Runway incursions

On Sep 23, 1:07*pm, C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 23, 10:55*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Now you're just out here trying to pile on more flames.

Nope, I just wanna keep you posting.

That's just weird. Yew just can't quit me, can ya?


Nope, it's actually helpful for other users of this forum. The more
you post the more apparent it becomes that you don't know what you're
talking about and thus it is best to ignore what you post.

On Sep 23, 1:01*pm, C Gattman wrote:

That's a good rule. And, probably, if you're having trouble out there,
lots of other people have too so a clueful tower operator should
understand and be ready to help somebody who gets confused there. If
enough people express confusion, hopefully the airport will fix the
problem.

Agree, and I have not found a controller not willing to help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ill93roZh3I is my video focusing on
ground ops and including my "cluelessness" on the radio. Another
pilot with lesser experience was with me.

Cheers. It's much more interesting talking about flying than it is
bitching at each other.

Agree :-) Just be nice on your replies and I won't bitch!

On Sep 23, 10:18*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2007/AAR0705.pdfis the accident report

This is a fascinating read.


On Page 61 of this July 2007 report, the first two sentences of
Section 2.2.1.4 state the FAA and ICAO definitions of a runway
incursion. To a non-pilot (also non-native English, so...) not knowing
if "runway" has a definition that restricts it to a particular
portion, there's little doubt that the definition of runway incursion
is restricted to the runway envelope. The FAA definition could easily
be mistaken for the taxiway and other airport areas if "runway" had
been omitted from the "any occurrence in the airport runway
environment involving..." bit.

Save for the personal bits, a good deal of clarity has actually
emerged on this thread

Ramapriya

D Ramapriya wrote:

On Page 61 of this July 2007 report, the first two sentences of
Section 2.2.1.4 state the FAA and ICAO definitions of a runway
incursion.


The FAA adopted the ICAO definition a year ago.



To a non-pilot (also non-native English, so...) not knowing
if "runway" has a definition that restricts it to a particular
portion, there's little doubt that the definition of runway incursion
is restricted to the runway envelope. The FAA definition could easily
be mistaken for the taxiway and other airport areas if "runway" had
been omitted from the "any occurrence in the airport runway
environment involving..." bit.


So a seminar attendee could have been confused if FSDO dude had misstated
the old definition of runway incursion? Is that what you're saying?

On Sep 24, 2:20*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
D Ramapriya wrote:

To a non-pilot (also non-native English, so...) not knowing
if "runway" has a definition that restricts it to a particular
portion, there's little doubt that the definition of runway incursion
is restricted to the runway envelope. The FAA definition could easily
be mistaken for the taxiway and other airport areas if "runway" had
been omitted from the "any occurrence in the airport runway
environment involving..." bit.

So a seminar attendee could have been confused if FSDO dude had misstated
the old definition of runway incursion? *Is that what you're saying?


Oh no! I was merely stating that even to me who isn't in the aviation
industry, the definition given in 2.2.1.4 is categoric; "runway" is
unmistakably in there.

Ramapriya

D Ramapriya wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:20 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
D Ramapriya wrote:

To a non-pilot (also non-native English, so...) not knowing
if "runway" has a definition that restricts it to a particular
portion, there's little doubt that the definition of runway incursion
is restricted to the runway envelope. The FAA definition could easily
be mistaken for the taxiway and other airport areas if "runway" had
been omitted from the "any occurrence in the airport runway
environment involving..." bit.
So a seminar attendee could have been confused if FSDO dude had misstated
the old definition of runway incursion? Is that what you're saying?


Oh no! I was merely stating that even to me who isn't in the aviation
industry, the definition given in 2.2.1.4 is categoric; "runway" is
unmistakably in there.

Ramapriya






Let's make a rule that there be no more that 20 responses to one OP
topic.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:48 pm, Jenny Taylor wrote:

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/...m?newsId=10166

Yes, you might wish to *read* the URL you cite. It does not support
your claim that runway incursions can occur on *taxiways*.

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?

The FAA doesn't publish regulations on an annual basis, so there is no
"2009 FAR/AIM" published by the FAA. Your favorite publisher compiles
regulations and publishes such a title when they feel like it, which is
likely obsolete when the ink hits the paper. Federal regulations can
and do change whenever the agency creating the regulations feels like
it, with certain restrictions for public notification, public comment
periods, etc.

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?

Absolutely!

Have I attacked you?

Not that I claimed.

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?

It states that a runway incursion involves a runway.

Instead of tossing out some snarky-ass "debate club" comment?

Wow! Guess I really hit home!

Maybe
not? Who ARE you?

I am someone who *understands* what a runway incursion is.

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:13 pm, "Morgans" wrote:

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"?


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?

Only if the taxiway is in a movement area. I can and do use taxiways
outside of the movement area at towered airports regularly without a
clearance and it is legal and proper to do so.


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?

C Gattman wrote:
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.

They did? Are you sure? The FAA only issues certificates to everyone
else.

Beechbummer wrote:

One would think that a yellow line in front of you should be a clear indication that you are still on a taxiway, but
when confronted with signage that isn't exactly clear on directions,

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:20:19 -0700 (PDT), C Gattman wrote:

FAA signage is limited and rather clear. If you have problems reading
it, you should study your AFD or airport diagram BEFORE entering the
movement area, or find an instructor or experienced pilot to help you.
You can have all your FAA regs and definitions down pat, but, a pilot
who can't interpret the signs or stay on the taxiway is dangerous.

Other than the AIM, which is obvious, here are some great resources
for students and other pilots:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/quiz/ -- FAA
material.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications...RWcards_lo.pdf --
AOPA flashcards. The FAA distributes these as well.
http://www.airnav.com/airports/ -- Airport diagrams

A professional pilot will have studied the airport diagram and will
already be familiar with the most likely routes to the active runway,
or to parking.

Perhaps in your role as SuperPilot, you are able to define with great
perception the myriad of signs, lines, planes, air socks, landings,
t/os, radio commo and dozens of other assorted flailings to your visual,
audio and emotional acuities.

The remainder of the world even experienced pilots hacve issues with
them.

Answering like a textbook to a real life, real problem, reality is like
having someone recite surgical procedures over the intercom into the
operation room. Sounds like a decent idea, sucks large tomatoes as you
cut someone open.

Think about it.