If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
Spoke with the Renton FSDO and they sent me the following link to the
2002 Runway Safety Order 7050-1. As promised, I'll share the word: http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...r%207050-1.pdf Relevant part is Appendix 2, parts 1 and 2a: 1: "In April 1987, the FAA Administrator approved the following definition of the term "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 loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing or intending to land."" Well, that's obsolete, but, not substantially different. Further: 2a "Although the definition is broad, it was always intended that runway incursions include problems on the runway, but not on the taxiways or ramps (in this case, the runway is considered that part of the area intended for landing and takeoff and includes the runway as well as parts of taxiways located between the hold line and the runway)." 2d. "Runway incursions should not include aircraft, vehicles, pedestrians, or objects on the runway without permission when there is no collision hazard or loss of separation... Although these and other similar unauthorized or unapproved movements occur on the airport surface, they are surface incidents, not runway incursions." And, finally, an official definition of a Surface Incident: 3l: Surface Incident: "Any event, including runway incursions, other than an accident, where unauthorized or unapproved movement occurs within the airport surface movement area or an occurrence in the airport surface area associate with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of flight." That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position. According to the FSDO, in a nutshell, if you cross the yellow single- solid/single-dash without authorization it's considered a surface incident. If you cross the yellow double-solid/double-dash it's likely to be reported as a runway incursion. A runway incursion is also a surface incident. Fly safe. -Chris CFI, KTTD |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
On Oct 4, 5:23*pm, C Gattman wrote:
* That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position. I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in the first place. But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway incursions. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
On 10/04/09 16:05, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:23 pm, C Gattman wrote: That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position. I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in the first place. But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway incursions. For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder? Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal" folks left :-( -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
On Oct 4, 5:12*pm, Mark Hansen wrote:
For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder? Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal" folks left :-( Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO last week: "Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA. I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to clear this up..." Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared this information with the local FBO and instructors. One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I have chosen not to bring this to their attention. Be careful what you say out here, everybody. -c |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
On 10/04/09 18:00, C Gattman wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:12 pm, Mark Hansen wrote: For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder? Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal" folks left :-( Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO last week: "Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA. I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to clear this up..." Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared this information with the local FBO and instructors. One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I have chosen not to bring this to their attention. Well, I'm sure whoever that was, they have their own reasons for doing so, and I'm just as sure it has nothing to do with safety :-( But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common good of all humanity ;-) I think the important lesson to be had here is that even when getting information from an authoritative source, it's still being provided by a Human Being, which like the rest of us, is susceptible to errors and/or mistakes. Be careful what you say out here, everybody. Always good advice. Best Regards Chris (and others), -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:21:05 -0700, Mark Hansen wrote:
On 10/04/09 18:00, C Gattman wrote: On Oct 4, 5:12 pm, Mark Hansen wrote: For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder? Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal" folks left :-( Thanks, Mark. I received a phone call at home from the Renton FSDO last week: "Mr. Gattman, somebody forwarded us a copy of a discussion that was posted on the internet. We want to make sure you understand the definition of a runway incursion..." One minute I'm making coffee and the next minute I'm on a conference call with the FAA. I said "Wow, that's kind of creepy, but, I'm glad you called because I sent you e-mail and left voicemail about three weeks ago trying to clear this up..." Everything went fine from there. I asked again for the definition of a Surface Incident and its source, and within a day or two, I received a very pleasant e-mail and useful information. Over the phone he briefly explained how the runway area is measured. (My notes are around here somewhere.) They were courteous and very helpful and I have shared this information with the local FBO and instructors. One problem, I fear, is that whoever forwarded it to the FSDO may have inadvertently included another flight instructor's comments indicating he didn't have much respect for the FSDO types that were often ATPs who couldn't get a job, that those guys often washed out of ATC but not the other way around, etc. I really don't think the FAA would appreciate instructors or their own employees out here casting disparaging remarks about their office or making it sound like they're a bunch of washouts or flunkies, or otherwise calling into question their credibility or authority, especially on a student pilot forum. I have chosen not to bring this to their attention. Well, I'm sure whoever that was, they have their own reasons for doing so, and I'm just as sure it has nothing to do with safety :-( But I'm also sure they felt they were doing a service for the common good of all humanity ;-) I sent it and why not? It was for safety, common good, education and to point out this resource called Usenet to the FAA cyberdummies. All winkers ( from you aside, why didn't you? I think the important lesson to be had here is that even when getting information from an authoritative source, it's still being provided by a Human Being, which like the rest of us, is susceptible to errors and/or mistakes. Be careful what you say out here, everybody. Always good advice. Best Regards Chris (and others), Be careful of what? I missed ti, what exactly is there to be afraid of? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
On Oct 4, 7:12*pm, Mark Hansen wrote:
For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder? For crying out loud, least he could do was apologies for the rude replies he gave me. I feel he deserved my sharp reply. Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal" folks left :-( Only hats off when he recognizes his errors of his ways, not only with the regulations but on how he handles dealing with other people. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
On Oct 4, 6:54*pm, BeechSundowner wrote:
Only hats off when he recognizes his errors of his ways, not only with the regulations but on how he handles dealing with other people. If you don't invest too much of your ego on usenet, it doesn't matter what people think. There is/was a pilot out here who used to get no end of grief from a few posters for grammar and spelling errors, what they perceived to be judgment errors, and after awhile, just about any reason they wanted. The next thing you know, he's got his own business ferrying brand new SR-22s and other airplanes all over the world, making a bunch of money, flying as often as he wants and posting his photos on the internet, living the dream of a lot of pilots and simply ignoring people who criticized him. His critics never left rec.aviation.piloting... I haven't had a bad experience with a passenger, customer, student, examiner or instructor yet. Once again, I'm not convinced I should change my behavior just because somebody on the internet says to, but, I'll certainly take it under consideration. If my way means that we'll never fly an airplane together, I'm okay with that. Thanks for the advice. -c |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
On Oct 5, 9:43*pm, C Gattman wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:54*pm, BeechSundowner wrote: I haven't had a bad experience with a passenger, customer, student, examiner or instructor yet. *Once again, I'm not convinced I should change my behavior just because somebody on the internet says to, but, I'll certainly take it under consideration. Chris, don't also discount the fact - and this is actually more serious than people probably realize - that emails and posts can often look impersonal and confrontational. Mails are IMO great for two reasons - (a) you can address many people in one go and (b) they're non-intrusive in the sense that the recipients can read/respond at the times they choose. That doesn't take away the fact that its big minus is that it can't, unless carefully written, convey what the tone of a human voice can. Each time I've trouble sleeping, I begin counting the number of people I've met in real life who in person are markedly nicer than the general tenor of their mails. Ramapriya |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Official word: Runway Incursion vs Surface Incident
Mark Hansen schreef:
On 10/04/09 16:05, BeechSundowner wrote: On Oct 4, 5:23 pm, C Gattman wrote: That's definitive enough for me, and support's McNicoll's position. I believe it supports everybody's position that said you were wrong in the first place. But you are an instructor and I am a measly pilot that gave you the exact same verbiage in an FAA reference that I gave for runway incursions. For crying out loud, Allan - the man is admitting he was wrong. That's a pretty hard thing to do. Why do you want to make it even harder? Chris: My hat's off to you. You've been a great contributor to the forums and I hope you stick around. There aren't too many "normal" folks left :-( Seconded. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Runway Incursion-Near Miss In Florida | Hawkeye[_2_] | Piloting | 9 | July 16th 07 01:20 AM |
Ft Lauderdale runway incursion | GrtArtiste | Piloting | 0 | July 13th 07 12:50 AM |
Zebra Runway incursion | Save the Elephants | Piloting | 5 | October 30th 04 09:16 PM |
Runway Incursion and NASA form | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 16 | November 12th 03 01:37 AM |
Runway Incursion and NASA form | steve mew | Piloting | 0 | November 10th 03 05:37 AM |