I am a liar, and that the events I
described did not happen, than, then my question becomes, how much
money are you willing to bet that the above incidents didn't occur?

I will put you in contact with people who were there and will tell you
they are considered runway incursions. You will pay each of them for
their instructional time, at $40/hr. You will pay me the same for
each. You can contact the FAA yourself to confirm that the lecture
happened. I can give you contact information for other people who were
in the lectures, including two senior CFIIs who teach Ground School at
the local community college.

People like you and McNicoll are why people like me quit posting here
just to tell people WHAT HAPPENED because some pompous-ass newsgroup
addict will invariably jump in and remind everybody what an enormous
penis he is. The I'm-more-experienced-than-you-so-STFU mentality is
discussed in conjunction with Tenerife. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tenerife_airport_disaster#Probable_cause) The junior didn't dare
contradict the senior even though the junior knew he was right. So
guess what...

Maybe McNicoll hasn't made a mistake in the nine years or whatever you
all have been out here. ATC makes mistakes, but, maybe he doesn't.
Maybe he's the ATC Messiah, or just a bloviating gasbag, but, he'll
probably end up in my killfile all the same. I don't respect his
holier-than-thou attitude, and in my profession as well as his, it
gets people killed. He's -your- alpha dog, -you- sniff his ass.

In the meantime, if you're just going to attack me here, your opinion
doesn't mean squat unless you want to back it with cash. I might read
your posts, maybe...maybe not...and you are welcome to ignore mine.
Since we all know you're not going to put your money where your mouth
is: Some of you old boys have a nice little circle-jerk going here. Be
sure to keep it up as long as you can.

-c

On Sep 17, 8:09*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting..
I've seen postings over the years from almost every one of the participants
of this thread and Chris Gattman has been around a while and is no flake.
None of you are flakes (well, mostly. ;-)) Could you gentlemen please try
to stay civil? I see no good reason to lob these insults - particularly
since it has already been made clear that several sources beyond Gattman
have indicated that some FAA personnel (and others) are operating under
conflicting or at least different definitions.

Thank you sincerely, Jim. I'm not going to say that crossing the
taxiway is a runway incursion again until I hear it from the FAA
directly and can give you the name and direct quote. That's fair.

It's up to you guys whether you want to accept that an FSDO speaker
and tower reported the incidents I described as runway incursions. Out
here, though, every instructor, pilot and tower operator I've been
able to talk to about it considers it a runway incursion. I'm
repeating what several sources have taught me, and, they're all good
people. Maybe we're all wrong. In practice, our students do not cross
the line without clearance from tower. If anybody here finds fault
with -that-, please explain why.

The ONLY reason I posted it here after not posting so long is to share
to other pilots so that perhaps they will be more careful at
unfamiliar airports, and so that they don't get reported to the FAA,
because I saw it happen on August 7 and 8 at Troutdale. If anybody
truly "fears for the fact that there are CFI's out there spreading
this level of misinformation," then, take it up with the FAA because
they licensed me. Be sure to tell them that I am trying to get people
to stay off of taxiways without clearance, and make sure you give them
my name. If I'm indeed incorrect about what a runway incursion is, I
can tell them exactly why their documentation is misleading.
Otherwise, please keep that snarky nonsense to yourself because it
doesn't contribute to the discussion.

As for the civility, I am truly sorry if I have helped diminish it.
That is the opposite of my intent.

-Chris

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?
Instead of tossing out some snarky-ass "debate club" comment? Maybe
not? Who ARE you?

-c

C Gattman wrote:

No, sir, and I don't respect the personal attack. The seminar happened
on August 7, provided by the Renton FSDO, on the second floor
classroom of the FBO. According to the FSDO official, two runway
incursions were reported that day for people wandering onto the
taxiway.

"Everything posted" has not been "proven wrong." There are arguments
over my (which is to say, local) interpretation of policy, which is
fair, except several of you are making it personal. Everybody I work
with at KTTD including ATC agrees with me. I have asked them. Prove
that wrong. In fact, your suggestion that this has been "proven wrong"
is either dishonest or demonstrates failure to grasp my original post.

If you are suggesting that I am a liar, and that the events I
described did not happen, than, then my question becomes, how much
money are you willing to bet that the above incidents didn't occur?

I will put you in contact with people who were there and will tell you
they are considered runway incursions. You will pay each of them for
their instructional time, at $40/hr. You will pay me the same for
each. You can contact the FAA yourself to confirm that the lecture
happened. I can give you contact information for other people who were
in the lectures, including two senior CFIIs who teach Ground School at
the local community college.

People like you and McNicoll are why people like me quit posting here
just to tell people WHAT HAPPENED because some pompous-ass newsgroup
addict will invariably jump in and remind everybody what an enormous
penis he is. The I'm-more-experienced-than-you-so-STFU mentality is
discussed in conjunction with Tenerife. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tenerife_airport_disaster#Probable_cause) The junior didn't dare
contradict the senior even though the junior knew he was right. So
guess what...

Maybe McNicoll hasn't made a mistake in the nine years or whatever you
all have been out here. ATC makes mistakes, but, maybe he doesn't.
Maybe he's the ATC Messiah, or just a bloviating gasbag, but, he'll
probably end up in my killfile all the same. I don't respect his
holier-than-thou attitude, and in my profession as well as his, it
gets people killed. He's -your- alpha dog, -you- sniff his ass.

In the meantime, if you're just going to attack me here, your opinion
doesn't mean squat unless you want to back it with cash. I might read
your posts, maybe...maybe not...and you are welcome to ignore mine.
Since we all know you're not going to put your money where your mouth
is: Some of you old boys have a nice little circle-jerk going here. Be
sure to keep it up as long as you can.


"Bloviating gasbag", "pompous-ass newsgroup addict", "holier-than-thou
attitude". I'm sure you can't see the hypocrisy in your message.

I don't believe anyone from Renton FSDO told you or anyone else that, at a
towered airport, walking or taxiing onto an active taxiway is considered a
runway incursion. I don't believe it because it is unlikely that anyone
tasked with conducting a seminar on runway incursions would have done so
without as much as reviewing current directives that clearly indicate a
runway incursion can only occur on a surface designated for the landing and
take-off of aircraft. I think you simply misunderstood what was said.
After
all, you keep posting a web page that proves you wrong while insisting
you're right, thus demonstrating you lack the ability to understand the
written word. Perhaps you lack the ability to understand the spoken word as
well.

Nor do I believe everybody you work with at KTTD, including ATC, agrees with
you. If the tower had to report and process a surface incident they'd refer
to those same current directives for guidance. If the other folks you work
with at KTTD, assuming they are reasonable people, have studied this thread
they cannot possibly agree with you as solid, verifiable, irrefutable
documentation has been posted here that proves your position is incorrect.

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.

The attitude you've demonstrated here is not that of a reasonable person,
not that of an aviation professional. You, Mr. Gattman, are flying the
airways of life with a couple of props feathered. Seek help.

C Gattman wrote:

If anybody
truly "fears for the fact that there are CFI's out there spreading
this level of misinformation," then, take it up with the FAA because
they licensed me.


That's a good idea. Thanks.

C Gattman wrote:

"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?


Yes, that one, the one that says:


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.

C Gattman wrote

there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation,"
then, take it up with the FAA because they licensed me.

Mr. Gattman.....First, you are NOT a CFI and second, the FAA did
NOT "license" you. The FAA has issued me a Certificate (not License)
as a Flight Instructor (not CFI).

Bob Moore
Flight Instructor Certificate Number CFI1450645