Who is responsible for this incursion?

When I am landing and some 'person' decides to walk onto the runway, what do I do?

Well, I simply push the props to flat pitch, go full throttle, and shallow my descent so that I go level down the runway ten foot in the air...
Then I key the mic and say (laconically) "5 7 Pop going around for FOD in the runway"

I was told later that the big fat one skinned his face and chipped a tooth... Betcha he will look both ways the rest of his life...
 
Dr. O said:
When I am landing and some 'person' decides to walk onto the runway, what do I do?

Well, I simply push the props to flat pitch, go full throttle, and shallow my descent so that I go level down the runway ten foot in the air...
Then I key the mic and say (laconically) "5 7 Pop going around for FOD in the runway"

I was told later that the big fat one skinned his face and chipped a tooth... Betcha he will look both ways the rest of his life...
Click to expand...

Seems to me that is a violation. Once again as a review, how far away are you supposed to stay from structures,vehicles or persons???? If you did nothing to maximize clearance you are not only reckless but, IMHO, a complete tool.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Seems to me that is a violation. Once again as a review, how far away are you supposed to stay from structures,vehicles or persons???? If you did nothing to maximize clearance you are not only reckless but, IMHO, a complete tool.
Click to expand...
It is a violation. If the FSDO heard about someone deliberately buzzing the pedestrian like that, the charge would include both 91.119 minimum altitude and 91.13 careless/reckless. They're pretty hardover about things like this when it appears deliberate, and leveling off a 10 feet makes it appear deliberate. Even if it was the other person's fault, you are still obligated to make your best effort to meet the 500-foot criterion without compromising safety further.
 
Jaybird180 said:
At work, Roger is used via email. When given instructions on how to implement something, the subordinate may at times, reply all with "Roger". If anything else is implemented, he's on the hook. He acknowledged and also said 'I will comply'.
Click to expand...

Teach the dumbass, WILCO. ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
It is a violation. If the FSDO heard about someone deliberately buzzing the pedestrian like that, the charge would include both 91.119 minimum altitude and 91.13 careless/reckless. They're pretty hardover about things like this when it appears deliberate, and leveling off a 10 feet makes it appear deliberate. Even if it was the other person's fault, you are still obligated to make your best effort to meet the 500-foot criterion without compromising safety further.
Click to expand...


I'm not suggesting buzzing the pedestrian at 10', however...

No need to try and comply with 500' or 1,000' or any 'feet'. That rule explicitly states: "EXCEPT FOR TAKING OFF AND LANDING".

Somebody sneaks out of the woods and onto the runway all you have to do is go around. You cross over him at far less than the reg in question...but you were landing so the reg is a non-issue.

Once again, I am not suggesting it's okay to buzz the trespasser at 10'. That would be careless and reckless.
 
Captain said:
I'm not suggesting buzzing the pedestrian at 10', however...

No need to try and comply with 500' or 1,000' or any 'feet'. That rule explicitly states: "EXCEPT FOR TAKING OFF AND LANDING".

Somebody sneaks out of the woods and onto the runway all you have to do is go around. You cross over him at far less than the reg in question...but you were landing so the reg is a non-issue.

Once again, I am not suggesting it's okay to buzz the trespasser at 10'. That would be careless and reckless.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with that, which is why I used the term:If you did nothing to maximize clearance No one would be expected to do more than a normal pitch up and safe climb in that circumstance.
 
Captain said:
-------------------------------------------------------
Pilot: Yeah, we're not going to be able to move the plane. We need to go to the FBO.

ATC: Roger

Pilot: Um, okay. Request permission to cross runway 1 on foot and proceed to the FBO.

ATC: Yeah, okay.

Pilot: Tower, is that permission to cross runway 1 on foot.

ATC: Roger

Pilot: Tower, request a confirmation I am cleared across runway 1 at this time.
-------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Well I need to take Roger out of my vocabulary, because given this scenario I would have taken it as permission. I am part of the camp that believes the controller shares in the responsibility, after all it's the ONLY job they have.
 
# Note: The pilot is still a tard for not looking for traffic
 
Jaybird180 said:
Well I need to take Roger out of my vocabulary, because given this scenario I would have taken it as permission. I am part of the camp that believes the controller shares in the responsibility, after all it's the ONLY job they have.
Click to expand...


Well, if understanding "Roger" means the 'transmission is received' is too complicated then maybe you should remove the word from your flying vocabulary. Except controllers and other pilots are going to use it too...so now what to do.

Here, let's try the absurd again and this time put the real meaning in there and see if that helps:

-------------------------------------------------------
Pilot: Yeah, we're not going to be able to move the plane. We need to go to the FBO.

ATC: I received that transmission.

Pilot: Um, okay. Request permission to cross runway 1 on foot and proceed to the FBO.

ATC: I received that transmission.

Pilot: Tower, is that permission to cross runway 1 on foot.

ATC: I received that transmission.

Pilot: Tower, request a confirmation I am cleared across runway 1 at this time.
-------------------------------------------------------


It really should be clear what 'Roger' means and who is at fault for not understanding it's meaning.
 
Tower is not communicating!!! Sending ack provides no value especially when attempting to clarify and they give the same dumb reply!!!
 
Jaybird180 said:
Roger is now integrated into the common man's vernacular and is understood to be granting permission.
Click to expand...
'Roger' can only be understood to be granting permission in a 'command by negation' environment. IOW, I tell you what I'm doing and unless you tell me not to, I will assume you have given me approval.

The problem in the above situation for the pilot, is that permission to cross an active runway must be explicitly granted. Per the FAA, crossing and holding short cannot be done through command by negation and that is where the pilot errored in assuming he had permission.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Jaybird180 said:
# Note: The pilot is still a tard for not looking for traffic
Click to expand...

No, the pilot is a tard for assuming he had permission to cross when no explicit permission was given.

Tower screwed up by limiting their response to 'roger' and not telling him to hold and wait.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
roncachamp said:
Agreed.



The pilot said if he moved the aircraft it would do damage. If, as you say, the tower did not think the pilot meant "I want to walk over there", then what is there for the controller to say beyond acknowledging the transmission with "roger"?
Click to expand...
Thinking about it again, I can't say, exactly...but overall, it just seems that not enough information was exchanged. The pilot never quite said exactly what he intended to do, and the controller did not quite know exactly, based on what the pilot said. Both parties made assumptions- the controller's was very understandable, but an assumption nonetheless. Not a good thing, as it contributed to the pilot assuming he was OK to just go strolling across an active runway.
 
Captain said:
I'm not suggesting buzzing the pedestrian at 10', however...

No need to try and comply with 500' or 1,000' or any 'feet'. That rule explicitly states: "EXCEPT FOR TAKING OFF AND LANDING".
Click to expand...
There is no takeoff and landing exception to the 500-foot rule from people whom you know in the runway safety area. See Administrator v. Ferguson. In the case Denny-O described, you have to make your best effort to avoid them, and leveling at 10 feet won't meet that standard.
 
See what you did there? You changed it. You added people 'you know' are in the safety area. That wasn't the premise. The original story was a plane on final sees a person. The rule does not apply.

You also added to your point by stating that you 'can't buzz' the person...which is a copy and paste of what I said. No really. Go back and look. I think I said it twice, once at the beginning and again at the end.
 
Captain said:
See what you did there? You changed it. You added people 'you know' are in the safety area. That wasn't the premise. The original story was a plane on final sees a person. The rule does not apply.
Click to expand...
You think it makes a difference if there's only one person? Gimme a break. Once you see them, or him, or her, you have to make the effort to avoid them, or him, or her.
 
Singular or plural isn't the issue. I said what you changed, it's all there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top