A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 5th 09, 05:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
jan olieslagers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

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.
  #12  
Old October 5th 09, 06:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
C Gattman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

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





  #13  
Old October 5th 09, 07:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
BeechSundowner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

On Oct 5, 10:15*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

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.


In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? Any one of us
could have fallen into this trap.

Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?
  #14  
Old October 5th 09, 08:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

On Oct 5, 1:10*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:15*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

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.


In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? * *Any one of us
could have fallen into this trap.


I do not understand your question. What trap? Gattman has cronies?



Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?


?

  #15  
Old October 5th 09, 08:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
BeechSundowner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

On Oct 5, 2:24*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

I do not understand your question. *What trap? *


Read below what I said.... If you provided a later notice Notice
7050.2, the FAA website still has 7050.1. Which is correct?

Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?


  #16  
Old October 5th 09, 09:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

On 10/05/09 11:10, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

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.


In defense of Gattman and his cronies, how would he know OUTSIDE what
you posted if he is posting a FAA website citation? Any one of us
could have fallen into this trap.

Sounds like the FAA needs to do an update to their website as the link
was valid?


What cronies?



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
  #17  
Old October 5th 09, 11:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

On Oct 5, 2:49*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:24*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

I do not understand your question. *What trap? *


Read below what I said.... *If you provided a later notice Notice
7050.2, the FAA website still has 7050.1. *Which is correct?


You can answer that question by reading them.
  #18  
Old October 6th 09, 04:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
D Ramapriya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

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
  #19  
Old October 6th 09, 05:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Ross
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 463
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

D Ramapriya wrote:
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.



/snip/

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


There is truth to that and I have seen it at work. We use email all the
time. Sometimes it is best to pick up the phone and call the person
before things get out of hand. Just the wrong sentence structure can
have a totally different meaning from the writer to the reader.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI
  #20  
Old October 6th 09, 06:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Jeffrey Bloss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident

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?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Runway Incursion-Near Miss In Florida Hawkeye[_2_] Piloting 9 July 16th 07 01:20 AM
Ft Lauderdale runway incursion GrtArtiste Piloting 0 July 13th 07 12:50 AM
Zebra Runway incursion Save the Elephants Piloting 5 October 30th 04 09:16 PM
Runway Incursion and NASA form Koopas Ly Piloting 16 November 12th 03 02:37 AM
Runway Incursion and NASA form steve mew Piloting 0 November 10th 03 06:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.