Runway Incursion and NASA form

[Koopas Ly]

Hi all,

After a short local flight, I landed on 4L at HNL and forgot to hold
short of 4R. After I made the right turn on taxiway Echo from 4L, the
tower (sensing that I was taxiing a bit fast) tells me, in a rather
calm voice, "hold short of 4R!".

By that time, I had already crossed the 4R hold bars. I was not on
runway 4R, just between the hold bars and the runway edge. There was
neither departing nor landing traffic. I apologized, and the tower
told me to contact ground. Never heard from the tower again.

What should I do? Should I fill out the NASA form?

Thanks,
Alex

[Peter Duniho]

"Koopas Ly" > wrote in message
om...
> What should I do? Should I fill out the NASA form?

We just had this thread.

File the form. And not just because it protects you from an enforcement
action.

Pete

[Koopas Ly]

I am going to fill out the form and mail it tomorrow. Reading about the
NASA form on AOPA's website, the following is stated:

"However, pilots should still exercise caution when completing the "Type of
Event/Situation" block on the identification strip of the NASA form. The
pilot may have to show this strip to the FAA in order to obtain the waiver
of sanction. By innocently describing the event, the pilot could
inadvertently admit to the violation or a part of the violation."

What should I put under "Type of Event/Situation"? Was it actually a runway
incursion? I wasn't ON runway 4R, only beyond the hold short bars between
4L and 4R.

Awaiting advice,
Alex

(Koopas Ly) wrote in message >...
> Hi all,
>
> After a short local flight, I landed on 4L at HNL and forgot to hold
> short of 4R. After I made the right turn on taxiway Echo from 4L, the
> tower (sensing that I was taxiing a bit fast) tells me, in a rather
> calm voice, "hold short of 4R!".
>
> By that time, I had already crossed the 4R hold bars. I was not on
> runway 4R, just between the hold bars and the runway edge. There was
> neither departing nor landing traffic. I apologized, and the tower
> told me to contact ground. Never heard from the tower again.
>
> What should I do? Should I fill out the NASA form?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex

[[email protected]]

On 10 Nov 2003 01:21:41 -0800, (Koopas Ly)
wrote:

>Was it actually a runway incursion?

Was there a loss of separation? Was there an aircraft within 3,000'
landing or departing?

[Kobra]

I'll get flamed for this...but it was way too innocent a transgression. The
controllers did not sound upset. As a previous poster commented, "Was there
a loss of separation?" And the answer appears to be no. If there was
there'd be paperwork to be filled out by the tower and THEN I'd fill the
NASA form out.

I believe the form offers protection only once in five years if I read it
correctly. If I'm correct wouldn't want to turn in my "get out of jail free
card" over such a minor transgression.

I'm wide open here soaking in 100LL...I can already see Peter Duniho right
now cracking his knuckles now over his keyboard and wiping a bit of drool
from the right corner of his mouth.

Kobra



> wrote in message
...
> On 10 Nov 2003 01:21:41 -0800, (Koopas Ly)
> wrote:
>
> >Was it actually a runway incursion?
>
> Was there a loss of separation? Was there an aircraft within 3,000'
> landing or departing?
>
>

[David Corsi]

"> I'll get flamed for this...but it was way too innocent a transgression.
The
> controllers did not sound upset. As a previous poster commented, "Was
there
> a loss of separation?" And the answer appears to be no. If there was
> there'd be paperwork to be filled out by the tower and THEN I'd fill the
> NASA form out.

This isn't a "flame" but I disagree. While you are certainly correct that in
this situation likely the Tower has done nothing and nothing will ever be
heard on the situation it is not necessary at all for the Tower to even
imply they are begining to file a report on the pilot. It is possibly,
although not likely, the first word the pilot hears is the letter of
investigation arriving in the mail. FILL OUT THE NASA FORM and then don't
worry about it.

[David Corsi]

> I believe the form offers protection only once in five years if I read it
> correctly. If I'm correct wouldn't want to turn in my "get out of jail
free
> card" over such a minor transgression.

In regards to this you are right and wrong. You can turn in NASA forms night
and day and they provide protection that one time the FAA comes calling. If
the pilot fills out a NASA form on this and the FAA does not investigate
this doesn't "waste" his one get out of jail free card. If they do
investigate it then well the NASA form will be worth its weight in gold
won't it?

[Kobra]

> In regards to this you are right and wrong. You can turn in NASA forms
night
> and day and they provide protection that one time the FAA comes calling.
If
> the pilot fills out a NASA form on this and the FAA does not investigate
> this doesn't "waste" his one get out of jail free card.

This I did not know...if this is correct then I agree...turn the form in.

Kobra

[Ron Natalie]

"Koopas Ly" > wrote in message om...

> What should I do? Should I fill out the NASA form?
>
Never hurts to fill out a NASA form. As others point out, it's not even necessary
to think you did anything wrong, however the immunity granted gives a big incentive
to bare your soul in the name of aviation safety.

People violate ATC instructions all the time. Unless this causes an error that the
controller would be dinged for and he needs to cover his butt, or you do something
exceedingly dangerous or stupid, nothing ever comes of it.

[Ron Natalie]

"David Corsi" > wrote in message news:iAMrb.160468$Tr4.432588@attbi_s03...
>
> In regards to this you are right and wrong. You can turn in NASA forms night
> and day and they provide protection that one time the FAA comes calling. If
> the pilot fills out a NASA form on this and the FAA does not investigate
> this doesn't "waste" his one get out of jail free card. If they do
> investigate it then well the NASA form will be worth its weight in gold
> won't it?
>
Correct. There isn't a waste of a "get out of jail free card." It's not the
use of the NASA form that gets charged against you, it's having any violations
(absolved by use of the form or not). You can't save up your "card" for a real
big violation, because any enforcement action will wipe it out (absolved or otherwise).

[Newps]

The hold lines mean absolutely nothing to ATC. The only thing that
matters is that you didn't actually get onto the runway, past the solid
white line. It is a quirk of the FAA about the hold lines and the
runway safety area. Air Traffic only cares about the solid white line.
Don't cross that and we don't care. Airports Division cares about the
runway safety area, which is defined by the hold short lines on the
taxiway and usually some kind of markers in the grass alongside the
runways at I think 150 feet from the centerline.

Koopas Ly wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After a short local flight, I landed on 4L at HNL and forgot to hold
> short of 4R. After I made the right turn on taxiway Echo from 4L, the
> tower (sensing that I was taxiing a bit fast) tells me, in a rather
> calm voice, "hold short of 4R!".
>
> By that time, I had already crossed the 4R hold bars. I was not on
> runway 4R, just between the hold bars and the runway edge. There was
> neither departing nor landing traffic. I apologized, and the tower
> told me to contact ground. Never heard from the tower again.
>
> What should I do? Should I fill out the NASA form?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex

[Newps]

wrote:

> On 10 Nov 2003 01:21:41 -0800, (Koopas Ly)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Was it actually a runway incursion?
>
>
> Was there a loss of separation? Was there an aircraft within 3,000'
> landing or departing?

This is irrelavant for determining if an incursion has happened.

[Peter Duniho]

"Koopas Ly" > wrote in message
om...
> What should I put under "Type of Event/Situation"? Was it actually a
runway
> incursion? I wasn't ON runway 4R, only beyond the hold short bars between
> 4L and 4R.

I believe AOPA means that you should avoid putting incriminating information
on the identification strip (which is what you receive back and what you use
to prove you filed the form, so you can avoid enforcement action).

In your case, since enforcement action is highly unlikely, it probably
doesn't matter. However, generally speaking, what they mean is to write
something like "rollout after landing" to describe the situation, rather
than using a label that automatically implies a violation, like "runway
incursion" or even "failed to stop before hold line".

Put all the incriminating stuff in the actual report. Not the piece of
paper you might have to turn over to the FAA.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Koopas Ly wrote:
>
> What should I do? Should I fill out the NASA form?

In this case, I think so.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[John Galban]

Newps > wrote in message news:<mENrb.161019$Tr4.433525@attbi_s03>...
> The hold lines mean absolutely nothing to ATC. The only thing that
> matters is that you didn't actually get onto the runway, past the solid
> white line. It is a quirk of the FAA about the hold lines and the
> runway safety area. Air Traffic only cares about the solid white line.
> Don't cross that and we don't care. Airports Division cares about the
> runway safety area, which is defined by the hold short lines on the
> taxiway and usually some kind of markers in the grass alongside the
> runways at I think 150 feet from the centerline.
>

That's interesting. It would seem that all of the tower controllers
out there do not know this. I've witnessed more than one go around
instigated by a tower because another plane was just over the hold
short bars (but not on the runway proper). Just a few weeks ago I
heard the tower telling a student pilot that he could not land any
more traffic on the runway until the student moved his airplane 3 ft.
to clear the bars.

To be fair, I've only noticed this hyper-picky behavior since the FAA
started that runway incursion program several years back.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

John Galban wrote:
>
> That's interesting. It would seem that all of the tower controllers
> out there do not know this. I've witnessed more than one go around
> instigated by a tower because another plane was just over the hold
> short bars (but not on the runway proper).

That controller is an idiot.


Just a few weeks ago I
> heard the tower telling a student pilot that he could not land any
> more traffic on the runway until the student moved his airplane 3 ft.
> to clear the bars.

We will tell the students what they are supposed to do, and that is to
stay behind the hold line. But if an airplane crosses the line do you
start sending traffic around? Not in a million years.


>
> To be fair, I've only noticed this hyper-picky behavior since the FAA
> started that runway incursion program several years back.

Tower managers who come from Centers are the worst to deal with.
They're all hot and bothered about trivialities like hold lines and
generally make life difficult for a tower controller. We had one here
for a few years, he really made the union membership rise.

[Mark Kolber]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:54:10 GMT, Newps > wrote:

> Air Traffic only cares about the solid white line.
> Don't cross that and we don't care.

They =definitely= care at APA.

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"