Runway incursions

"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.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"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.
--
Jim in NC

I should have specified a vehicle (not an aircraft) that does not have a
yellow blinking light.
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 16, 2:18*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

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.

Why don't you tell him some guy on the internet posted verifiable
documentation that proved him wrong? *

If that ever happens, I will.

Goodbye.

-c

On Sep 16, 2:37*pm, Mark Hansen wrote:


* I know that at a towered airport, you must have a clearance before you may operate on the taxiway. I don't think anyone is trying to
dispute that. But I think the two conversations are focusing on different aspects of the issue, which is causing some confusion.

"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." http://www.genebenson.com/Articles/r...rsions_new.htm

You can find an FAA definition for "runway incursion," but, I bet you
can't find an official definition for "taxiway incursion."

I was just reporting what the FAA rep told me and what happened.I have
no interest in changing those facts for the purpose of argument. The
FAA representative told me that runway incursions had been reported,
and I choose to believe him (and the source I quoted above) over
somebody like McNicoll, who accuses me of being "long on ego and short
on knowledge," when Mr. McNicoll Wasn't Even There. 'Cause now he's
tossing personal insults, so, there's no point in arguing with him
further. We've all had enough of that nonsense.

If anybody thinks the FAA is incorrect, I challenge that person call
'em and correct 'em personally instead of expecting me to do it for
them. It's their argument, they can make it.

-c

On Sep 16, 7:03*pm, "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,

I don't know. You tell us. Steven found the definition of Runway
Incursion so I'm sure you guys will have no problem finding the
definition of Taxiway Incursion or whatever. ... In the
meantime,

"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. ...an airplane at a controlled airport that entered a
taxiway onto which it had not been cleared would also be considered a
runway incursion."
http://www.genebenson.com/Articles/r...rsions_new.htm

Now, I'm telling you all one last time, that's JUST EXACTLY what the
FAA told me, and also how the tower reported the incursions. Whether
you choose to accept that is up to you. Goodbye.

-c

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 16, 2:18 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

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.

Why don't you tell him some guy on the internet posted verifiable
documentation that proved him wrong?

If that ever happens, I will.


You don't feel that's happened already? I cited the FAA notice that defines
runway incursion and posted a link to it.

C Gattman wrote:

I don't know. You tell us. Steven found the definition of Runway
Incursion so I'm sure you guys will have no problem finding the
definition of Taxiway Incursion or whatever. ... In the
meantime,

"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. ...an airplane at a controlled airport that entered a
taxiway onto which it had not been cleared would also be considered a
runway incursion."
http://www.genebenson.com/Articles/r...rsions_new.htm

Now, I'm telling you all one last time, that's JUST EXACTLY what the
FAA told me, and also how the tower reported the incursions. Whether
you choose to accept that is up to you. Goodbye.


The FAA didn't tell you that, a misinformed guy from FSDO told you that. He
was wrong, Benson's wrong, and if the tower did what you claim they were
wrong too.

C Gattman wrote:

"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."
http://www.genebenson.com/Articles/r...rsions_new.htm

You can find an FAA definition for "runway incursion," but, I bet you
can't find an official definition for "taxiway incursion."

I was just reporting what the FAA rep told me and what happened.I have
no interest in changing those facts for the purpose of argument. The
FAA representative told me that runway incursions had been reported,
and I choose to believe him (and the source I quoted above) over
somebody like McNicoll, who accuses me of being "long on ego and short
on knowledge," when Mr. McNicoll Wasn't Even There. 'Cause now he's
tossing personal insults, so, there's no point in arguing with him
further. We've all had enough of that nonsense.

If anybody thinks the FAA is incorrect, I challenge that person call
'em and correct 'em personally instead of expecting me to do it for
them. It's their argument, they can make it.


But it is you that thinks the FAA is incorrect on this. Why don't you take
up your own challenge and tell 'em Notice N JO 7050.2 is wrong?

C Gattman wrote:

If anybody thinks the FAA is incorrect, I challenge that person call
'em and correct 'em personally instead of expecting me to do it for
them. It's their argument, they can make it.


I'll do it. Can you provide the name of the FSDO dude that supplied the
incorrect information? If you're unwilling to give out the name can you
provide the date of the CFI seminar? I can identify him that way.

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 16, 2:18 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

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.

Why don't you tell him some guy on the internet posted verifiable
documentation that proved him wrong?

If that ever happens, I will.

Goodbye.

-c


You don't feel that's happened already? I cited the FAA notice that defines
runway incursion and posted a link to it. What do you consider verifiable
documentation to be?