Runway incursions

"C Gattman" wrote

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/...m?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.

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.
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 17, 2:33*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

*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/...m?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

On Sep 17, 5:01*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

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

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? 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

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.
--
Jim in NC

C Gattman wrote:
On Sep 17, 2:33 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

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/...m?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 wrote:

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.



Also, I forwarded links and references including those from the FAA.


Which indicated runway incursions can only occur on runways.



You chose to attack me personally


I did not attack you personally.



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.



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/...m?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."



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.



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.



As a professional pilot and instructor,


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

On Sep 17, 7:43*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
It is amazing that any person can stick to his guns, when all his ammunition
is blanks.

He must have been flaps50 CFI LOL

"BeechSundowner" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 7:43 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
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! :-)

"BeechSundowner" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 7:43 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
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! :-)