Runway incursions

[C Gattman]

This weekend as the FAA was at the FBO giving a seminar on runway
incursions and explaining how the number of runway incursions per
million GA operations increases while the number of operations
declines, we had two of them.

Coincidental to the seminar, the B-17 Sentimental Journey stopped
overnight in front of the FBO for weather and minor maintenance (I
love my job!) The airplane was visible from the Interstate so it
drew a lot of attention. With an FAA rep upstairs, one spectator ran
out onto the active taxiway to take a picture causing the tower to
blow a siren. Moments later, his daughter nearly did it again.
Ultimately, some of us at the FBO began to usher people around the
airplane, explain the boundaries and try to interface with the public
a little while keeping things safe. One guy let his kids lift himself
up by the two tailguns to get a better look in the airplane. And, by
the way, it doesn't matter if you're a pilot. At home, you probably
don't let your kids play under a truck that's up on jacks and wooden
blocks. Why would you do it under a 35,000 lb bomber?

Somebody else taxied a C-172 at about 10 mph through the ~ 70' space
between the bomber's wingtip and the building, over a live extension
cord running from the bomber to the building, with people working or
wandering around. Dumbass. Taxiing quickly or making a 270-degree
pivot at 2300 rpm doesn't make you look cool, and you don't like it
when somebody showers you or your airplane with dust and gravel, so,
knock it off.

Lastly, an experimental roared right up to the bomber and the
gathering of people waving at him to stop, until it was too late for
him to turn around, but he tried anyway and sent a gust of propwash
along the flight line, toward the FBO and the B-17. He then promptly
darted back onto the active taxiway to swing into transient parking. A
moment later tower, who had presumably seen it all, called and said
"Have that pilot call us when he comes into your office."

I spent most of the day just absorbing the sight and activity of the
B-17 and crew, and at one moment I realized the FAA safety rep was
standing next to me. "You can tell it's August," he said. We
discussed the need to reduce runway incursions before TSA steps in and
starts locking down gates or requiring further regulation. It behooves
us.

Pilots: Read the AF/D and runway diagrams before you arrive so you're
not taxiing all over the place looking for published information. Slow
down when you see unusual things such as giant, gleaming, spectacular
airplanes in the transient area, or crowds of people. Lead by example.

Instructors, FBOs: Teach this stuff. Safety and etiquette. If you see
random people showing up, remember that feeling you get when you see
your favorite airplane at your local airport. An off-duty instructor
saying "Here, I'll walk you around and see how close we can get" is a
great opportunity to promote GA and fuel interest in flying. It's an
opportunity for you to teach safety, by example, to aviation
enthusiasts, reporters, etc.

Fly safe. Thanks, everybody!

Chris
CFI, KTTD

[Mark Hansen]

Post by C Gattman
This weekend as the FAA was at the FBO giving a seminar on runway
incursions and explaining how the number of runway incursions per
million GA operations increases while the number of operations
declines, we had two of them.

[ snip ]

Post by C Gattman
Fly safe. Thanks, everybody!
Chris
CFI, KTTD

Nice post, Chris.

I think the stupid pilot tricks are generally perpetrated by folks
that won't likely be reading these posts, unfortunately - or if they
do read, won't get it.

I had a friend/pilot that did some pretty stupid things, and he
always justified that he was perfectly safe and within his rights
to do them. Sad really.

I believe they are the minority, but they are also the ones that
make the news when it hits the fan :-\

Best Regards,

[BT]

The largest percentage of "Incursions" at our local airport was caused by
the local airport maint vehicles.
So a county "FBO", can't control their employees or contract maintenance
people and "GA" takes the hit for incursions.
It's not the pilots its the airport owners.

BT

Post by C Gattman
This weekend as the FAA was at the FBO giving a seminar on runway
incursions and explaining how the number of runway incursions per
million GA operations increases while the number of operations
declines, we had two of them.
Coincidental to the seminar, the B-17 Sentimental Journey stopped
overnight in front of the FBO for weather and minor maintenance (I
love my job!) The airplane was visible from the Interstate so it
drew a lot of attention. With an FAA rep upstairs, one spectator ran
out onto the active taxiway to take a picture causing the tower to
blow a siren. Moments later, his daughter nearly did it again.
Ultimately, some of us at the FBO began to usher people around the
airplane, explain the boundaries and try to interface with the public
a little while keeping things safe. One guy let his kids lift himself
up by the two tailguns to get a better look in the airplane. And, by
the way, it doesn't matter if you're a pilot. At home, you probably
don't let your kids play under a truck that's up on jacks and wooden
blocks. Why would you do it under a 35,000 lb bomber?
Somebody else taxied a C-172 at about 10 mph through the ~ 70' space
between the bomber's wingtip and the building, over a live extension
cord running from the bomber to the building, with people working or
wandering around. Dumbass. Taxiing quickly or making a 270-degree
pivot at 2300 rpm doesn't make you look cool, and you don't like it
when somebody showers you or your airplane with dust and gravel, so,
knock it off.
Lastly, an experimental roared right up to the bomber and the
gathering of people waving at him to stop, until it was too late for
him to turn around, but he tried anyway and sent a gust of propwash
along the flight line, toward the FBO and the B-17. He then promptly
darted back onto the active taxiway to swing into transient parking. A
moment later tower, who had presumably seen it all, called and said
"Have that pilot call us when he comes into your office."
I spent most of the day just absorbing the sight and activity of the
B-17 and crew, and at one moment I realized the FAA safety rep was
standing next to me. "You can tell it's August," he said. We
discussed the need to reduce runway incursions before TSA steps in and
starts locking down gates or requiring further regulation. It behooves
us.
Pilots: Read the AF/D and runway diagrams before you arrive so you're
not taxiing all over the place looking for published information. Slow
down when you see unusual things such as giant, gleaming, spectacular
airplanes in the transient area, or crowds of people. Lead by example.
Instructors, FBOs: Teach this stuff. Safety and etiquette. If you see
random people showing up, remember that feeling you get when you see
your favorite airplane at your local airport. An off-duty instructor
saying "Here, I'll walk you around and see how close we can get" is a
great opportunity to promote GA and fuel interest in flying. It's an
opportunity for you to teach safety, by example, to aviation
enthusiasts, reporters, etc.
Fly safe. Thanks, everybody!
Chris
CFI, KTTD

[Ron]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how were any of these events
"runway"
incursions.

[C Gattman]

Post by Ron
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how were any of these events
"runway"
incursions.

At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered a
runway incursion. According to the FAA runway safety authority who was
at the airport and who called the tower to confirm that they had
reported it to the FAA, responsibility for this incursion would fall
on the pedestrian and the port authority.

At the same airport, taxiing onto an active taxiway without clearance
is a runway incursion. This too was reported by ATC to the FAA, and
responsibility would fall on the pilot of the aircraft. (If they chose
to pursue it.)

A third type of incursion occurs when the tower issues a conflicting
clearance or causes an aircraft to violate a rule. Responsibility for
this would fall on ATC, which is required to report -all- runway
incursions in case it turns out they're causing them.

-Chris
CFI

[BeechSundowner]

Post by C Gattman
At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered a
runway incursion.

Not quite sure I agree with this.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/

Airplanes don't take off and land on taxiways.

[Steve Hix]

In article

Post by BeechSundowner

Post by C Gattman
At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered a
runway incursion.

Not quite sure I agree with this.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/
Airplanes don't take off and land on taxiways.

Not usually, no. (I guess that after 35 years, statute of limitations
has finally kicked in.)

When I was just a fledgeling, I'd flown to a towered airport near
Sacramento to take an FAA written test.

After, getting ready to leave, I got completely lost, thought I was on
the runway, and took off from a parallel taxiway.

Tower noticed.

I thought the operator showed remarkable restraint, considering.

I was most clearly advised to not come anywhere near the area again
until I'd got my act together. Period. Full stop.

I did pass the written, though.

And got my act together. Although to this day, I'm a bit twitchy about
ground operations and clearances.

[BeechSundowner]

Post by Steve Hix
And got my act together. Although to this day, I'm a bit twitchy about
ground operations and clearances.

I absolutely can relate Steve as I work out of an uncontrolled
airport. Taxiways wider then my home base runway, I can fully
understand how that kind of mistake can be made (I haven't done that
myself!) There is a vast amount of concrete out there!

I get the willies having complex taxi instructions at any controlled
airport and without hesitation will ask for progressives with turns.

Even posted a video of this :-) when I was at KBTR as I wasn't going
to turn down any tool available to me.

Like Chris suggests, study the AFD but even then you still need to be
aware of taxiway closures ATIS announcements and the like. All the
best laid out plans do go awry at least for me. And no matter what
others may thing, I'd rather sound stupid on the radio then do
something stupid on the ground. When I fly with other pilots and I
act as safety (I am not a CFI) I tell them when in doubt ask.

[Morgans]

Post by BeechSundowner
I absolutely can relate Steve as I work out of an uncontrolled
airport. Taxiways wider then my home base runway, I can fully
understand how that kind of mistake can be made (I haven't done that
myself!) There is a vast amount of concrete out there!
I get the willies having complex taxi instructions at any controlled
airport and without hesitation will ask for progressives with turns.
Even posted a video of this :-) when I was at KBTR as I wasn't going
to turn down any tool available to me.
Like Chris suggests, study the AFD but even then you still need to be
aware of taxiway closures ATIS announcements and the like. All the
best laid out plans do go awry at least for me. And no matter what
others may thing, I'd rather sound stupid on the radio then do
something stupid on the ground. When I fly with other pilots and I
act as safety (I am not a CFI) I tell them when in doubt ask.

Even in a place like OSH, during Airventure, there is almost always a
couple near landings on Papa taxiway, (the North-South taxiway on the West
side of 18-36 left and right) or sometimes even a full landing. While out
directing traffic on the taxiway intersections, someone on our radio says,
"heads up; there is one lining up for a landing on Papa," and everyone
scatters in anticipation, but usually they sidestep at the last moment.
Believe it or not, there have even been people that have taken off from
Papa.

If people make mistakes there, when they should have carefully studied in
advance, I could only believe it could happen anywhere.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered a
runway incursion.

No it isn't. A runway incursion is "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."

Post by C Gattman
At the same airport, taxiing onto an active taxiway without clearance
is a runway incursion.

Only if it's been designated for the landing and take off of aircraft.

[C Gattman]

At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered a runway incursion.

No it isn't.  A runway incursion is

Mr. McNicoll, I was standing next to an FAA official guest from the
Seattle FSDO after he had just given a CFI seminar on teaching runway
incursion avoidance when this happened. I'm quoting official FAA
sources, firsthand. Your sourceless contradiction of this puts
readers of this forum who fly at risk by providing faulty and bad
information, so I am compelled to respond. I'm trying to tell you that
I witnessed the FAA Runway Safety official call the tower and then
turn to tell me that ATC had reported TWO runway incursions: One for
a pedestrian on the taxiway, and another for an airplane that roamed
back onto Alpha without clearance.

So, if you have something in an official context that you'd like to
share, do so. According to airlinesafety.com, "The FAA defines a
runway incursion as 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."

Strictly speaking, an incursion onto a taxiway is a taxiway incursion.
But, straight from the horse's mouth, the result is the same. There
are only three sources to which they assign blame and unless it's
ATC's fault or you're a pedestrian, the weight of the investigation
falls on the pilot of the aircraft.

I strongly encourage you to discuss this with your local FSDO
directly. If you walk, drive or operate your aircraft on a taxiway at
a towered airport, without clearance, your opinion of the what a
runway incursion is won't prevent them from taking action against
you.

-chris
Commercial Pilot, Certified Flight Instructor
Troutdale, Oregon

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman

At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered a runway incursion.

No it isn't. A runway incursion is

Mr. McNicoll, I was standing next to an FAA official guest from the
Seattle FSDO after he had just given a CFI seminar on teaching runway
incursion avoidance when this happened. I'm quoting official FAA
sources, firsthand. Your sourceless contradiction of this puts
readers of this forum who fly at risk by providing faulty and bad
information, so I am compelled to respond. I'm trying to tell you that
I witnessed the FAA Runway Safety official call the tower and then
turn to tell me that ATC had reported TWO runway incursions: One for
a pedestrian on the taxiway, and another for an airplane that roamed
back onto Alpha without clearance.
So, if you have something in an official context that you'd like to
share, do so. According to airlinesafety.com, "The FAA defines a
runway incursion as 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."
Strictly speaking, an incursion onto a taxiway is a taxiway incursion.
But, straight from the horse's mouth, the result is the same. There
are only three sources to which they assign blame and unless it's
ATC's fault or you're a pedestrian, the weight of the investigation
falls on the pilot of the aircraft.
I strongly encourage you to discuss this with your local FSDO
directly. If you walk, drive or operate your aircraft on a taxiway at
a towered airport, without clearance, your opinion of the what a
runway incursion is won't prevent them from taking action against
you.
-chris
Commercial Pilot, Certified Flight Instructor
Troutdale, Oregon

Mr. Gattman, I did not offer an opinion.


FAA Notice N JO 7050.2
Effective October 1, 2007, the FAA Administrator approved the use of the
following ICAO definition of runway incursion:

"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/media/Notice/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.

[C Gattman]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
"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/media/Notice/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.

Enter a taxiway or other "protected area" at a towered airport without
clearance, it's an incursion. I've seen it happen, confirmed that it
was reported, and discussed it with the FAA after their Runway
Incursion seminar. I don't care what you read on the internet.

Readers are free to form their own opinions and choose their own
safety practices. I'm just telling people what happened.

-c

[BeechSundowner]

Post by C Gattman
Enter a taxiway or other "protected area" at a towered airport without
clearance, it's an incursion. I've seen it happen, confirmed that it
was reported, and discussed it with the FAA after their Runway
Incursion seminar.  I don't care what you read on the internet.

If your FAA source says that an incorrect entry on a taxiway is
defined as a runway incursion, surely you can find it on the FAA
website to back up his opinion.

Steven and I gave you the FAA source "read on the internet" surely
you can reciprocate? http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/ as a
reminder. Otherwise, why would your word be of higher probative value
then the FAA website?

[C Gattman]

Steven and I gave you the FAA source "read on the internet"  surely you can reciprocate?  http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/as a
reminder.  Otherwise, why would your word be of higher probative value then the FAA website?

Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I
feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.
Apparently, telling you what I saw happen has no value to you so
clearly you don't respect my word. I'm not out here to engage in some
sort of penis-measuring contest with a couple of usenet know-it-alls,
if that's what this is going to turn into.

All current US pilots should be familiar with the NonMovement Area
Boundary. (AIM 2-3-6 c.) It's a solid yellow line with a broken yellow
line next to it. ."

The NMAB "delineates movement area under control of ATCT, from non-
movement area." According to the AIM, "These markings delineate the
movement area, ie, AREA UNDER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL" [emphasis mine]
Specifically, per AC 150/340-18D :Standards for Airport Sign Systems"
and AC 150/5340-1J "Standards for Airport Markings", the NMAB is
"located on the boundary between movement and non-movement area" and
it's located to unsure wing clearance for taxiing aircraft. Additional
sources: AC-90-67 "Light Signals from the Control Tower for Ground
Vehicles, Equipment, an Personnel"

At KTTD, the Movement Area Boundary separates the Alpha and Bravo
taxiways from the parking areas, and according to Troutdale Tower
(Class D), it's a violation to cross it. It's been that way at least
since I started flying there in 1989.

I hope I have established clearly what a movement area is, and what
the boundary looks like.

The Pilot Guide to Airport Signs and Markings which is produced by the
FAA and available from the FAA Office of Runway Safety in Renton, WA,
says in bold, red, italicized letters: "ATC permission is ALWAYS
required to cross from the solid side to the dashed side." [emphasis
theirs] This source is freely available as a full-color quick
reference card that fits in the approach plate book. I'm not going to
post her e-mail address but I can post the mailing address if you
want. You might also order "A Pilot's Guide to Surface Operations",
"Airfield Procedures for Vehicles and Pedestrians" (it's a poster) and
the "Safe Surface Operations" CD-ROM.

I bet there isn't a CFI out here who hasn't taught students that you
need to get tower clearance before you cross the Non Movement Area
Boundary onto the taxiway.

Finally, from your own source: http://www.faa.gov/aso/runwaysafety/Docs/Training.ppt
defines the following:

" * Movement Area – Runways, taxiways, and other areas of an
airport which are used for taxiing, or hover taxiing, air taxiing,
takeoff, and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and
aircraft parking areas. [Read that again.]

* 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 a loss of separation with an aircraft
taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land."

I trust all of this has sufficient "probative value" to simply
reinforce my observation that two runway incursions were reported by
KTTD ATC to Seattle when a pedestrian (one) and an aircraft (two)
entered the Alpha Taxiway without clearance. It's not like I'm
claiming to have seen a flying saucer. I have the FAA rep's business
card but I'm certainly not about to post it here.

As for what's on the FAA website, I haven't found an official
definition of "holding out", but don't let them catch you doing it.
You don't want to make all of your aeronautical decisions based solely
on what you read on the FAA website.

-c
Commercial Pilot, CFI. KTTD

[Steven P. McNicoll]

* 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 a loss of separation with an aircraft
taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land."

Actually, a "Runway Incursion" is defined as "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."

I trust all of this has sufficient "probative value" to simply
reinforce my observation that two runway incursions were reported by
KTTD ATC to Seattle when a pedestrian (one) and an aircraft (two)
entered the Alpha Taxiway without clearance.

It doesn't.

As for what's on the FAA website, I haven't found an official
definition of "holding out", but don't let them catch you doing it.
You don't want to make all of your aeronautical decisions based solely
on what you read on the FAA website.

Or from what a CFI that's long on ego and short on knowledge posts on the
internet.

[Mark Hansen]

Post by C Gattman
* 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 a loss of separation with an aircraft
taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land."
-c
Commercial Pilot, CFI. KTTD

Chris,

While reading this thread, I wonder if it's possible that folks are
not seeing eye to eye on what constitutes:

"... with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or
intending to land."

In that some believe operating on the taxiway on the way to the
runway is included in this, while some others think that it is not?

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Mark Hansen
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.

A clearance is required to operate on a taxiway, operating on a taxiway
without a clearance does NOT constitute a runway incursion.

[Morgans]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
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.

[Morgans]

Post by Morgans

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
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.

[C Gattman]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
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/runway_incursions_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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
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/runway_incursions_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

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
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/runway_incursions_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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Morgans

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
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.

[Jim Stewart]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll

Post by Morgans

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
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...

[C Gattman]

  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/runway_incursions_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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman

Post by Mark Hansen
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/runway_incursions_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

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman

Post by Mark Hansen
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/runway_incursions_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

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]

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.

Don't recall the name. The seminar was August 7 or 8 at Portland
Troutdale Airport (KTTD). He was out of the Renton office. I trust
you can find their office number yourself.

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.

Ah, I see. So everybody is wrong but you. You're attacking
professional pilots, instructors, controllers and FAA representatives
credentials, but, strangely, you've nothing to offer about your own
credential. You sound just exactly like a certain Microsoft simulator
jockey.

There are a few instructors around here now talking about this, and,
just so you know, the salient point of the discussion is that when we
get guys who have attitudes like yours ('I'm right, and everybody else
including instructors, tower and the authorities are wrong because I
say so"), the appropriate thing to do is decline to sign their flight
review or check them out in the aircraft. We recommend that they go
someplace else and politely send them packing. Doesn't matter if
they're student pilots or ATP. Flight instructors are certainly
fallible and the FAA can be confusing, but, your attitude is
dangerous. Attitudes like yours are WHY there are so many incursions.

Let us know what they say. We're about to call them ourselves.
-c
CFI, KTTD

[Robert Moore]

Post by C Gattman
Ah, I see. So everybody is wrong but you. You're attacking
professional pilots, instructors, controllers and FAA representatives
credentials, but, strangely, you've nothing to offer about your own
credential.

Chris...you've really stepped on it this time. In the 12 or so years
that I have been a contributor to RAP, I have never known Steven
McNicoll to be wrong. He is the without doubt, the most knowledgeable
Air Traffic Controller that I have ever encountered. In my 50 years of
flying, I have had occaison to deal with both local and national FAA
offices in many capacities from Flight Instructor to Managing a couple
of Part 141 Flight Training Centers to Director of Flight Operations for
International Jet Air Carriers. I have had very little respect for the
FSDO types who, often are there simply because they can't get a job flying
for an Air Carrier.

I have kept quiet in this discussion before now because I had erronously
assummed that you were aware of Steven's qualifications and were just
making an ass of yourself for some strange enjoyment.

Now... I really do think that you owe Steven a huge apology.

Bob Moore
ATP ASMEL B-707 B-727 L-188
Flight Instructor ASEL IA
Ground Instructor ADV INST
USN S-2F P-2V P-3B
PanAm (retired)

[C Gattman]

Chris...you've really stepped on it this time. In the 12 or so years that I have been a contributor to RAP, I have never known Steven
McNicoll to be wrong.

I certainly make mistakes, but not this time. I have verified this
through mulitiple sources, we just spoke with Troutdale Tower, and,
except for rec.aviation.piloting, the answer is uniform.

I have had very little respect for the FSDO types who, often are there simply because they can't get a job flying for an Air Carrier.

The FSDO type who gave the seminar is a furloughed airline pilot. I've
heard people say that ATC jobs are for people who can't fly airplanes.
I don't pay heed to that stuff. Let's stick with facts as we are able
to determine them.

Now... I really do think that you owe Steven a huge apology.

I sincerely respect your opinion and experience, but, I cannot do
that. The rules as you may have known them have changed. Here is the
word, directly from the FAA:

"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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166

Furthermore, three CFIIs and myself just contacted Troutdale Tower.
The controller told us taxiway incursions are still classified as
runway incursions but that the incident would be further detailed as a
"pilot deviation." (In an example where the aircraft enters a
"protected area" such as a taxiway without permission.) They report it
as a runway incursion and the cause will be determined as a pilot
deviation. That's how it's done now.

With regard to McNicoll's experience, I respect that. But, I'm going
to make my case based on what the on-duty controller just told me from
the tower at the field where I work, teach and fly. If I or a student
of mine cross the non-movement boundary area onto the taxiway without
clearance, it is the local ATC and FSDO that I'm going to have to
explain myself to. I'm sure you understand that for this reason, I
must consider them authoritative.

I have e-mailed Renton since I was unable to contact a live person
there. I will post my question with their reply.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
I certainly make mistakes, but not this time. I have verified this
through mulitiple sources, we just spoke with Troutdale Tower, and,
except for rec.aviation.piloting, the answer is uniform.

Please list those multiple sources.

Post by C Gattman
The FSDO type who gave the seminar is a furloughed airline pilot. I've
heard people say that ATC jobs are for people who can't fly airplanes.

Interesting. You'll find people in FSDO that got there by washing out of
ATC. I've yet to find a controller that washed out of FSDO.

Post by C Gattman
I don't pay heed to that stuff. Let's stick with facts as we are able
to determine them.

Hold that thought.

Post by C Gattman
I sincerely respect your opinion and experience, but, I cannot do
that. The rules as you may have known them have changed. Here is the
"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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166

There is nothing there that supports your position. Why did you choose to
cut and paste just that paragraph? Why didn't you include the preceding
paragraph, which actually defined Runway Incursion?

"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."

Now, about that thought you were holding...

Post by C Gattman
.
Furthermore, three CFIIs and myself just contacted Troutdale Tower.
The controller told us taxiway incursions are still classified as
runway incursions but that the incident would be further detailed as a
"pilot deviation." (In an example where the aircraft enters a
"protected area" such as a taxiway without permission.) They report it
as a runway incursion and the cause will be determined as a pilot
deviation. That's how it's done now.

No. That is not how it's done now. It's done in accordance with FAA Order
8020.16 Air Traffic Organization Aircraft Accident and Incident
Notification, Investigation, and Reporting. Unauthorized operation on a
taxiway is properly reported as a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or
Pedestrian Deviation.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/at_orders/media/AAI.pdf

[Ross]

Post by Robert Moore

Post by C Gattman
Ah, I see. So everybody is wrong but you. You're attacking
professional pilots, instructors, controllers and FAA representatives
credentials, but, strangely, you've nothing to offer about your own
credential.

Chris...you've really stepped on it this time. In the 12 or so years
that I have been a contributor to RAP, I have never known Steven
McNicoll to be wrong. He is the without doubt, the most knowledgeable
Air Traffic Controller that I have ever encountered. In my 50 years of
flying, I have had occaison to deal with both local and national FAA
offices in many capacities from Flight Instructor to Managing a couple
of Part 141 Flight Training Centers to Director of Flight Operations for
International Jet Air Carriers. I have had very little respect for the
FSDO types who, often are there simply because they can't get a job flying
for an Air Carrier.
I have kept quiet in this discussion before now because I had erronously
assummed that you were aware of Steven's qualifications and were just
making an ass of yourself for some strange enjoyment.
Now... I really do think that you owe Steven a huge apology.
Bob Moore
ATP ASMEL B-707 B-727 L-188
Flight Instructor ASEL IA
Ground Instructor ADV INST
USN S-2F P-2V P-3B
PanAm (retired)

I am glad you said that before I got to answer. I have learned from
Steven's responses and subject knowledge. In the past I have even
emailed directly to him on questions I had and got good answers. Now, I
will admit, Steven can come across a little sharp on his responses, but
I have learned to listen anyway.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
Don't recall the name. The seminar was August 7 or 8 at Portland
Troutdale Airport (KTTD). He was out of the Renton office. I trust
you can find their office number yourself.

I'll shoot 'em an email.

Post by C Gattman
Ah, I see. So everybody is wrong but you. You're attacking
professional pilots, instructors, controllers and FAA representatives
credentials, but, strangely, you've nothing to offer about your own
credential. You sound just exactly like a certain Microsoft simulator
jockey.

I'm not attacking anyone, I'm trying to correct a misconception shared by
you, Benson, a FSDO dude, and a few controllers. As for credentials, I
don't see why that matters. Anyone here can claim to be anything. Posting
definitive, verifiable documentation that clearly shows a runway incursion
takes place only on a runway should do it for any reasonable person. But
whatever spins your prop; I hold a commercial with instrument rating, I've
been an air traffic controller for 26 years, nine years at ZAU and 17 years
at GRB ATCT, where I also serve as an Airspace and Procedures Specialist.

Post by C Gattman
There are a few instructors around here now talking about this, and,
just so you know, the salient point of the discussion is that when we
get guys who have attitudes like yours ('I'm right, and everybody else
including instructors, tower and the authorities are wrong because I
say so"), the appropriate thing to do is decline to sign their flight
review or check them out in the aircraft.

You still don't get it. I'm right not because I say so, I'm right because
my position agrees with the FAA position. You, FSDO dude, Benson, and the
tower folks are wrong because your positions are contrary to the FAA
position. That's all there is to it.

Post by C Gattman
We recommend that they go
someplace else and politely send them packing. Doesn't matter if
they're student pilots or ATP. Flight instructors are certainly
fallible and the FAA can be confusing, but, your attitude is
dangerous. Attitudes like yours are WHY there are so many incursions.

Nonsense. It's not my attitude that's a problem here it's yours. You
posted something that was incorrect and I called you on it. I supplied
undeniable proof that you're incorrect and yet you maintain your position is
correct. If you had hopes of establishing some credibility in these forums
you blew it big time.

[C Gattman]

 If you had hopes of establishing some credibility in these forums you blew it big time.

I've been out here since 1998. Unlike, I guess, a lot of people here,
I'm not out here to "establish credibility." Maybe that's what you're
here to do, but if so, don't project that on me.

Also, I forwarded links and references including those from the FAA.
You chose to attack me personally and ignore my sources, 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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166
Dated July 30, 2009.

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

No. That is not how it's done now. It's done in accordance with FAA Order 8020.16 Air Traffic Organization Aircraft Accident and Incident
Notification, Investigation, and Reporting. Unauthorized operation on a taxiway is properly reported as a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or
Pedestrian Deviation.

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.

You'll find people in FSDO that got there by washing out of ATC.

You'll find people in ATC that washed out of flight school. So what?
Word from the conservatives is, Chicago is crawling with incompetent
criminals, liars and fools. Should we apply that to everybody out
there? "Something in the water?"

Between you and the local towers we can't even get ATC to agree on
what it is, but almost all of the local pilots around here know not to
cross the solid yellow line. WTF is it with ATC anyhow? There are,
according to the FAA, nearly 700,000 active pilots in the US but only
8,000 controllers, so, why are controllers "Operational Error"
responsible for 23% of all runway incursions? (http://www.faa.gov/
runwaysafety/ace/presentations/3.ppt.)

Take your "big on ego but short on knowledge," "Are you TRYING to look
stupid?" and 'Is there something in the water out there' and
"credibility" nonsense elsewhere and stop blathering about who is
blowing what big time.

As a professional pilot and instructor, I can't even get two
controllers to agree on what a runway incursion is, but according to
the FAA, ATC causes nearly a quarter of the incursions. Maybe it's
because they're big on ego an short on knowledge.

I'm done with you.

-c

[Jenny Taylor]

Post by C Gattman

If you had hopes of establishing some credibility in these forums you blew it big time.

I've been out here since 1998. Unlike, I guess, a lot of people here,
I'm not out here to "establish credibility." Maybe that's what you're
here to do, but if so, don't project that on me.
Also, I forwarded links and references including those from the FAA.
" 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
"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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166
Dated July 30, 2009.
You are, I trust, aware that www.faa.gov is the Federal Aviation
Administration and not some clueless FSDO rep or air traffic
controller.

No. That is not how it's done now. It's done in accordance with FAA Order 8020.16 Air Traffic Organization Aircraft Accident and Incident
Notification, Investigation, and Reporting. Unauthorized operation on a taxiway is properly reported as a Pilot Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or
Pedestrian Deviation.

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.

You'll find people in FSDO that got there by washing out of ATC.

You'll find people in ATC that washed out of flight school. So what?
Word from the conservatives is, Chicago is crawling with incompetent
criminals, liars and fools. Should we apply that to everybody out
there? "Something in the water?"
Between you and the local towers we can't even get ATC to agree on
what it is, but almost all of the local pilots around here know not to
cross the solid yellow line. WTF is it with ATC anyhow? There are,
according to the FAA, nearly 700,000 active pilots in the US but only
8,000 controllers, so, why are controllers "Operational Error"
responsible for 23% of all runway incursions? (http://www.faa.gov/
runwaysafety/ace/presentations/3.ppt.)
Take your "big on ego but short on knowledge," "Are you TRYING to look
stupid?" and 'Is there something in the water out there' and
"credibility" nonsense elsewhere and stop blathering about who is
blowing what big time.
As a professional pilot and instructor, I can't even get two
controllers to agree on what a runway incursion is, but according to
the FAA, ATC causes nearly a quarter of the incursions. Maybe it's
because they're big on ego an short on knowledge.
I'm done with you.

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 anymore then a similar story
about FARs. Think about it, if a story appeared that an operator may
not operate VFR in Class A airspace even with a proper ATC authorization
to do so, and 14 CFR 91.135(d) says otherwise, would you believe the
story or the official regulation?

You can find official FAA regulations, orders, and polices at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

[C Gattman]

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/news_story.cfm?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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
"Some news story?" You mean this one?
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?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.

[Mark Hansen]

Post by C Gattman

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/news_story.cfm?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?

Chris,

I believe you have misinterpreted that article. In my opinion, what
it is referring to as incidents that are now being tracked as Category
C and D runway incursions were still occurring on runways. It's just
that they were considered low-risk, so they were previously "categorized"
as surface incidences instead of runway incursions. I don't believe it
is stating that incidents occurring on other parts of the airport are
now going to be categorized as runway incursions.

Of course, as you've stated, the bottom line is that you not operate
on the airport without proper clearance, regardless of which specific
rule would be violated.

Best Regards,

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Mark Hansen
I believe you have misinterpreted that article. In my opinion, what
it is referring to as incidents that are now being tracked as Category
C and D runway incursions were still occurring on runways. It's just
that they were considered low-risk, so they were previously
"categorized" as surface incidences instead of runway incursions. I
don't believe it is stating that incidents occurring on other parts
of the airport are now going to be categorized as runway incursions.

Bingo. The definition of runway incursion was changed about a year ago.
Under the former definition an unauthorized operation on a runway at a
towered airport where there was no risk of collision or loss of separation,
while still a surface incident, was not a runway incursion. Now it is. At
no time has an unauthorized operation on a taxiway been considered a runway
incursion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
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.

Post by C Gattman
Also, I forwarded links and references including those from the FAA.

Which indicated runway incursions can only occur on runways.

Post by C Gattman
You chose to attack me personally

I did not attack you personally.

Post by C Gattman
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.

Post by C Gattman
" 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
"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/news_story.cfm?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."

Post by C Gattman
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.

Post by C Gattman
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.

Post by C Gattman
As a professional pilot and instructor,

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
"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/runway_incursions_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]

"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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166

There you go. Straight from the FAA.

I shot the Seattle FSDO an e-mail. Difficult to contact them by phone.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
"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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166
There you go. Straight from the FAA.

There I go what? What is your point?

[C Gattman]

Post by C Gattman
"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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166
There you go.  Straight from the FAA.

There I go what?  What is your point?

What part of the official FAA documentation can't you grasp? You
quoted the FAA at me but now that I quoted them back at you, you
suddenly fail to grasp the point? Read it again:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166

"This means that the total number of runway incursion reports
increased primarily because surface incidents are now
classified as runway incursions."

Runway incursions--again, straight from the FAA--are now categorized
as A, B, C or D depending on the severity. I have offered you abundant
FAA resource material to read about this yourself. So when the FAA
refers to "Category C or D incursions," it shouldn't be too difficult
to determine what they mean. Especially since I just confirmed this
with an on-duty air traffic controller at Troutdale.

Goodbye.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
What part of the official FAA documentation can't you grasp?

I can't grasp why you're posting a portion of something that clearly
indicates you're
wrong while maintaining that you're right. Are you TRYING to look stupid?

Post by C Gattman
You quoted the FAA at me but now that I quoted them back at you, you
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166
"This means that the total number of runway incursion reports
increased primarily because surface incidents are now
classified as runway incursions."
Runway incursions--again, straight from the FAA--are now categorized
as A, B, C or D depending on the severity. I have offered you abundant
FAA resource material to read about this yourself. So when the FAA
refers to "Category C or D incursions," it shouldn't be too difficult
to determine what they mean. Especially since I just confirmed this
with an on-duty air traffic controller at Troutdale.

Perhaps YOU should read it again, or, more likely, read the preceding
paragraph which you skipped for the first time:



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.




Here's some friendly advice; you're in a hole, stop digging.

[Morgans]

Post by C Gattman
What part of the official FAA documentation can't you grasp? You
quoted the FAA at me but now that I quoted them back at you, you
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166
"This means that the total number of runway incursion reports
increased primarily because surface incidents are now
classified as runway incursions."

Read it again in context. Preceding your quoted section is:

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.

Post by C Gattman
Runway incursions--again, straight from the FAA--are now categorized
as A, B, C or D depending on the severity. I have offered you abundant
FAA resource material to read about this yourself. So when the FAA
refers to "Category C or D incursions," it shouldn't be too difficult
to determine what they mean. Especially since I just confirmed this
with an on-duty air traffic controller at Troutdale.

You must not have made yourself fully understood, or the on duty ATC in
uninformed.

After your quoted section, the article you posted a link to says:

Outreach to Pilots
The majority of runway incursions are caused by pilots in violation of
regulations and air traffic control instructions – also known as pilot
deviations. The FAA completed an analysis of taxi clearances and found that
more explicit instructions are needed from controllers to pilots. The FAA
has issued new requirements for controllers to give explicit directions to
pilots on precise routes to travel from the gate to the runway. The FAA has
also issued new requirements for aircraft to have crossed all intervening
runways prior to receiving a takeoff clearance. Future requirements will
cover runway crossing clearances, take off and landing clearances and the
adaptation of international surface phraseology.

End quote

This speaks to the general ways the runway incursions are taking place, and
the efforts made to prevent them.

You really need to talk to someone off of this group that fully understands
what you think you understand, and get set right. I fear for the fact that
there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation.

[C Gattman]

Post by Morgans
You really need to talk to someone off of this group that fully understands
what you think you understand, and get set right.

What part of contacting ATC, the Seattle FSDO, senior CFIIs and the
chief pilot here can you not wrap your head around as being "off of
this group"?

Post by Morgans
I fear for the fact that there are CFI's out there spreading this level of misinformation.

What? That you can't cross onto a taxiway without clearance? You fear
for the fact that I "spread that level of misinformation" after I've
seen it happen and confirmed that Tower reports it as an incursion?

*whew* okeeee....

-c

[D Ramapriya]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
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

[Mark Hansen]

Post by C Gattman
"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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166
There you go. Straight from the FAA.
I shot the Seattle FSDO an e-mail. Difficult to contact them by phone.
-c

Chris,

I think you misunderstood what they said in that news release.
At the top, they still said that a runway incursion dealt with
a "runway" only.

Is it possible that what they now call Cat C or D incursions
still happened on a runway, but with such low probability for
collision that they "used" to categorize them as "surface incidences"?

That is how I read it. If so, then the bottom line is that a
runway incursion must happen on a runway (or a surface used for
take off/landing...).

Also, if the FSDO guy was wrong, what would you do if you were
a lowly tower controller in a small town airport? Especially if
you weren't sure whether the FSDO guy was correct? Do what the
FSDO guy said? Probably - just to be safe.

Best Regards,

[C Gattman]

More info:

The FAA defines a runway incursion as, “Any occurrence at an airport
involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that
creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an
aircraft taking off, intending to takeoff, landing, or intending to
land.” (FAA Safety report, 2006)
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/media/pdf/rireport06.pdf

Note: "ANY OCCURRENCE AT AN AIRPORT"... That was in 2006.

"The FAA's evolving safety management approach will include:
- Making the transion to the ICAO standardized definition of a runway
incursion...." -ibid

"The biggest difference between the two definitions is that ICAO
defines a runway incursion as any unauthorized intrusion onto a
runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential
conflict. For the FAA, an incident without an aircraft in potential
conflict — such as an unauthorized aircraft crossing an empty runway —
was defined as a “surface incident” and not a runway incursion. The
new definition means that some incidents formerly classified as
surface incidents will now be classified as C or D category runway
incursions, which are low-risk incidents with ample time and/or
distance to avoid a collision." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=9612
(effective Oct 1, 2007) [seems contradictory]

"Although the official FAA definition of a runway incursion considers
those incidents where an actual loss of separation occurs, for the
purpose of Part 139, runway incursions or runway deviations (not
involving a loss of separation) are based on any unauthorized entry of
a ground vehicle onto the movement area or safety area."
http://www.alaska.faa.gov/airports/sponsor%20guide/6_Airport%20Safety%20and%20Certification.html

We can debate whether they should be called "runway incursions" or
just "incursions" all day long, but, where the rubber meets the
taxiway, which is at present about 75 feet behind where I'm sitting,
if you enter the taxiway without clearance, the tower, which is about
100 yards to the west of me right now, will report it as a runway
incursion and, according to them, the FAA will generally rule that it
was caused by pilot deviation.

That's quite simply how it works, right now, at the Class D towered
airport where I am presently writing this, according to the chief
pilot, the CFIs, CFIIs and ATPs who are here right now, the FSDO and
the FAA-licensed controller of the FAA control tower with whom we just
spoke.


-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
We can debate whether they should be called "runway incursions" or
just "incursions" all day long, but, where the rubber meets the
taxiway, which is at present about 75 feet behind where I'm sitting,
if you enter the taxiway without clearance, the tower, which is about
100 yards to the west of me right now, will report it as a runway
incursion and, according to them, the FAA will generally rule that it
was caused by pilot deviation.
That's quite simply how it works, right now, at the Class D towered
airport where I am presently writing this, according to the chief
pilot, the CFIs, CFIIs and ATPs who are here right now, the FSDO and
the FAA-licensed controller of the FAA control tower with whom we just
spoke.

Something in the water out there?

I'll contact FSDO dude and tower dudes tomorrow, I contacted Gene Benson
today. Here is my message to him followed by his reply:


Dear Mr. Benson,

Your web page on Runway Incursions has been brought to my attention. I
noted the following:

"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.
Runway incursions are not limited to controlled airports or to runways. If
reported, an airplane taxiing onto a runway at an uncontrolled airport while
another airplane is on final approach would be considered to be a runway
incursion. 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."

That's not correct, runway incursions pretty much ARE limited to runways.
Almost a year ago the definition of Runway Incursion in FAA Order 7050.1 was
amended to be consistent with the ICAO definition:

"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."

The previous definition, which had been in use since 1987, was:

"Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or
object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of
separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or
intending to land."


Unauthorized operation on a taxiway at a towered airport would be a Pilot
Deviation, Vehicle Deviation, or a Pedestrian Deviation, depending on the
culprit.

Sincerely,

Steven P McNicoll
GRB ATCT


http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/7050.1.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N%207050.2.pdf



His reply:



Thanks for the correct info. My notes show that I got that information from
a
JFK controller who spoke at a designated examiner meeting in 2004. Anyway,
the
article was rather dated so I took it down.

Regards,
Gene

[Mark Hansen]

Post by C Gattman
The FAA defines a runway incursion as, “Any occurrence at an airport
involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that
creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an
aircraft taking off, intending to takeoff, landing, or intending to
land.” (FAA Safety report, 2006)
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/media/pdf/rireport06.pdf
Note: "ANY OCCURRENCE AT AN AIRPORT"... That was in 2006.
- Making the transion to the ICAO standardized definition of a runway
incursion...." -ibid
"The biggest difference between the two definitions is that ICAO
defines a runway incursion as any unauthorized intrusion onto a
runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents a potential
conflict. For the FAA, an incident without an aircraft in potential
conflict — such as an unauthorized aircraft crossing an empty runway —
was defined as a “surface incident” and not a runway incursion. The
new definition means that some incidents formerly classified as
surface incidents will now be classified as C or D category runway
incursions, which are low-risk incidents with ample time and/or
distance to avoid a collision." http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=9612
(effective Oct 1, 2007) [seems contradictory]
"Although the official FAA definition of a runway incursion considers
those incidents where an actual loss of separation occurs, for the
purpose of Part 139, runway incursions or runway deviations (not
involving a loss of separation) are based on any unauthorized entry of
a ground vehicle onto the movement area or safety area."
http://www.alaska.faa.gov/airports/sponsor%20guide/6_Airport%20Safety%20and%20Certification.html
We can debate whether they should be called "runway incursions" or
just "incursions" all day long, but, where the rubber meets the
taxiway, which is at present about 75 feet behind where I'm sitting,
if you enter the taxiway without clearance, the tower, which is about
100 yards to the west of me right now, will report it as a runway
incursion and, according to them, the FAA will generally rule that it
was caused by pilot deviation.
That's quite simply how it works, right now, at the Class D towered
airport where I am presently writing this, according to the chief
pilot, the CFIs, CFIIs and ATPs who are here right now, the FSDO and
the FAA-licensed controller of the FAA control tower with whom we just
spoke.
-c

Chris,

I think you may be placing too much faith in what you heard from
one FSDO guy and your local tower controllers. You argued that it
doesn't matter whether or not they're right, because they're the
ones making the rules in your area, but that's not really true.

Even if they report something as a runway incursion, that doesn't
make it one if it is not.

Best Regards,

[C Gattman]

  Also, if the FSDO guy was wrong, what would you do if you were a lowly tower controller in a small town airport? Especially if
you weren't sure whether the FSDO guy was correct? Do what the FSDO guy said? Probably - just to be safe.

That sounds plausible, but, it couldn't have happened that way in this
case. The FSDO guy didn't tell them what to do. He just called them to
see if they had reported the incursion for the guy who walked onto the
taxiway to take a picture of the B-17 (Sentimental Journey). They
replied to him, while I was standing next to him, that they had
reported two runway incursions including one against a homebuilt
Velocity that taxied all over the place, made a 180-degree turn
practically under the nose of the B-17 and then reentered the taxiway
somewhere down the line without clearance.

We all saw him roar right up to the bomber (after nearly striking his
wing on final...are they all that unstable?) but we weren't aware
until then that Tower had reported it as an incursion until the FSDO
rep--a furloughed airline pilot, not some guy who couldn't get a
flying job--said so.

I told him "It's not normally that chaotic here. The B-17 is visible
from the freeway so everybody's coming over to see." He said "It's
August." Then he said that it's not nearly as bad as places like
Aspen and Oshkosh, where certain elite types act as if they're above
basic safety and courtesy procedures, let alone regulation.

This all occurred on August 7. (I checked the date on the photos I
took of the bomber swinging the gear.)

BTW, the guy with the Velocity was an a-hole. He practically taxied
INTO the group of people in the parking area even after the fuel guy
was trying to wave him off. There was absolutely nowhere for him to
go; he had the bomber to his left, a bunch of Cessnas to his right and
a building in front of him. He had to turn around. Several of us
including a couple of the CAF guys offered to help turn him around,
but, instead, he started his engine, jacked the throttle and made a
180-degree turn spraying the B-17, the maintenance guys working under
it, the public and FBO staff with propwash and tarmac debris before
dashing off in a huff and then wandering back onto the taxiway. The
woman that was with him looked clearly distressed, but she left with
him the next day.

-c

[Morgans]

Post by C Gattman
"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/news_story.cfm?newsId=10166
There you go. Straight from the FAA.

Your reading comprehension is very low, if you think anything in that report
says that being in the wrong place on a taxiway is a runway incursion. In
fact, there is nothing at all in the whole page that supports your position.

The quoted section speaks about the reclassification of taxi incidents where
the aircraft crossed a runway during taxi procedures, and did not cause an
immediate conflict. It does clearly state the type of problem involved
crossing runways incorrectly.

[C Gattman]

Post by Morgans

Post by C Gattman
There you go.  Straight from the FAA.

Your reading comprehension is very low, if you think anything in that report
says that being in the wrong place on a taxiway is a runway incursion.  In
fact, there is nothing at all in the whole page that supports your position.

Comprehend this: I don't suppose the part where myself, the chief CFII
and three other CFIs spoke with ATC this afternoon and confirmed my
position means anything to you.

Call your local tower and ask them what happens if you enter a taxiway
without permission. I'm not claiming to be an authority; I can only
tell you what the Renton FSDO and KTTD Tower say, and what I was told
at the Runway Safety seminar on August 7.

It may not be good enough for you, but, if you enter the taxiway or
other "protected areas" at this towered airport, tower will report it
as a runway incursion. According to them. Once again, for the slower
readers, IF YOU CROSS ONTO THE TAXIWAY WITHOUT CLEARANCE, TROUTDALE
TOWER WILL REPORT IT AS A RUNWAY INCURSION. IT'S HAPPENED, IT HAPPENS,
AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.

-c

[Morgans]

It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his ammunition
is blanks.

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

I hope at some time, you get set straight.

[BeechSundowner]

Post by Morgans
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his ammunition
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

[John E. Carty]

Post by BeechSundowner

Post by Morgans
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his ammunition
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

Thanks, I needed a good laugh! :-)

[Jim Logajan]

Post by BeechSundowner

Post by Morgans
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his
ammunit

ion

Post by Morgans
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.

[Curt Johnson]

Post by Jim Logajan
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

[C Gattman]

Post by Jim Logajan
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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
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.

[Robert Moore]

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

[C Gattman]

Post by Robert Moore

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

I beg your pardon? Let's put money on it. You want to see my CFI
number, it's going to cost you.

Post by Robert Moore
the FAA did NOT "license" you

Have you not heard of a pilot's license? Or, are just you trying to
belittle me through symantics?

Why are you doing this? Why are you trying to discredit me
professionally by suggesting I'm not a CFI?

-c

[Robert Moore]

Post by C Gattman
Have you not heard of a pilot's license? Or, are just you trying to
belittle me through symantics?
Why are you doing this? Why are you trying to discredit me
professionally by suggesting I'm not a CFI?

Below this reply, I am reposting a discussion on "license" vs
"certificate". An article on AvWeb a couple of years back prompted
an exchange of emails between one of their editors and myself.

An examination of my Flight Instructor certificate indicates on
both sides that I am a Flight Instructor, not a CFI. I think that
it was a part of the big 1997 FAR 61 change that CFI was dropped
in favor of Flight Instructor, in fact it was because of all of the
military/airline/ground instructors who were not "CFIs", that
"authorized instructor" is the term now used through-out Part 61.

Nowhere in Subpart H--FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS is the term CFI used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ....
I can understand the idiots at the local TV station constantly referring
to "pilot's licenses", but how did supposedly "aviation savvy" writers
for AVWEB mistake a certificate for a license in the lead article
pertaining to medical certificate fraud?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little journalistic license, Bob, as approved by the FAA.
Check it out under the Airman Registry subhed in the link provided
below.
It now appears that license is the preferred term and (certificate) is
bracketed
: ie less used... http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick call to the FAA confirms that there has been no change and that,
just like the newscasters, the webmaster has inserted his own slant on
the subject.
Since the page seems to be intended for the general public, the
webmaster probably felt that they would understand license better than
certificate.

However............from Wikipedia

A license (American English) or licence (Commonwealth English) is a
document or agreement giving permission to do something.
A certificate is an official document affirming some fact.
A certificate may also certify that a person has received specific
education or has passed a test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is this little bit of freedom granted to citizens of the United
States of America that makes the difference between license and
certificate.

United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace.

No further granting of permission (license) is required, however, a
demonstration of training or ability (certification) may be required.

There is no such federal code granting a citizen the right to operate a
vehicle on public roads, or to practice medicine, therefore allowing the
government to require a license.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response from the FAA webmaster

Subject
Has the FAA really switched "pilot certificate" to "pilot license" as is
indi...

Discussion Thread
Response (FAA Expert) 07/22/2005 03:51 PM
It's a web error. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are
in the process of restructuring our entire web site. I have initiated
action to correct this page to reflect "pilot certificate" and "mechanic
certificates."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by C Gattman
Would you mind if I wrote about this for Monday, Bob?

Write away Russ....just bear in mind that I'll be checking each and
every word. :-) :-)

What started out as just a gentle chide to the AVWEB editor turned out
to taking-on the FAA, something that I've done many times in the past.
I've been in this flying business for 47 years and have learned that the
FAA probably makes more mistakes than I do. Getting them to admit it as
easily as happened Friday came as quite a shock to me. My first call
was to the local (Tampa) FSDO and what a waste that was.
A simple yes or no question and after a five minute dissertation, I
still did not have a firm answer.

My name since leaving Naval Aviation and joining PanAm in 1967 has been
"Bob (It's a certificate not a license) Moore". The basic indoctrination
course at PanAm taught us a lot about aviation law and history. At 70
years of age, I am still an active Flight Instructor. I instructed for
three years in the Navy, probably ten years in the airline industry and
six years in the GA business and one thing that I learned early-on from
my students was to very carefully weigh each and every word that I
uttered for accuracy. This is much more important for those who would
commit words to paper, or nowadays,to the internet. :-)

BTW, that little bit of Federal Code had its origins in the Air Commerce
Act of 1926. Just try discussing that with your friendly local FDSO
inspector! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[C Gattman]

Post by Robert Moore
Below this reply, I am reposting a discussion on "license" vs
"certificate".

Okay. But, your Flight Instructor Certificate is: CFI1450645

CFwhat? By the way, when did they stop putting CFI before the number?
On my card, the "CFI" is after the number.

Post by Robert Moore
Nowhere in Subpart H--FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS is the term CFI used.

It's used in our flight instructor certificate numbers and appears in
every US instructor's logbook endorsement.

Post by Robert Moore
It is this little bit of freedom granted to citizens of the United
States of America

Although I'm not comfortable with the idea of "freedom" being granted
by bureaucrats, it's an interesting distinction that might trip
somebody up on an oral exam that might be better spent talking about
airspace or runway incursions.

-c

[Mike Ash]

Post by Robert Moore

Post by C Gattman
Have you not heard of a pilot's license? Or, are just you trying to
belittle me through symantics?
Why are you doing this? Why are you trying to discredit me
professionally by suggesting I'm not a CFI?

Below this reply, I am reposting a discussion on "license" vs
"certificate". An article on AvWeb a couple of years back prompted
an exchange of emails between one of their editors and myself.

Please excuse me if the following question was answered in what you
posted. I *did* read it, but may have missed something.

Anyway, my question: I think I understand the legal distinction between
licensing and certification, but what are the *practical* consequences
to me as a pilot in that distinction? In other words, how would my life
as a pilot be different if the US licensed pilots rather than certifying
them?

[Robert Moore]

Post by Mike Ash
Anyway, my question: I think I understand the legal distinction between
licensing and certification, but what are the *practical* consequences
to me as a pilot in that distinction? In other words, how would my life
as a pilot be different if the US licensed pilots rather than certifying
them?

Probably none...but if the issuing authority calls a piece of paper or
plastic a "certificate", why would anyone call it something else?......
ignorance???

Bob Moore

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Robert Moore

Post by Mike Ash
Anyway, my question: I think I understand the legal distinction
between licensing and certification, but what are the *practical*
consequences to me as a pilot in that distinction? In other words,
how would my life as a pilot be different if the US licensed pilots
rather than certifying them?

Probably none...but if the issuing authority calls a piece of paper or
plastic a "certificate", why would anyone call it something
else?

For your edification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism

"Words that have a formal meaning may also have a colloquial meaning that,
while technically incorrect, is recognizable due to common usage."

Post by Robert Moore
...... ignorance???

In your case, I think pedantry.

[John Smith]

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by Robert Moore
Probably none...but if the issuing authority calls a piece of paper or
plastic a "certificate", why would anyone call it something
else?

In your case, I think pedantry.

Or ICAO compliance, although I doubt this was the reason.

Convention on Inernational Civil Aviation
Annex 1 - Personnel Licensing

[Mike Ash]

Post by Robert Moore

Post by Mike Ash
Anyway, my question: I think I understand the legal distinction between
licensing and certification, but what are the *practical* consequences
to me as a pilot in that distinction? In other words, how would my life
as a pilot be different if the US licensed pilots rather than certifying
them?

Probably none...but if the issuing authority calls a piece of paper or
plastic a "certificate", why would anyone call it something else?......
ignorance???

I ask the question because some people have discussed it as though it
were a matter of grave importance. I'm one of those people who thinks
that important matters have practical consequences, by definition. Now,
I realize that not everybody is like this, but the discussion around it
sure makes it *sound* like there's a practical consequence, and I want
to know what that consequence is, if any.

As to why you'd call it someone else, if it looks like a license, walks
like a license, and waddles like a license, I'm going to call it a
"license". It's easier to say and much more widely understood. Do you
refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls
it, after all....

[Mark Hansen]

Post by Mike Ash
As to why you'd call it someone else, if it looks like a license, walks
like a license, and waddles like a license, I'm going to call it a
"license". It's easier to say and much more widely understood. Do you
refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls
it, after all....

Hmmm. I've referred to my certificate as a certificate to aviation-
knowledgeable and non-aviation-knowledgeable folks alike and have
never been asked "what is a certificate".

Even though I assume some didn't know that what we have is called
a certificate, none found it necessary to ask me to clarify what I
was referring to.

Perhaps I just run in smaller circles :-)

Best Regards,

[Mike Ash]

Post by Mark Hansen

Post by Mike Ash
As to why you'd call it someone else, if it looks like a license, walks
like a license, and waddles like a license, I'm going to call it a
"license". It's easier to say and much more widely understood. Do you
refer to your car as a "motor vehicle"? That's what the authority calls
it, after all....

Hmmm. I've referred to my certificate as a certificate to aviation-
knowledgeable and non-aviation-knowledgeable folks alike and have
never been asked "what is a certificate".
Even though I assume some didn't know that what we have is called
a certificate, none found it necessary to ask me to clarify what I
was referring to.
Perhaps I just run in smaller circles :-)

How do you know they got the right meaning if they didn't ask? :)

Maybe it works better than I think it would. I don't believe I've
actually tried it. It's just that, to me, "certificate" conjures up a
cheap piece of paper that comes from completing a short training class
or something of the like. For example, I would expect a "bus driver
certificate" to *possibly* be a prerequisite for driving a bus, but not
cover the practical aspects of driving one.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Robert Moore
Below this reply, I am reposting a discussion on "license" vs
"certificate".

Oh god, not this triviality _again_.

[BeechSundowner]

Post by Jim Logajan
Sorry gents, but this is getting needlessly heated and unfairly insulting.

Jim,

Normally I agree with you but the above was not unfairly insulting.
Below my name is earlier in this thread when I questioned Gattman.
Not sure how you feel about instructors saying "becauese I am an
instructor" being an answer to a request for source of information,
even by word of mouth, but that is not representative of a good
instructor in my eyes. His response to me was very insulting
especially when I provide a FAA reference and he had nothing tangible
to support his position..

I would hope good quality instructors would provide IN WRITING
something they are trying to teach to back up their statements.
Gattman did not do this at least for my initial questioning nor would
I want him as my CFI with that kind of attitude.

I am not a CFI but that kind of response "because I am instructor"
doesn't cut it when a student challenges his or her position. They
should be ready to say, I don't know but I will LOOK UP the
appropriate reference and give it to the student, not just say "I am
instructor" especially in a student forum.


ALLEN"s question.

Post by Jim Logajan
Steven and I gave you the FAA source "read on the internet" surely you can reciprocate? http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/as a
reminder. Otherwise, why would your word be of higher probative value then the FAA website?

(GATTMAN replied)
Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I
feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.
Apparently, telling you what I saw happen has no value to you so
clearly you don't respect my word.

[C Gattman]

Post by BeechSundowner
Not sure how you feel about instructors saying "becauese I am an
instructor" being an answer to a request for source of information,

You have taken my words completely out of context.

Post by BeechSundowner
His response to me was very insulting especially when I provide a FAA reference and he had nothing tangible
to support his position..

Awfer... are you saying I didn't quote sources? Why, McNicoll
corrected one of them. How'd he do that if I offered "nothing
tangible"?

What in hell is going on out here?

Post by BeechSundowner
I am not a CFI but that kind of response "because I am instructor" doesn't cut it when a student challenges his or her position.  
Because I'm an instructor and I brought it up on the student forum I feel obliged to "reciprocate" and clarify for other readers.

I don't see how you could interpret that as "I'm right because I am an
instructor." My point was that as an instructor I feel obligated to
clarify in a case where I say something and somebody challenges it or
asks for clarification. If I say something incorrect or, in reply, you
say something in correct, I feel obligated to sort it out rather than
have one fallacy or another (mine or yours) ending the discussion.
Previously and otherwise, I'd have simply told a few people out here
to go piss up a rope.

The next thing I said was: "Apparently, telling you what I saw happen
has no value to you so clearly you don't respect my word." To
clarify, that means there's no regulation or official definition that
says I heard an FBO consultant tell me that tower said there were two
runway incursions reported that day. I can't provide anything
"tangible" without divulging people's information in the internet who
may not appreciate it.

I'm starting to think that if I saw a C-172 accident, somebody would
take issue with me. (Some people insist it's a CE-172, when I'll I'm
saying is, I saw the goddam plane crash.)

Our competitor just had their third R22 accident in about a month
yesterday. Unfortunately, the last one crashed and burned with the
student and instructor onboard. Let's keep things in perspective here.
I have more important things to worry about in my job than what
somebody on the usenet thinks of me, having never met me, and I have
lots of better things to do than rifle through the internet looking
for "taxiway incursion" definitions or trying to make sure that
somebody isn't seeming to look for ways to take my words out of
context.

Guys...everybody. Stop picking fights where there are none. If you
disagree with something somebody says, say so and ask for
clarification or find a constructive way to disagree. It's perfectly
okay to say "I think you're wrong, and here's why," but, you don't
have to be a dick about it. Otherwise, the forum will continue to
devolve into flamewars and spam as it has for the last years.

-c

[John E. Carty]

Post by BeechSundowner

Post by Morgans
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his ammunition
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

Thanks, I needed a good laugh! :-)

[C Gattman]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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.

That last sentence should have been, "That's how reasonable people behave."
My fingers apparently move faster than electrons.

[C Gattman]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
"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?

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
Nor do I believe everybody you work with at KTTD, including ATC, agrees with you.

At this point I have no further interest in what you believe, or in
attempting to convince you.

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
You, Mr. Gattman, are flying the airways of life with a couple of props feathered. Seek help.

And there you go again.

The last word is yours. I'll even concede that your source is
literally more definitive than mine, despite what I was told by the
FSDO, etc.
Good for you, sir. Beyond that, I see at this point that all you're
going to do is continue to attack me personally and lie about it, and,
that's just a waste of my time. Unlike some, perhaps, my ego isn't
invested in what fellow usenet chronies think of me on the internet.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
"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.)

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

[D Ramapriya]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
I don't expect you to respect me, I don't care if you respect me, I place no
value on your respect.

I wager that line figuring on someone's sig in a few years :)

Ramapriya

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman
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? Wouldn't that be more beneficial?
Then he might stop providing CFIs with incorrect information and they
wouldn't be passing it on to their students or posting it on the internet.

Post by C Gattman
Enter a taxiway or other "protected area" at a towered airport without
clearance, it's an incursion.

It's a runway incursion only if that other "protected area" is designated
for the landing and take-off of aircraft, aka a runway. Do you understand
that?

Post by C Gattman
I've seen it happen, confirmed that it
was reported, and discussed it with the FAA after their Runway
Incursion seminar.

It's likely you misunderstood what you saw and heard.

Post by C Gattman
I don't care what you read on the internet.

No? You wrote, "So, if you have something in an official context that you'd
like to share, do so." I did exactly that, and now you say you don't care.
I'm hurt!

Post by C Gattman
Readers are free to form their own opinions and choose their own
safety practices.

Yes, your memories versus verifiable, definitive FAA documents. I know
which way that will go.

Post by C Gattman
I'm just telling people what happened.

As best you can.

[C Gattman]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll

Post by C Gattman
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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman

Post by Steven P. McNicoll

Post by C Gattman
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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by C Gattman

Post by Steven P. McNicoll

Post by C Gattman
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?

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll

Post by C Gattman
At a towered airport, walking onto an active taxiway is considered a
runway incursion.

No it isn't. A runway incursion is "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."

Post by C Gattman
At the same airport, taxiing onto an active taxiway without clearance
is a runway incursion.

Only if it's been designated for the landing and take off of aircraft.

I believe I've found additional material that contradicts the view that
only areas designated for "landing and take off" are included in the
ICAO definition of runway incursion. The following PowerPoint
presentation (specifically slide 2) seems to me to indicate that at
least one person at the NTSB believes that the ICAO definition of
"runway incursion" includes taxiway protected areas (the definition
of which I'm not sure):

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_ri/RI%20Forum%20-%20ATA%20Presentation.ppt

Here's the relevant text for those not having a PowerPoint veiwer (the
first bullet point, "This differs..." is the point at which taxiways
make their way into the discussion):

FAA Definition of Incursion

Runway Incursion (U.S.) - "Any occurrence at an airport involving an
aircraft, 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._"

o This differs from the ICAO definition* which covers any incursion of a
runway or taxiway "protected area."

o The ICAO standard* for taxi instructions to an active runway mandates
clearances across every runway en route to that active runway for
takeoff. In the U.S., a clearance to the active runway implies
clearance to cross all runways en route.

* ICAO PansOps publication 4444

The 2009/2010 edition of the ICAO publication in question appears to
cost $258, and the only "free"/"copyright theft" version I found on the
net[*] is about 13 years old (and doesn't seem to mention the concept in
any set of words I can find.) It may not even be the publication with
the proper definition. Since this is an argument over an FAA policy
classification definition, and doesn't appear to involve anything a
pilot needs to know for safe operations, I'm not going to do further
research along those lines.

[*] A local NATCA union web site had a copy of the 13th edition of said
publication:
http://www.thetracon.com/docs/4444.pdf

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Jim Logajan
I believe I've found additional material that contradicts the view
that only areas designated for "landing and take off" are included in
the ICAO definition of runway incursion.

I don't believe the ICAO definition of "runway incursion" has been at issue
here.

Post by Jim Logajan
The following PowerPoint
presentation (specifically slide 2) seems to me to indicate that at
least one person at the NTSB believes that the ICAO definition of
"runway incursion" includes taxiway protected areas (the definition
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_ri/RI%20Forum%20-%20ATA%20Presentation.ppt
Here's the relevant text for those not having a PowerPoint veiwer (the
first bullet point, "This differs..." is the point at which taxiways
FAA Definition of Incursion
Runway Incursion (U.S.) - "Any occurrence at an airport involving an
aircraft, 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._"
o This differs from the ICAO definition* which covers any incursion
of a runway or taxiway "protected area."

Old definitions. ICAO adopted this definition of "Runway Incursion" in
2004:

"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."

The FAA followed suit last year.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll

Post by Jim Logajan
I believe I've found additional material that contradicts the view
that only areas designated for "landing and take off" are included in
the ICAO definition of runway incursion.

I don't believe the ICAO definition of "runway incursion" has been at
issue here.

Just to clarify the intent of my post and my sentence above: I believe it
was pointed out elsewhere in this thread that the FAA had adopted the
ICAO definition of runway incursion. So I went looking for the original
ICAO defining document and couldn't find it (at least not without
considerable expense.) While it now appears the PowerPoint file I found
may contain out of date information on the ICAO definition, it does
establish in my own mind why many people would continue to report taxiway
incursions (pardon; I don't know if there is an FAA or ICAO category
phrase for the concept of a collision hazard or actual collision on a
taxiway) as runway incursion.

Post by Steven P. McNicoll

Post by Jim Logajan
The following PowerPoint
presentation (specifically slide 2) seems to me to indicate that at
least one person at the NTSB believes that the ICAO definition of
"runway incursion" includes taxiway protected areas (the definition
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_ri/RI%20Forum%20-%20ATA%20Presentation
.ppt
Here's the relevant text for those not having a PowerPoint veiwer
(the first bullet point, "This differs..." is the point at which
FAA Definition of Incursion
Runway Incursion (U.S.) - "Any occurrence at an airport involving
an aircraft, 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._"
o This differs from the ICAO definition* which covers any incursion
of a runway or taxiway "protected area."

Old definitions. ICAO adopted this definition of "Runway Incursion"
"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."

Interesting. The NTSB PowerPoint document I reference above has a
creation date of July 21, 2005 (found by opening the Properties dialog
for the file in PowerPoint.) So if the ICAO changed the definition in
2004, it appears that even federal employees were slow to note the change
in the ICAO definition.

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
The FAA followed suit last year.

Since it appears that it took around 4 years for the FAA to officially
adopt that definition, I personally don't see why this definitional issue
is worth the amount of insults that were hurled at the OP.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Jim Logajan
Just to clarify the intent of my post and my sentence above: I
believe it was pointed out elsewhere in this thread that the FAA had
adopted the ICAO definition of runway incursion. So I went looking
for the original ICAO defining document and couldn't find it (at
least not without considerable expense.) While it now appears the
PowerPoint file I found may contain out of date information on the
ICAO definition, it does establish in my own mind why many people
would continue to report taxiway incursions (pardon; I don't know if
there is an FAA or ICAO category phrase for the concept of a
collision hazard or actual collision on a taxiway) as runway
incursion.

But it doesn't explain why anyone would consider the unauthorized presence
on a taxiway in the US to be a runway incursion because the FAA definition
of runway incursion has never included taxiways.

Post by Jim Logajan
Interesting. The NTSB PowerPoint document I reference above has a
creation date of July 21, 2005 (found by opening the Properties dialog
for the file in PowerPoint.) So if the ICAO changed the definition in
2004, it appears that even federal employees were slow to note the
change in the ICAO definition.

Most wouldn't notice or care. Nothing changes for them until the FAA takes
action.

Post by Jim Logajan
Since it appears that it took around 4 years for the FAA to officially
adopt that definition, I personally don't see why this definitional
issue is worth the amount of insults that were hurled at the OP.

The FAA's adoption of the ICAO definition has nothing to do with it. Have
you read all of the messages in this thread? The OP insisted his position
was correct even after irrefutable, verifiable documentation had been
posted, multiple times, that proved it to be incorrect. He cited one FAA
website about four times to support his position that clearly stated runway
incursions occur only on runways. The guy's wacko.

[jan olieslagers]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
The guy's wacko.

Hm. Might be. Not sure, though.
But, err, what's the FAA definition for "wacko" ?

[Jim Logajan]

[...] He cited one FAA website about four times [...]

"About"? I'm not sure I give any credence to someone who has difficulty
counting past three.

The guy's wacko.

Not nearly as wacko as you, who corrects others when they aren't precise on
an issue of no practical value to runway safety, but can't be bothered with
precision in something as trivial as counting.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Jim Logajan

[...] He cited one FAA website about four times [...]

"About"? I'm not sure I give any credence to someone who has
difficulty counting past three.

Yes, "about" four times. It implies an estimate has been made.

Post by Jim Logajan

The guy's wacko.

Not nearly as wacko as you, who corrects others when they aren't
precise on an issue of no practical value to runway safety, but can't
be bothered with precision in something as trivial as counting.

You two must be related.

[Jim Logajan]

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
But it doesn't explain why anyone would consider the unauthorized
presence on a taxiway in the US to be a runway incursion because the
FAA definition of runway incursion has never included taxiways.

Probably because the FAA manages to contradict itself on what constitutes a
runway and a taxiway. Consider "Case 1" on page B-1 of the 2008 Runway
Safety Report:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/media/pdf/RSReport08.pdf

"Although he is not on the runway, the aircraft's nose is across
the hold-short line, usually 175 feet from the runway.

A runway incursion has occurred since separation rules
require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before an
aircraft can land or take off on that runway."

So here we have an FAA document saying in the first sentence that example
aircraft B was _not_ on the runway. In fact it indicates aircraft B's nose
could be as far as 175 feet from the runway. But in the second sentence it
says a runway incursion happened anyway because aircraft B _was_ on the
runway! In order for me to make sense of those two sentences, either the
definition of what constitutes a runway has to change between them or the
definition has to contain a non-trivial conditional. If they said the
runway was that portion past the hold-short line then their discussion
wouldn't contradict itself (on the other hand, what would one then call 175
feet of pavement between the hold-short line and the runway proper in their
example other than a "taxiway?")

Based on the evidence so far, I have no confidence that you know (or the
FAA actually has) a consistent definition of "runway," "taxiway," or
"runway incursion." 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."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Post by Jim Logajan

Post by Steven P. McNicoll
But it doesn't explain why anyone would consider the unauthorized
presence on a taxiway in the US to be a runway incursion because the
FAA definition of runway incursion has never included taxiways.

Probably because the FAA manages to contradict itself on what
constitutes a runway and a taxiway. Consider "Case 1" on page B-1 of
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/media/pdf/RSReport08.pdf
"Although he is not on the runway, the aircraft's nose is across
the hold-short line, usually 175 feet from the runway.
A runway incursion has occurred since separation rules
require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before an
aircraft can land or take off on that runway."
So here we have an FAA document saying in the first sentence that
example aircraft B was _not_ on the runway. In fact it indicates
aircraft B's nose could be as far as 175 feet from the runway. But in
the second sentence it says a runway incursion happened anyway
because aircraft B _was_ on the runway! In order for me to make sense
of those two sentences, either the definition of what constitutes a
runway has to change between them or the definition has to contain a
non-trivial conditional. If they said the runway was that portion
past the hold-short line then their discussion wouldn't contradict
itself (on the other hand, what would one then call 175 feet of
pavement between the hold-short line and the runway proper in their
example other than a "taxiway?")

The second sentence does not say a runway incursion happened anyway because
aircraft B was on the runway. It says, "A runway incursion has occurred
since separation rules require that a runway be clear of any obstacle before
an aircraft can land or take off on that runway." The aircraft had crossed
the hold-short line, which put it in the Runway Safety Area, a protected
surface. Since a Runway Incursion is defined as "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 takeoff of
aircraft", the aircraft's incorrect presence in the Runway Safety Area
constitutes a Runway Incursion.

Runway Safety Areas are explained on page C-13, you obviously did not read
the
entire document.

Post by Jim Logajan
Based on the evidence so far, I have no confidence that you know (or
the FAA actually has) a consistent definition of "runway," "taxiway,"
or "runway incursion."

You might have greater confidence if you bothered to read fully and
attempted to understand these documents. It's clear to me you're Googling
keywords in an attempt to support a predetermined, and incorrect, position.

Post by Jim Logajan
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.

[C Gattman]

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_ri/RI%20Forum%20-%20ATA%20Presentatio...
   FAA Definition of Incursion
   Runway Incursion (U.S.) - "Any occurrence at an airport involving an  aircraft, 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._"

The "intending to take off" and "intending to land" reoccurs in other
publications, some self-contradictory.

It may be that ATC doesn't interpret regs uniformly, but, "Any
occurence at an airport... that creates a collision hazard" could be
interpreted a lot of ways by the staff at a control tower. Especially
if the FAA is around. But, word by everybody I've spoken to about it
at Troutdale so far is, they call it a runway incursion.

-c

[BeechSundowner]

Post by C Gattman
Instructors, FBOs: Teach this stuff. Safety and etiquette. If you see
random people showing up, remember that feeling you get when you see
your favorite airplane at your local airport. An off-duty instructor
saying "Here, I'll walk you around and see how close we can get" is a
great opportunity to promote GA and fuel interest in flying. It's an
opportunity for you to teach safety, by example, to aviation
enthusiasts, reporters, etc.

Great post Chris,

I also think training fails miserably when it comes to airport
ettiquette. Case in point would be runup. Where exactly should be
run up be done at some airports that don't have runup pads. End of
the taxiway, empty area of the ramp.

Rhetorical questions as common sense says do it at the hold short
line, but there are some airports that don't have taxiways, you taxi
onto the ramp and "back taxi" for departure.

Lots of this is common sense, but I have actually seen pilots do a
runup "into the wind" and send the prop blast back to areas that prop
blast doesn't belong.