Runway incursions

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:22:38 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:

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.

Well, bad news ole boi, you were wrong, you were corrected by someone
"on the internet". Life is good, learn lessons.

Just b/c the discussion happens ion Usenet, you feel it is of downgraded
value? Interesting.

Do we apply the same denigration to your participations?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:33:32 -0700, Jim Stewart wrote:

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...

I have a septum deviation...........

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:44:48 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:46 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


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


You wrote: "I did not insult you" and then IN THE VERY SAME POST you
wrote: "There's nothing at all professional about you, your attitude
makes you unfit to teach." Why did you lie when you said you didn't
insult me, when you said I was "big on ego and short on knowledge",
insult me again, and then expect me to respect you at all?


Those aren't insults. I posted them AFTER you demonstrated an
unprofessional attitude that renders you unfit to teach. It was you that
made an issue of credentials and insisted an unauthorized presence on a
taxiway was a runway incursion even after documentation had been posted
proving it wasn't, thus demonstrating that your'e "long on ego and short on
knowledge". (If you're qoing to quote me, please quote me accurately.)

So you were able to claim Chris' unfit to teach from a Usenet post?

Really amazing.

I don't expect you to respect me, I don't care if you respect me, I place no
value on your respect.

This is Usenet. The above statement is superfluous.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:49:51 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

C Gattman wrote:

I've been out here since 1998. Unlike, I guess, a lot of people here,
I'm not out here to "establish credibility."


And you haven't.


Also, I forwarded links and references including those from the FAA.


Which indicated runway incursions can only occur on runways.


You chose to attack me personally


I did not attack you personally.


and ignore my sources,


I didn't ignore your sources, I acknowledged them and pointed out that they
do not support your position. In fact, they clearly indicate that a runway
incursion can only occur on a runway. You should have read them.


and you wrote
" I cited the FAA notice that defines runway incursion and posted a
link to it." I cited the FAA as well, repeatedly, which you
consistently refused to acknowledge, so now I'm going to rub your nose
in it:

"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
Dated July 30, 2009.


Why don't you read the material you cite? Here's the paragraph, with
emphasis added by me, that
immediately precedes what you copied and pasted from that page:

"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."


You are, I trust, aware that www.faa.gov is the Federal Aviation
Administration and not some clueless FSDO rep or air traffic
controller.


Yup.


According to the ATC who is working right now, Pilot Deviation and
Vehicle Deviation are causes of the incursions, not the incursions
themselves. I trust our local Air Traffic Controller. Are you
suggesting that pilots shouldn't trust FAA ATC? Say it.


Okay. I'm ATC, trust me. How's that?

I don't know what tower dudes or FSDO dude told you. You've clearly
demonstrated an inability to understand the written word, perhaps you lack
the ability to understand the spoken word as well.


As a professional pilot and instructor,


There's nothing at all professional about you, your attitude makes you unfit
to teach.

Step away from the glue gun.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:20:25 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

So if you could stop insulting others until
you or they collectively get your acts together, it would be
appreciated. Otherwise you come across (as you have put it) as a
"wacko."


I've insulted nobody.

You are not in a position to make that assertion unless you have ESP.

The real problem is that there is any discussion on Usenet insulting
anyone fer Chrissakes it's Usenet, it's print on screen.

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

So you were able to claim Chris' unfit to teach from a Usenet post?


Affirmative.



Really amazing.


Thank you.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:03:58 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

So you were able to claim Chris' unfit to teach from a Usenet post?


Affirmative.


Did you use crystal balls or astral projection?

Really amazing.


Thank you.

That you would continue to post like an idiot.

You're welcome.

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

Did you use crystal balls or astral projection?


No.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 20:45:02 -0500, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

Did you use crystal balls or astral projection?


No.

That leaves talking out your ass when you claimed "Chris Gattman was
unfit to teach" from a Usenet post?

Snipping your asstalk, then having me reinsert it, really doesn't deal
you a hunk of credibility. Which is very important to you otherwise why
snip your asstalk in the first place.

Oh well, there's no undoing those who sink their personal feelings into
Usenet posts. That is best left to psychoanalysts, best of luck there.

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:

That leaves talking out your ass when you claimed "Chris Gattman was
unfit to teach" from a Usenet post?


Actually, it leaves what he wrote, but you're not expected to understand
that.