report runway incursion non-towered airport?

What's short final? Aircraft enter runways and takeoff in front of
aircraft on final regularly without mishap.

Short enough that he had to do a 360 instead of continuing in for landing.
I think the fact that he had to take evasive action means that the Citation
wasn't paying attention.

Adam

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:47:57 GMT, Robert Coffey
wrote:

are radio calls mandatory on uncontrolled fields?

Well, you have an obligation not to put people in danger. Radio can't
be mandatory because planes are flying that have no radio. It's "see
and avoid."

Seems to me the Citation pilot fell short of his obligation. Perhaps
as the more experienced pilot he figured he knew he had time to take
off without jeopardizing the other plane. Of course he should have
called. It's never a good idea to spook somebody controlling a heavy
object at high speed.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

A runway incursion is "any occurrence in the airport runway environment
involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that
creates
a collision hazard or results in a loss of required separation with an
aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to
land."
It's a non-towered field so there's no separation requirement. Was there
a
genuine collision hazard? Would you have collided had you not done the
360?

We would have collided had I not done the 360 or gone around. Obviously, I
saw the aircraft and made contigency plans (trying to "stay ahead" of the
situation) since I heard no radio transmissions, all in an effort to
minimize the probability of colliding. If he/she had held short a few
seconds longer and pulled out as I was crossing the threshold, then the
chances of a collision would have been substantial.

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:hfwUd.27784$Tt.10253@fed1read05...
What was that Form Number? Oh yea.. NASA Form 277.
You can get it at www.asa2fly.com and do a search on "NASA Form 277"

It does not force an "enforcement action", but if contacted it might put
the
pilot on notice that he goofed.

BT

Thanks, BT.

no doubt the citation pilot was either careless or a jerk, but i don't
think there is much to discuss with the faa. the citation had the runway.

Cub Driver wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:47:57 GMT, Robert Coffey
wrote:


are radio calls mandatory on uncontrolled fields?


Well, you have an obligation not to put people in danger. Radio can't
be mandatory because planes are flying that have no radio. It's "see
and avoid."

Seems to me the Citation pilot fell short of his obligation. Perhaps
as the more experienced pilot he figured he knew he had time to take
off without jeopardizing the other plane. Of course he should have
called. It's never a good idea to spook somebody controlling a heavy
object at high speed.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

wrote in message
ps.com...
so.. Tell us the N number. Inquiring minds wanting to know and all...

I'm glad you won't have to read about it on an NTSB report...

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Michael 182 wrote:

It really is irrelevant whether the OP and/or the pilot of the Citation
were on the correct frequency. The OP could have been a nordo Cub.

The claim that the Citation pilot allegedly entered the runway in front of
an aircraft on short final is the issue being discussed here.

--
Peter

That's correct, Peter.

"mindenpilot" wrote in message
...

Short enough that he had to do a 360 instead of continuing in for landing.
I think the fact that he had to take evasive action means that the
Citation wasn't paying attention.


We don't know that it was short enough that he HAD to do a 360 instead of
continuing in for landing. We don't know that he HAD to take evasive
action.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Seems to me the Citation pilot fell short of his obligation. Perhaps
as the more experienced pilot he figured he knew he had time to take
off without jeopardizing the other plane.


Yup, and he may have figured correctly.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:MivUd.71208$4q6.70081@attbi_s01...
Hmmm. Must be a rash of Citation-itis. On Thursday I had a similar thing
happen, in Muscatine, IA .

The wind was calm, but had recently favored Rwy 24 -- so that's the runway
we chose. (I believe it's the calm-wind runway of choice in MUT as well.)

I had just finished my run-up, and had announced that I was taking the
runway for departure when a Citation pilot announced that HE was departing
on the reciprocal runway, Rwy 06! In fact, squinting into the sun I
could
see that he was already sitting on the runway, facing me, way down at the
other end, over a mile away.

He had never said "boo" until that point, and his radio transmissions were
VERY weak. Dunno if he was having trouble with the radio, or whether he
simply hadn't announced, but there we sat on the runway, like opposing
cars
in a demolition derby.

He then somewhat sheepishly asked if I would mind letting him go first, as
he had a clearance delivery time he had to meet. Not being in any
particular hurry, I rolled back onto the taxiway, but it was a very
unusual -- and potentially disastrous -- situation that ended well.

All I can say is: I'm glad *I* announced.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

It's possible in your case that the pilot was on clearance delivery
frequency as he/she was scrambling to make a time. It's a good thing he
switched to CTAF and heard you. "See and avoid" is fine, but not so easy to
perform looking into a setting sun.