My first (and hopefully last) "possible pilot deviation"

[DutchRoller]

Most people will say those lines exist for a reason. Those who deem them to be arbitrary and unnecessary are probably the type of folks who thumb their noses at all safety rules and like to just do what they want even when it is careless and reckless. The type we do not need in the air.

 

[MAKG1]

If you look in the FAA runway incursion data base, you find that 100% of the runway incursions listed happened at towered airports.

Now, the O.P. didn't pull out on the runway in front of someone who was landing and there was no potential for an accident. All that happened was that some magic line painted on the ground was touched. But, of course, the FAA feels a need to "do something" about failures to perfectly follow the rules made up by some bureaucrat that may or may not actually have actually flown an airplane - even if there was no issue with safety.

Ever play "Simon says" as a kid?

Jeez, dude.

Runway incursions sure as hell happen at nontowered airports. I've seen quite a few. There is just no one to catch you.

You're letting your antiauthority attitude get out of hand. Might want to have that looked at.

 

[Velocity173]

If you look in the FAA runway incursion data base, you find that 100% of the runway incursions listed happened at towered airports.

Now, the O.P. didn't pull out on the runway in front of someone who was landing and there was no potential for an accident. All that happened was that some magic line painted on the ground was touched. But, of course, the FAA feels a need to "do something" about failures to perfectly follow the rules made up by some bureaucrat that may or may not actually have actually flown an airplane - even if there was no issue with safety.

Ever play "Simon says" as a kid?

I'd say that's a pessimistic view. Depends on how the runway incursion is written up by ATC. FSDO might review it and deem it not a major safety issue and just issue the OP a warning letter. Most likely the case anyway.

As far as nontowered fields, outside of a collision, it's pretty hard to report a runway incursion without proof or some sort of criteria. ATC uses specific criteria so it's gonna get reported. That is unless the controller sweeps it under the rug.

 

[jimhorner]

Weird...I got a photo from Google Maps from before the repave.

Okay, that is interesting. My photo came from the Google Maps app on my iPad. I see now that the maps.google.com picture in the browser is the same as yours. I always assumed that the iPad app would have the same data as the web link. Guess not... Strange.

[Edit]Just checked the Apple maps app as well. Thought maybe the Google Maps app might use the same data, but no, the Apple maps app has a different picture. The Apple picture shows after the repave also, but it's not the same as the Google Maps app photo.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MAKG1]

You get different photos in Google Maps at different zoom levels.

 

[SkyDog58]

Jeez, dude.

Runway incursions sure as hell happen at nontowered airports. I've seen quite a few. There is just no one to catch you.

You're letting your antiauthority attitude get out of hand. Might want to have that looked at.

I've noticed that attitude permeates most of his posts. I thank he got spanked at least once by the FAA and developed a case of major butthurt over it.

 

[jimhorner]

You get different photos in Google Maps at different zoom levels.

That's it! In the web link, my photo shows up when zoomed out a bit and switches to the pre-paved shot when zoomed in closer.

In the iPad app, the pre-pave photo never shows up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Clip4]

Just looking a Airnav, there is not an official diagram publishes for PAO. That airport needs an airport diagram with the runup area shown as a HS with an explanation.

 

[Bonchie]

File a NASA ASRS form. Then contact AOPA, call their legal team and discuss the situation.

The FAA may do anything from a certificate action (suspension, revoked) to a "709 ride", in which the FSDO administers a checkride and decides which, if any, ratings you keep and which you lose.

Zero chance he gets any ticket action and a 709 ride is unlikely. More likely is they call and talk for a minute and he gets a warning.

The FAA may never even contact him if he files a NASA form explaining and saying how he will correct it.

We've got an FAA inspector in our CAP squadron and people don't realize how bad you have to screw up to warrant serious action. They aren't out to get you over honest screw ups.

P.S. The above assumes that he doesn't try to fight them. Otherwise, all bets are off.

 

[jimhorner]

Just looking a Airnav, there is not an official diagram publishes for PAO. That airport needs an airport diagram with the runup area shown as a HS with an explanation.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1705/09216AD.PDF

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lindberg]

Jeez, dude.

Runway incursions sure as hell happen at nontowered airports. I've seen quite a few. There is just no one to catch you.

You're letting your antiauthority attitude get out of hand. Might want to have that looked at.

I don't speak for him, but I think everyone is missing Capt. Thorpe's point. I don't think he's saying it's ok to ignore ATC. The OP's infraction was malum prohibitum, not malum in se. There aren't "runway incursions" at nontowered fields because you don't need permission to go on the runway at a nontowered field, and there's no prohibition on doing it. And yet, people survive. This is similar to the Harrison Ford incident; he disobeyed and ATC instruction, but didn't do anything inherently dangerous.

 

[Brad Z]

FWIW, with the advent of FAA's new compliance philosophy for dealing with investigations of pilot deviations, it is highly unlikely that the OP will see anything more than a 709 ride, and more likely a counseling session with an inspector. Inspectors have a lot on their plate and the faster they can close out this issue, the better.

My recommendation: don't lawyer up, but instead find a well respected instructor (perhaps a DPE who also instructs) and do a flight review with an emphasis on towered airport operations and runway incursion avoidance. Make sure the instructor logs the ground time in detail to show that you sought additional instruction to correct the issue. That shows you have there right attitude about the incident and makes it easy for the ASI to consider the OP a low risk and close out the incident without further drama. one of the tenets of the compliance philosophy is risk assessment; if the ASI believes you present a low risk of causing a problem in the future, it will be easy for him or her to consider no further action necessary.

Also, there is nothing wrong with accepting responsibility if you in fact believe you did something wrong. This is a learning opportunity and no metal was bent or paint exchanged. That's all that really matters in the end.

 

[citizen5000]

There aren't "runway incursions" at nontowered fields because you don't need permission to go on the runway at a nontowered field

According to the FAA a runway incursion can happen on any airfield (aerodrome). The FAA rates them according to severity. https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/

 

[Velocity173]

According to the FAA a runway incursion can happen on any airfield (aerodrome). The FAA rates them according to severity. https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/

But the problem with the definition in this case, is "incorrect presence." What does that mean as applied to nontowered airfields? Even if you believe another pilot violated the runway's safety area, trying to prove the incursion would be problematic at best. Your word against theirs.

In a towered environment, its more clearly defined when you violate an instruction and you have multiple controllers that witness said violation. With ASDE-X airports, you don't even need controllers to witness it. It's recorded.

 

[comanchepilot]

What will the FAA do?

Can you go to Liveatc.net and listen to the event? I'd SAVE the entire recording - and make sure you heard what you heard.

If you HEARD 'pull up to Runway 31 and hold short" and you REPEATED that instruction . . and he said 'pull up and hold short AT Runway 31. . .' well, first off - that is NOT proper phraseology.

Thus, if that IS what happened, the FAA will also need to deal with the controller giving that instruction - because the incorrect phraseology is what caused the deviation - or at least led to the chance of a deviation happening.

The FAA is about ensuring safety - not gotcha. It may seem that way - but here is how you solve the problem with them - if they even call. . .

You get the call - you return it, you are polite, you tell the inspector what you thought happened - only facts you know. Then, you tell him you downloaded the recording from Liveatc.net - and you listened to it - and you thought you understood you were to take onto the runway and line up. He might not have said that - but that is what you understood. You offer to email him/her the recording. They will have a written report -= likely not the recording. The recording will help them understand what happened.

That shows the inspector willingness to understand your mistake and how you made it. It shows a safety oriented attitude to understand your mistake and not make it again.

You'll get a tongue lashing, then a go forth and sin no more. Because if the tape reveals what you heard is what happened - they have to go after the controller as well - but if they close the file with a 'cooperative airman, understood what occurred and why and has made an effort to understand why . . .' the file just gets closed.

 

[Lindberg]

But the problem with the definition in this case, is "incorrect presence." What does that mean as applied to nontowered airfields? Even if you believe another pilot violated the runway's safety area, trying to prove the incursion would be problematic at best. Your word against theirs.

In a towered environment, its more clearly defined when you violate an instruction and you have multiple controllers that witness said violation. With ASDE-X airports, you don't even need controllers to witness it. It's recorded.

Right. There's no prohibition against two aircraft on the runway (or in the "protected area") at a nontowered airport. So short of an accident caused by a violation of RoW rules or careless and reckless operation, there's no "incorrect presence." And yet, we live.

 

[Radar Contact]

If he actually said "Hold short on Runway 31," that would involve you going onto the runway.

This is bad info. It's only (now) "line up and wait". If you don't hear that or cleared for takeoff, never cross the hold short bars.

 

[NoBShere]

I'm far from being a pilot, but couldn't a guy kinda get the lay of the land (so to speak) by listening to ground for a few minutes prior to any movement, especially when at an unfamiliar airfield? I would think if the airport is that active, that there would be a cadence to how the ground operations are conducted. But, hey WTF do I know?

A lot can be learned from listening to what is happening for 10 or 15 minutes. But, things can change as traffic volume changes, winds change, someone doesn't do exactly what is expected, spacing doesn't quite work out as planned, etc. it can be dynamic, got to know published procedures prior.

 

[Velocity173]

I seriously doubt the controller used "hold short on" or "hold short at" phraseology. Even if they did, hold short should be your clue not to enter the runway. Not to mention, if you were to get permission to enter the runway from your position, it would 1) start with the runway number. Example, "Archer 345, runway 31..." and 2) be followed by either LUAW or cleared for takeoff with clearance.

Not chastising the OP either. I've made errors both flying and controlling. Fortunately most were either caught by others around me or they weren't safety issues where a collision hazard existed. But, it is an error and one that sometimes comes with punishment. I'm a believer in punishments that are proportionate to the level of error. If errors become trends, the level of punishment needs to increase. In this case, it's not intentional, it's a one time thing and no collision hazard existed, get a slap on the wrist and be on your way.

 

[iflyvfr]

From LiveATC: At 05:30 "Archer 94Q pull up and hold short RW 31." Response sounded unsure/confused but is otherwise unintelligible. At 5:55 Tower (sounding like he fell out of his chair) frantically tells "Archer 94...err Cessna 25 Go Around". At 06:30 Tower instructs Archer to taxi back and contact Ground.

Sounds like a simple case of misheard/confusion that should have been avoided by asking for clarification. Lesson learned and good reminder! Good luck OP, sounds like you have the right attitude.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I've noticed that attitude permeates most of his posts. I thank he got spanked at least once by the FAA and developed a case of major butthurt over it.

Nope.

But I do know how bureaucracies work for the sake of bureaucracy. And I also know how some people like to make elaborate rules for the sake of making elaborate rules and showing management that they are "doing big things". I've seen millions (and I mean that literally) of dollars wasted because of someone convincing management that they had the next great idea...

 

[citizen5000]

Right. There's no prohibition against two aircraft on the runway (or in the "protected area") at a nontowered airport. So short of an accident caused by a violation of RoW rules or careless and reckless operation, there's no "incorrect presence." And yet, we live.

Two planes on a runway is a violation unless ATC instructs otherwise. And your tailnumber is just as visible to others with cell phone and camera as someone watching you from a tower. Or a pair of pilots in a cockpit watching you violate.

 

[Everskyward]

Right. There's no prohibition against two aircraft on the runway (or in the "protected area") at a nontowered airport. So short of an accident caused by a violation of RoW rules or careless and reckless operation, there's no "incorrect presence." And yet, we live.

Two planes on a runway is a violation unless ATC instructs otherwise. And your tailnumber is just as visible to others with cell phone and camera as someone watching you from a tower. Or a pair of pilots in a cockpit watching you violate.

Lindberg was talking about a nontowered airport so there is no ATC.

 

[citizen5000]

Lindberg was talking about a nontowered airport so there is no ATC.

So was I. Incursions can happen on any airfield. Two planes are not allowed on a runway at the same time at a non-towered airport. The only way you can do that legally is if you are at a towered airport and ATC allows it.

Tailnumbers are visible to all and is the best way for witnesses to observe a violation and report it to the FAA. And of course all violations are sorted out after the accident and subsequent punitive action taken against survivors.

 

[Clark1961]

So was I. Incursions can happen on any airfield. Two planes are not allowed on a runway at the same time at a non-towered airport. The only way you can do that legally is if you are at a towered airport and ATC allows it.

This will be news to many people...

 

[Radar Contact]

This will be news to many people...

It would be news to me. Don't recall runway separation explained in the FAR's (not saying it isn't). I've always used runway separation from the 7110.65. I land 3000 or 4500 behind a preceding arrival and position and hold until the proceeding departure is 3000-4500 ahead of me.

 

[Everskyward]

This will be news to many people...

No kidding....

 

[gsengle]

Cite your source please that prohibits two airplanes on a non towered airplane runway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Velocity173]

Two planes on a runway is a violation unless ATC instructs otherwise. And your tailnumber is just as visible to others with cell phone and camera as someone watching you from a tower. Or a pair of pilots in a cockpit watching you violate.

I've never read this. The AIM says not to cross the hold short lines at a non towered aircraft unless "adequate separation" exists. Don't interpret that to mean a clear deck. Like the "incorrect presence" in the runway incursions definition, this would be subjective at a non towered airfield.

 

[ircphoenix]

Pull up and hold short is nonstandard phraseology, right?

Should have just said "hold short." Probably could have alleviated some confusion.

 

[hindsight2020]

So was I. Incursions can happen on any airfield. Two planes are not allowed on a runway at the same time at a non-towered airport. The only way you can do that legally is if you are at a towered airport and ATC allows it.

Tailnumbers are visible to all and is the best way for witnesses to observe a violation and report it to the FAA. And of course all violations are sorted out after the accident and subsequent punitive action taken against survivors.

 

[citizen5000]

FAA Runway Safety - Runway Incursions https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/

• Any occurrence at an aerodrome (all airfields) involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft.
• There are four categories of runway incursions:
  • Category A is a serious incident in which a collision was narrowly avoided.
  • Category B is an incident in which separation decreases and there is a significant potential for collision, which may result in a time critical corrective/evasive response to avoid a collision.
  • Category C is an incident characterized by ample time and/or distance to avoid a collision.
  • Category D is an incident that meets the definition of runway incursion such as incorrect presence of a single vehicle/person/aircraft on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft but with no immediate safety consequences.

 

[Everskyward]

FAA Runway Safety - Runway Incursions https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/

• Any occurrence at an aerodrome (all airfields) involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft.
• There are four categories of runway incursions:
  • Category A is a serious incident in which a collision was narrowly avoided.
  • Category B is an incident in which separation decreases and there is a significant potential for collision, which may result in a time critical corrective/evasive response to avoid a collision.
  • Category C is an incident characterized by ample time and/or distance to avoid a collision.
  • Category D is an incident that meets the definition of runway incursion such as incorrect presence of a single vehicle/person/aircraft on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft but with no immediate safety consequences.

Define "incorrect".

 

[Velocity173]

Pull up and hold short is nonstandard phraseology, right?

Should have just said "hold short." Probably could have alleviated some confusion.

I was thinking the same thing but I wouldn't call it an egregious violation. Only think I'd do if I was local would be "Archer 94Q, taxi onto Alpha, hold short of runway 31."

 

[Harold Rutila]

Pull up and hold short is nonstandard phraseology, right?

Should have just said "hold short." Probably could have alleviated some confusion.

It's a GA control tower thing. I've heard it at a few airports, although the variant I hear is usually something like "Taxi up to and hold short of Runway XX." The objective is to get pilots to pull all the way up to the hold short lines to save 10 or 20 seconds of taxi time after a takeoff clearance is issued.

 

[citizen5000]

Define "incorrect".

"incorrect presence of an aircraft" leads to an "incident" I am assuming.

The list gives severity level examples of "incident" such as "serious incident in which a collision was narrowly avoided"

 

[Everskyward]

"incorrect presence of an aircraft" leads to an "incident" I am assuming.

The list gives severity level examples of "incident" such as "serious incident in which a collision was narrowly avoided"

Those all have to do with controlled airports, though. Look at this, which was in your link. They all have to do with operating contrary to ATC, or ATC itself making an error. You have either been taught wrong or somehow came to an incorrect conclusion after reading something. Show us a regulation that says two airplanes must not be on the runway at the same time at a nontowered airport.

 

[ircphoenix]

I was thinking the same thing but I wouldn't call it an egregious violation. Only think I'd do if I was local would be "Archer 94Q, taxi onto Alpha, hold short of runway 31."

It's a GA control tower thing. I've heard it at a few airports, although the variant I hear is usually something like "Taxi up to and hold short of Runway XX." The objective is to get pilots to pull all the way up to the hold short lines to save 10 or 20 seconds of taxi time after a takeoff clearance is issued.

What I usually hear is "Taxi to runway 29 via..." No instruction to hold short, unless you're at the hold short bars and they have you continue to hold short... so "Cherokee 1AB holding short runway 29" "Cherokee 1AB hold short." Even SMO is that way from the runup from what I recall.

 

[ircphoenix]

Those all have to do with controlled airports, though. Look at this, which was in your link. They all have to do with operating contrary to ATC, or ATC itself making an error. You have either been taught wrong or somehow came to an incorrect conclusion after reading something. Show us a regulation that says two airplanes must not be on the runway at the same time at a nontowered airport.

View attachment 53350

How come it's "pilot/vehicle/pedestrian deviation" when someone else fornicates the canine, but it's an "operational incident" when a controller messes up? Why isn't it a "controller deviation?"

 

[Velocity173]

AOPA's definition under Statistical Overview. Once again, impossible to determine "incorrect presence" at a non towered airfield. No criteria establishes this definition and with the AIM allowing movement past the hold short marking at non towered fields, nothing preventing 2 aircraft on the runway at once. Nothing regulatory either. Don't know how many times I've departed fly-ins / air shows with more than one aircraft on the runway. We determine "adequate separation."

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2009/november/11/runway-incursion-recommendations