New Definition - Runway Incursion

[AuntPeggy]

At a recent safety seminar at Daniel Webster University, at one of the meetings we were informed that the FAA has adopted the ICAO Runway Incursion Definition. (The FAA, AOPA, etc, have been instrumental in creating the definition.) The net result is that more activities will likely be called incursions. Here is a quote from the most recent Runway Safety report where the definition is provided:

ICAO Runway Incursion Definition and Severity Classification​

As part of the its Flight Plan goal for International Leadership, the FAA supported the efforts of ICAO to establish standard definitions for runway incursion and runway incursion severity.

This will eventually allow the collection of comparable data and enable the building of a comprehensive database of global information that may be used to enhance runway safety management.​

Comparison between FAA and ICAO Runway Incursion Severity Definitions

FAA Runway Incursion Definition​

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.​

ICAO Runway Incursion Definition​

Any occurrence at an aerodrome 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.​

Currently, the FAA reviews all surface incidents (SIs), identifies a subset as runway incursions, and assigns a severity. Effective October 1, 2007, the FAA will categorize runway incursions using the ICAO definition of incursions and the ICAO severity categories. ​

<snip>​

The FAA’s expansion of the definition of a runway incursion to harmonize with the ICAO definition will lead to an increase in the total number of runway incursions and a change in the United States runway incursion severity distribution.

I encourage you to read the report. This information begins on page 43. http://www.faa.gov/runwaysafety/pdf/rireport06.pdf​

Notice that the FAA definition requires that an incursion result in loss of separation with a landing or departing aircraft and in the ICAO definition, no loss of separation is required. Grandma taking a morning constitutional alongside the runway will be an incursion even if there is no safety consequence.​

 

[KennyFlys]

This is one of those times I don't have a problem with the ICAO version. A small plane entering a movement area can be just as much of a hazard to a large plane unable to see them as out on the taxiway or runway. The goal is safe movement of all aircraft in all phases of flight. That starts from the moment you leave parking until once again parked.

A good example of this is from a few months ago at PDK. The ground frequency was jammed from a locked microphone. Apparently, that wasn't recognized by one aircraft. They accepted what they thought was a clearance for them to taxi to the runway. I'm in the run-up area when a security vehicle comes up to the airplane beside me. I then hear that plane talking to ground on an alternate ground frequency. This was a potential incident. But, even this could have been prevented had the pilot listened to ALL of the ATIS broadcast where the alternate frequency had been given.

Yes, there was no loss of separation. But, the potential was there. That's where it starts.

As far as the PIC is concerned, it's not just actual threats to safety. It's also perceived threats to safety. He may not have a clue what Grandma's intentions are. Hence, his first choice is likely to go around.

 

[mikea]

Look for all kinds of more pressure for increased pilot training and tighter rules and procedures to fix the sudden huge increase in runway incursions due to this change in reporting standards.

 

[TMetzinger]

I agree with the ICAO definition. If something is somewhere it's not supposed to be, it's an incursion. Simple solution - pay attention and don't be somewhere you're not supposed to be.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I don't have a problem with the new definition. After reading the thread about "clear of the runway", just thought that pilots ought to be aware that the definition of incursion had changed.

The FAA is very aware that the absolute number of incursions will increase simply due to the new definition and they are taking that into account. Newspapers are another story altogether.

Something else I learned is that you can be cleared to land and you can land when another airplane is still on the runway as long as the other airplane is more than 5000 feet beyond the threshold and that 5000 feet is enough for you to land and stop safely.

 

[mikea]

...

Something else I learned is that you can be cleared to land and you can land when another airplane is still on the runway as long as the other airplane is more than 5000 feet beyond the threshold and that 5000 feet is enough for you to land and stop safely.

OSH tower cleared me to land when I was beginning a go-around on 09 because the Citabria ahead was lollygagging clearing the runway. I didn't have 5000 feet, but I didn't need it either.