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, 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, 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 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, 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, 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.