Runway incursions

I have to share with you -- embarrassing as it is -- my "runway incursion." Today, my logbook and I have been invited to meet some new friends at the FSDO.

Address the Problem at Hand

Bob:
Good post, but at this point, the FAA will be looking for a rug dance covering only the incursion. Your statement regarding the lack of a proper runway/taxi diagram and the changes noted therein puts you in violation of 91.103, "all available information concerning that flight". I'm not making any suggestion as to what you may do, but your posting is a little akin to being stopped on the road for going 50 in a 35, and trying to explain it by telling the officer that you wouldn't have been going so fast if you hadn't rolled thru a stop sign a block earlier. Please let us know what the upshot of your meeting is. Incursions are one of THE HOT BUTTONS, as evidenced by the tower requiring you to report in. I appreciate your willingness to share this with us.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

First thing is delete the blog entry. Then wait.

Thanks for the post Bob

I am always impressed when people fess up to doing "human" things in public. It was a simple mistake that could have happened to anybody. By identifying to the tower that you slid past the hold line, you put them in a no win situation. They have to report it now. No choice.

Knowing that you where not in a dangerous position you could have said nothing. Even if they had noticed you slid past, they might not have said anything. Dont tell, dont ask? Most of the controllers that I have met have the same "opinion" of the FAA as most pilots do. They would prefer not to get involved with them. Of course, if you felt at all that you where even remotely in a dangerous position, you did the right thing by speaking up.

The other suggestion in any case where you have or think you might have violated a reg, fill out a NASA form, immediately, and get it in the mail certified. While not a "get out of jail free" card it is close. It is not too late to do this even after you have been "asked" to meet with the Feds. Do it now and take the report to your meeting. It may help your case and may help prevent these types of things from happening in the future.
Having sat through one of these types of meetings before, be prepared for them to exact their pound of flesh, let them vent their pent up public service anger, apologize, and hope they slap your hand, feel they did their job, and let you alone.
All the best and good luck.

Bob Collins said:

I have to share with you -- embarrassing as it is -- my "runway incursion." Today, my logbook and I have been invited to meet some new friends at the FSDO.

Click to expand...

When going in for the interview, keep it short and sweet. The facts are you skidded across the hold line due to taxi way conditions and the safest thing to do was notify the tower. That's all you have to say.

Stick to the basic facts, icy taxi way and safety considerations regarding the airport operation.

And yes, delete that lengthy post on the circumstances of the event, 98% of it is not relevant.

Five incursions at KBIL since August

At KBIL the last part of the taxiway to 28R (the most used runway) angles in toward the runway. Apparently this is too close to the runway, so they moved the hold short line all the way back to where the taxiway is parallel to the runway. Got this in the mail the other day:

Rwy 28R Hold Line relocation at Billings, MT (KBIL)
Notice Number: NOTC2075

"The hold line for Runway 28R at Billings Logan International Airport (KBIL) was relocated in August 2009 to meet current airport safety standards. Since that time there have been five runway incursions caused by pilots crossing the hold line without clearance. The hold line is at the eastern edge of the run-up area, approximately 600 feet (taxi distance) further from the runway than the previous location. The new location was an ILS hold line and may still be depicted as such on the airport diagram until it is reprinted. Pilots must use extreme caution and ensure that they stop prior to the hold line to avoid a runway incursion and pilot deviation. Please use the link provided below to download a copy of the hot spot brochure for Billings which contains more detailed information. If you have any questions, contact Mike Meigs, Regional Program Manager, Office of Runway Safety during normal business hours at (425) 227-2354 or email Mike at [email protected]."

Billings Hot Spot Safety Brochure

I used to enjoy being #1 and having transports land so close in front of me...

Hans

As Todd said -- delete that post... it's doing you NO good.

Second, what exactly did you do wrong there? You didn't mention "hold short of 28R" instruction being given anywhere.. so.. what's the issue? It more sounds like you created appearance of you doing something wrong...

David beat me to the punch. Do exactly as he says. Airport and taxiway conditions caused this.
A (bad) FED might tag on your "safety considerations" and ask why then you continued on to go flying with such poor braking action. Your answer had better contain something about the rest of the field being in a little better shape. Thats why the icy patch there surprised you... and you did the "safest thing" considering all the circumstances....

Just sayin... <BG>
good luck.
Dennis

David-aviator said:

When going in for the interview, keep it short and sweet. The facts are you skidded across the hold line due to taxi way conditions and the safest thing to do was notify the tower. That's all you have to say.

Stick to the basic facts, icy taxi way and safety considerations regarding the airport operation.

And yes, delete that lengthy post on the circumstances of the event, 98% of it is not relevant.

Click to expand...

terrykohler said:

Bob:
Good post, but at this point, the FAA will be looking for a rug dance covering only the incursion. Your statement regarding the lack of a proper runway/taxi diagram and the changes noted therein puts you in violation of 91.103, "all available information concerning that flight".

Click to expand...

I DID have an airport diagram, courtesy of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.

JonJay said:

Knowing that you where not in a dangerous position you could have said nothing. Even if they had noticed you slid past, they might not have said anything. Dont tell, dont ask? Most of the controllers that I have met have the same "opinion" of the FAA as most pilots do. They would prefer not to get involved with them. Of course, if you felt at all that you where even remotely in a dangerous position, you did the right thing by speaking up.

Click to expand...

This is one of those situations where the way I was raised and the attitude I bring to flying collide head-on with what might be the smart thing to do.

Being in the news business also, I know that it's usually not the crime, it's the cover-up that kills you.

The problem I have in not fessing up is *I* know and i have to look in the mirror before I fly and ask "are you bringing a professional attitude to the task." I'm not a great pilot; I might not even be a good pilot. So being able to say I bring a profesisonal attitude to the challenge may be all I've got.

Radomir said:

As Todd said -- delete that post... it's doing you NO good.

Second, what exactly did you do wrong there? You didn't mention "hold short of 28R" instruction being given anywhere.. so.. what's the issue? It more sounds like you created appearance of you doing something wrong...

Click to expand...

The clearance I had was "taxi TO runway 28L." There was no hold-short order required. You have to hold short of the active runway until cleared for takeoff.

Should be easy

Bob, as others noted, delete the blog entry. Save it for later.

The conditions are contributory to the issue. Say as little as possible. There really was no reason to say anything to the tower. You were not a hazard.

Down play it as much as possible. "I saw the lines, slowed to stop and due to the ice went over by 3 feet." Leave it with that.

Should not be a problem.

Good luck. Keep us posted. Now go hit delete!!!

Dmadd said:

David beat me to the punch. Do exactly as he says. Airport and taxiway conditions caused this.
A (bad) FED might tag on your "safety considerations" and ask why then you continued on to go flying with such poor braking action. Your answer had better contain something about the rest of the field being in a little better shape. Thats why the icy patch there surprised you... and you did the "safest thing" considering all the circumstances....

Just sayin... <BG>
good luck.
Dennis

Click to expand...

My answer is that I tested the braking conditions three times during the taxi, including 20 feet from the hold short line and the conditions in those locations, as it turned out, were not the same as the conditions at the hold short line, which, of course, I could not have known at the time the go/no-go decision was made.

After the incident, the tower asked ME about the braking conditions at the location, so it would appear they were not -- prior to that -- in a position to give a proper advisory on the degree of poor braking.

Just be honest and brief.

Of course all FSDOs and ASIs are different. I deal with ASIs almost every day. One common thing I have found is that they are always looking at "attitude" above anything else.
In almost all cases, if you go in with the right attitude, you're going to come out OK! If you go in with a defensive attitude or a chip on your shoulder, you may regret it later.
But as you have said, you already know this.

An Old Diagram Doesn't Work

Bob Collins said:

I DID have an airport diagram, courtesy of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.

Click to expand...

Bob:
Changes are covered by NOTAMS. They're part of the information you're required to have before you go flying. That why I referred to "proper" diagrams. Charts and A/FDs are printed on a regular schedule. Changes happening in advance of these printings are still the responsibility of the PIC. While this info isn't related to the incident at hand, it's inclusion may or may not help the FAA come to a conclusion regarding your qualifications. Good luck.
Terry

You can fess up, that is what the NASA form is for.

Bob Collins said:

This is one of those situations where the way I was raised and the attitude I bring to flying collide head-on with what might be the smart thing to do.

Being in the news business also, I know that it's usually not the crime, it's the cover-up that kills you.

The problem I have in not fessing up is *I* know and i have to look in the mirror before I fly and ask "are you bringing a professional attitude to the task." I'm not a great pilot; I might not even be a good pilot. So being able to say I bring a profesisonal attitude to the challenge may be all I've got.

Click to expand...

First, I think your selling yourself short. A great pilot is a professional and the skill in the operational part of the aircraft is only a part of that. I'll fly with you before I would with a good stick and no brain.

The NASA form gives pilots a great way to tell the story and hopefully help get better procedures and processes without fear of it being used against you. That is why it was put into place. Too many pilots where keeping quiet out of fear, and yes, affecting their professionalism no doubt.

We all make mistakes and I dont consider not announcing it to be a crime or to be unprofessional, depending on circumstances. I have made many mistakes and never felt the need to tell the tower or the FFA when I felt that my mistake was not causing impending dangers to others or myself. The damage was done. Now, again, if you thought at all that you where in an unsafe position, absolutely, start talking immediatley.

Here are some of the mistakes I made and never fess up to the FAA about;
Left my documentation binder out of the aircraft after cleaning and did not realize it and then flew. Bumped into the bottom of Class C airspace before realizing it and reducing altitude. Departed Oshkosh on the wrong heading and discovered this only after clearing their airspace (NASA form followed immediately as I thought the departure briefing and card where misleading, still no excuse, my mistake.) Not maintaining VFR separation from clouds (fess up fellow Rvators, you know you do it), any and all of these could get you a visit with the Feds if you announced that you did them, but again, damage was done and corrected and I saw no benefit to anyone by saying something.

With all of that Bob, I was not questioning your decision. The simple fact that you are posting and want input says a lot of your character. Many never admit to doing something wrong and that is a very dangerous attitude. If not saying something is unprofessional, there are a whole bunch of us out there. If not saying something makes a situation more dangerous, shame on us.

Thanks again for posting and allowing this discussion to even exist.

??Delete the Blog Entry?!?

I think that it is really bad advice to delete your blog entry. It may have been good advice to not blog about it before the incursion, but deleting it afterward would be a very bad idea, a coverup as you say and not only that, you really can't delete things from the internet.

Hans

Bob, unless I am missing something here, You were cleared all the way to 28L so you did not have to stop at that line. Correct? You elected to stop there to do a runup, but you were still cleared to cross the runway. Maybe it would have been a good idea to let them know that you were stopping there to do the runup, but it still sounds to me like you were cleared to cross that runway. Am I missing something here?

So here's the deal.

I didn't give the FSDO gentleman a copy of the blog, but I didn't delete it either.

I realize the "FAA is waiting to ding you" mantra has been passed on from generation to generation, and there's probably plenty of evidence to back it up.

I also know that the FAA has worked hard WITH pilots to avoid runway incursions. One of their strategies -- although it wasn't an issue with this particular one -- is the need for pilots and controllers to work together, as a team.

So, because I don't have firsthand experience, I'm not the type that can deny myself the opportunity to gather my own data, even if there's a chance of peril involved.

So this was my chance to say to the FAA, in effect, "prove it" when we talk about working cooperatively.

And today, they did.

I found the conversation to be genuine, I found the questions of what happened to be clear, and I answered honestly and in full context. I made clear that I've read Professor Meshkati's work on human factors that lead to runway incursions and none of them apply in this case. I made clear that I've attended two forums at OSH about runway incursions and the items the FAA says are common to runway incursions -- lack of situational awareness, lack of education, tiredness -- are not factors in this case.

I said I knew exactly what I needed to do, when I need to do it, and where it needed to be done and that because I consider myself a pilot with a professional attitude, it was me -- not the controllers -- who called attention to the fact I didn't get it done and that I didn't try to conceal it.

In the end his response was, "You didn't do anything wrong." They're going to pull the tapes, so it was good that I also repeated -- almost verbatim -- every conversation I had with the controller that day. I told him exactly where everyone was at the moment everything occurred. They're also going to look at the plane to make sure there's no mechanical problem.

I don't have anything to hide here and I think whatever information I blogged about is information that can help someone in similar situations. In the end, people have to decide for themselves what attitude they're going to bring their time at the controls of an airplane.

In the end, I couldn't bring anything other than the attitude I have, and to pretend otherwise would be an admission that it's not the right one. And I can't do that.

I'm going to have no problem looking in the mirror regardless of what happens.

dmaib said:

Bob, unless I am missing something here, You were cleared all the way to 28L so you did not have to stop at that line. Correct? You elected to stop there to do a runup, but you were still cleared to cross the runway. Maybe it would have been a good idea to let them know that you were stopping there to do the runup, but it still sounds to me like you were cleared to cross that runway. Am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

I was cleared by ground to 28L, and from my understanding I am required to hold short of the line, and get clearance from the tower to take off, or in this case to get clearance from ground to cross 28L. My understanding is a clearance to taxi to a runway via stated taxiways, authorizes me to cross all runways on that route EXCEPT the destination runway. In this case, I didn't need to stop at the hold-short line for 28R (or 18, for that matter), but I did need to hold short of 28L.

My intention was to do the run-up on the other side of 28L, not at the hold short line.

If I'd done the runup at the hold-short line, the minute I increased the engine to 1800 RPM, I'd have gone flying right across the runway.

Bob Collins said:

So here's the deal.

Click to expand...

You sir... well, just:

Bob, I'd still file an ASRS form just in case. But as a CFI I've seen more than once that a "compliance-oriented attitude" (the FAA's words) like yours can go a long way with the feds - as you're finding out.

Good on you...

Dave

Strange....

Bob Collins said:

So here's the deal.
...... I told him exactly where everyone was at the moment everything occurred. They're also going to look at the plane to make sure there's no mechanical problem.
........

Click to expand...

...what do they expect to find?

Brakes too good....

No snow tires installed?

Good going on your honest approach....

Bob Collins said:

I was cleared by ground to 28L, and from my understanding I am required to hold short of the line, and get clearance from the tower to take off, or in this case to get clearance from ground to cross 28L. My understanding is a clearance to taxi to a runway via stated taxiways, authorizes me to cross all runways on that route EXCEPT the destination runway. In this case, I didn't need to stop at the hold-short line for 28R (or 18, for that matter), but I did need to hold short of 28L.

My intention was to do the run-up on the other side of 28L, not at the hold short line.

If I'd done the runup at the hold-short line, the minute I increased the engine to 1800 RPM, I'd have gone flying right across the runway.

Click to expand...

Now I understand. Anyway, your approach to dealing with the FAA was the only way to do it in my book.
Happy New Year!

If you are a member of the AOPA legal plan, give them a call. They are most helpful.

If not, spend the $26 or whatever a year and subscribe. I used it once with an icing/declare emergency issue and their guidance was invaluable. A non event 'til all was done due in part to their guidance.

Gordon
N144ES

Thermos said:

Bob, I'd still file an ASRS form just in case. But as a CFI I've seen more than once that a "compliance-oriented attitude" (the FAA's words) like yours can go a long way with the feds - as you're finding out.

Good on you...

Dave

Click to expand...

Actually that's the first thing I did when I got home on Saturday. You can file them online now.

Sounds like you did just fine. Good job.

DM

Runway clearance

Bob Collins said:

I was cleared by ground to 28L, and from my understanding I am required to hold short of the line, and get clearance from the tower to take off, or in this case to get clearance from ground to cross 28L. ...

Click to expand...

Just curious - didn't the controller say something like "cleared to holding point 28L"? That's what they do around here, anyway. This makes the extent of the clearance clear.

Hi Mickey: Nah, they never say that around here; at least that I've heard. It's a given that you hold short of the active because you have to get tower clearance to take the active.

Bob I am glad things went smoothly. Why I and others say to delete the blog is to prevent you from getting caught in an innocent lie. You could say something comletely innocent and they could read your blog and see that you did it slightly different. Now you are caught lieing to the Feds. It is stupid, unintentional but it happens all the time. Again I am glad you were able to repeat everything correctly. I am terrible at verbal communication when under pressure like that would have screwed something up.

TSwezey said:

Bob I am glad things went smoothly. Why I and others say to delete the blog is to prevent you from getting caught in an innocent lie. You could say something comletely innocent and they could read your blog and see that you did it slightly different. Now you are caught lieing to the Feds. It is stupid, unintentional but it happens all the time. Again I am glad you were able to repeat everything correctly. I am terrible at verbal communication when under pressure like that would have screwed something up.

Click to expand...

Nope - in that case you weren't lying to the Feds - you were lying to the rest of the world! That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it...

Bob,

I'm another one of those (many pilots are, really) that believes in being honest about our actions in the airplane. Too much respect for what we do to have any other attitude.

Good work.

TSwezey said:

Now you are caught lieing to the Feds. It is stupid, unintentional but it happens all the time.

Click to expand...

I have a surefire way to keep from getting caught in a lie. It's worked since I was a little boy. My parents taught it to me.

aviationgeek84 said:

Bob,

I'm another one of those (many pilots are, really) that believes in being honest about our actions in the airplane. Too much respect for what we do to have any other attitude.

Good work.

Click to expand...

Of course there's another angle in the process. IF I did something wrong, IF there's something I could've done and can do in the future to make me a safer pilot, I kinda want to know about it. I'm old-fashioned that way.

Bob -

I admire your honesty and interest in learning how to be a better pilot. But based on my experience with FAA (safety inspectors), I'm virtually certain you'll be facing at least one violation. These are FAA safety inspectors - you have no rights and they are not your friends in this instance.

By being so willing to share generously, it also sounds to me like you are willing to accept a violation. This may well bring a suspension, maybe a 709 ride and higher insurance rates. I guess I just don't understand this approach.

I've been in the crosshairs of the FAA safety inspectors. I went in thinking I'd just be open and share my side of the situation. After that first meeting, I hired a lawyer. After 3-4 months, it was resolved in my favor. My issue had no FAR, law or operational safety implication, but it had significant downside potential if that FAA safety inspector was having a bad day when final recommended action was issued.

Good luck.

Followup - Bob, I found your subsequent posting saying the interviewer told you you did nothing wrong. If he said this, then it sounds like they're going to drop the issue. If they do drop it, ask for it in writing.

It sounds like there's really no case for the FAA to pursue here, unless someone there is having a bad day and they really want to hold you to the letter of the law and make an example of you.

The problem with runway incursions isn't when someone knows where he is and where he's going and knows where he's supposed to stop but unexpectedly hits ice and slides a foot past. The problem is when someone is drinking his coffee or text messaging or setting up his three GPS's or folding maps or bragging to his non-flying passenger or whatever while moving, and taxis onto an active runway.

Clearly that wasn't your intention... You knew where you were, you were looking where you were going, you *intended* to stop, and were actively trying to. And when that attempt failed, you immediately communicated it to the Tower so they could take any action necessary. To me, that sounds like a perfect example of good airmanship. Nice work.

Don't talk

This discussion reminds me of this video by Professor James Duane which I found interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Your blog is a very bad idea

Delete it or replace it with a note that it is being revised. That's not a cover up, it common sense.

Until you explained more clearly in the the VAF blog, I was not able to tell exactly what happened from reading your story. Its very unclear with too much extraneous information.

I don't want to be guilty of psycho babel, but the fact that you are a conscientious pilot made this mistake an emotional situation. Because of that I think you are not being objective. I was also raised to be honest, but honesty need not include blurting out all the ramblings in your brain before you have had a chance to sort them out.

Someone advised you to fill out the NASA form. Do it. Do your editing with adobe acrobat or MS word or something so you have a change to check, double check, and triple check before sending it. That gives you time to be sure its the accurate OBJECTIVE truth of what happened and why you think it happened.

The NASA form gives you a chance to tell the story, what you did to cause it, and also to list additional factors which contributed to it.

Once you submit the NASA form, put the exact same story onto your blog if you want to.

FYI-1: Someone else I know (not me) did almost the exact same thing you did, including calling the tower to tell them. He was a student so was not harassed too much, but his instructor was put though the ringer.

FYI-2: I've filled out a few NASA forms due to stupid mistakes. In all cases it took me a while to sort things out in my brain and tell the story objectively, and figure out what I needed to to to prevent it from happening again.

Snowflake said:

It sounds like there's really no case for the FAA to pursue here, unless someone there is having a bad day and they really want to hold you to the letter of the law and make an example of you.

The problem with runway incursions isn't when someone knows where he is and where he's going and knows where he's supposed to stop but unexpectedly hits ice and slides a foot past. The problem is when someone is drinking his coffee or text messaging or setting up his three GPS's or folding maps or bragging to his non-flying passenger or whatever while moving, and taxis onto an active runway.

Clearly that wasn't your intention... You knew where you were, you were looking where you were going, you *intended* to stop, and were actively trying to. And when that attempt failed, you immediately communicated it to the Tower so they could take any action necessary. To me, that sounds like a perfect example of good airmanship. Nice work.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with Snowflake. I do not think the FAA has the time (or desire) to research the internet about a reported (by the pilot) runway incursion. They do not care about what is posted nor do they even know to go looking. Internet is hear-say. Just be honest in the interview, if it ever happens.

I feel bad for you with a situation I am sure is going to happen to me sometime.

I flew my checkride into Lincoln Park in NJ and have since flown there one other time. I am virtually certain that you cannot taxi there without runway incursion occurring. The taxiway and runway are so close that the tip of a Cessna or other similar plane's wing will be on the runway side of the line as you taxi down the taxiway, passing the runway exits. Nobody there seems to be excited about it but it always bothered me.

Good luck.

Steve Brown said:

Until you explained more clearly in the the VAF blog, I was not able to tell exactly what happened from reading your story. Its very unclear with too much extraneous information.

Click to expand...

I write for a living. I think it was pretty clear.

Steve Brown said:

honesty need not include blurting out all the ramblings in your brain before you have had a chance to sort them out.

Click to expand...

I don't think I did.

Steve Brown said:

Someone advised you to fill out the NASA form. .

Click to expand...

From the blog posting: " I filled out the NASA reporting form."

I'm not sure what the big hairy deal is here. It's not that hard to figure out what happened. There was ice on the runway, I skidded slightly across the hold-short line, I told the tower about it.

Bottom line: FAA will send a letter saying "don't do it again." It stays in their file for two years but doesn't not appear anywhere.

Everybody take a deep breath. Like I said, I can look at myself in the mirror and I've relayed a story about what happens when you're honest. If folks have a different view, that's great. Consider all data, I say.

Have y'all met my friend, David Maib, above? The former chief pilot for Target Corp. A guy who's been flying since Vietnam? A guy who said "Anyway, your approach to dealing with the FAA was the only way to do it in my book."?

If the book is good enough for a pro like David, it's good enough for me.

plehrke said:

Totally agree with Snowflake. I do not think the FAA has the time (or desire) to research the internet about a reported (by the pilot) runway incursion. They do not care about what is posted nor do they even know to go looking...

Click to expand...

I recently had dealings with the FAA. The first thing the FSDO guy said was that he had read my webpage about the issue. It was essentially the same kind of thing that Bob wrote.

I was kind of glad that I didn't have to repeat the whole thing. I just said "Oh, then you know what the deal is."

I wish I'd have been able to get the cop who stopped me for speeding last year to be as understanding as the FAA guy was on this matter.

That was a choice!

Bob Collins said:

I wish I'd have been able to get the cop who stopped me for speeding last year to be as understanding as the FAA guy was on this matter.

Click to expand...

Assuming here that you sped by choice. You slid across the line by accident. Glad things worked out so well in a no fault, no harm, no faul incident.

Bob,

After reading this thread and your blog, my gut says that you did a great job that day, and have done the right thing (IMHO) throughout.

First, I think your thought process and your decision about whether to stop in your normal runup spot (short of 28R, which, as you discussed, you had implied clearance to cross since you were cleared to 28L) or to continue across 28R and hold short of 28L was well thought out. Had you stopped before crossing 28R and done a runup, the tower would likely have asked you what you were doing (since they were expecting you to get across it and clear it, and they couldn't use it till you did clear it). In that action, you followed instructions, and thus stayed predictable to the tower...both important things to them!

Then when you slid across the hold line of 28L, you immediately fessed up. That's a safety call that (again IMHO) must be made. To do otherwise jeopardizes your safety and that of others (to paraphrase...can you be just a "little" over the line?)

I didn't see in the blog if tower asked you for a braking action report for that taxiway. I think someone mentioned braking action in an earlier post, and others may have talked to you about this as well...but I was thinking that in addition to your report to the tower that you skidded past the hold short line, reporting that the braking action on that portion of the taxiway was "Poor" or "Nil" would be very valuable information to the tower, and might paint the picture of what happened to you more clearly to the controller.

ATC may have to report any runway incursion, no matter the cause, but in my gut I feel that if was clear to them that the braking conditions caused the incursion, and that it wasn't just a case of "ooops, I crossed the hold line", they may not have even considered it reportable as a possible pilot deviation. Not sure if you had that discussion with tower (beyond saying "I've skidded past the line") but it's just food for thought. I honestly don't see a deviation or a violation in this...nor a need for a letter (did they tell you to expect one?) Then again, I'm a pilot, not a controller, so perhaps a bit biased. But it seems to me you were reporting an usafe condition, and then got clearance to taxi out of it. That may be naive thinking...but I don't think so.

As for dealing with the man (ground, tower, ASI, FSDO, whoever), I've also found that honesty, humility and a positive attitude often ends the "situation" before it gets off the ground. Just my experience. I've watched guys go in guns blazing, and it wasn't purty. There are pros and cons to writing the blog...it seems apparent to me that your intent was to share a lesson learned with fellow aviators. Some may question how much one should write in a public forum when there is an ongoing investigation (of sorts), and caution (but perhaps not silence...like you said, you are a writer) is probably advised. However deleting it would probably bring more scrutiny than anything else. Again, you stayed the course of honesty...well done.

One item in the blog did confuse me, so I just wanted to ask: In the excerpt below, when you say there is a hold short line just before 28R which you couldn't see, do you actually mean just before 28L? That is the line you said you slid across, correct?:

"I decided I'd head over to the other side of 28L and do my run-up there. So I crossed the end of 28R on taxiway Charlie. It was glare ice and I was going very slowly. There's a hold-short line just before 28R which I couldn't see under all the ice. But in the construction of the summer, they installed flashing lights. As I approached the line -- very slowly -- I applied the brakes, and skidded. My wheels were on the line (maybe an inch or two beyond), but the forward end of the plane was 2-3 feet across it."

At any rate, thanks for sharing the experience, both before and after. Well done throughout (again, IMHO)!

Cheers,
Bob

rvmills said:

Bob,
I didn't see in the blog if tower asked you for a braking action report for that taxiway. I think someone mentioned braking action in an earlier post, and others may have talked to you about this as well...but I was thinking that in addition to your report to the tower that you skidded past the hold short line, reporting that the braking action on that portion of the taxiway was "Poor" or "Nil" would be very valuable information to the tower, and might paint the picture of what happened to you more clearly to the controller.

Click to expand...

Indeed, he did ask me. Unfortuntely, I was not well versed in the proper terminology so I said "very poor." Reading up afterwards, I learned that I should have said "nil."

rvmills said:

see a deviation or a violation in this...nor a need for a letter (did they tell you to expect one?) Then again, I'm a pilot, not a controller, so perhaps a bit biased.

Click to expand...

Right. They told me to expect one. I don't know if the FAA has a mechanism for just saying "no harm. No foul." They can't very well say, "you didn't do anything wrong." Because I did. I slid across the line. Clearly, it wasn't the intent, and that's why I get off with just a reminder. And, frankly, it's a good reminder that makes me a better pilot. I'm now armed with the experience of taxiing on ice. It's data for a go/no go decision.

rvmills said:

Some may question how much one should write in a public forum when there is an ongoing investigation (of sorts), and caution (but perhaps not silence...like you said, you are a writer) is probably advised.

Click to expand...

There's a fair amount of legend involved here with suggestions that the FAA is patrolling blogs looking for ways to "catch" someone. As I said, before, it's hard to "catch" anyone in a lie if you're telling the truth. There's nothing on the blog I wouldn't say if FSDO had asked. Why would there be? I'm not trying to cover anything up.

rvmills said:

One item in the blog did confuse me, so I just wanted to ask: In the excerpt below, when you say there is a hold short line just before 28R which you couldn't see, do you actually mean just before 28L? That is the line you said you slid across, correct?:

Click to expand...

Correct. I've now fixed that in the post.

JonJay said:

Assuming here that you sped by choice.

Click to expand...

I lost "situational awareness."

My 'confused old man' act didn't work, either.

My RV is hangared at FCM. Not only are there patches of ice on the taxiways, but there are large snowbanks that add to the confusion; it is difficult to see signage until you are almost upon the signs.


I went for a short flight on Sunday and, even mindful as I was of this thread, almost did what Bob described. The power at idle was enough to slide me forward on the ice until I hit bare pavement, which fortunately was before the hold short line between 28R and 28L.

I don't remember if Bob described the situation at FCM but in brief the hold short lines for 28R/10L had to be moved further away from the runway centerline. This caused the hold short lines in between 28R/28L to only be 20 some feet apart, so you don't have much room, even in an RV, to clear one runway before having to stop before the hold short line at the parallel. It's here I ran into the ice.

The snow/ice at these points also obscures the lines further adding to the potential for runway incursions.

On the other side of 28R, the hold short line is almost at the junction of the exit taxiways and the parallel taxiway, taxiway A. When you cross the line after exiting the runway you are out on the taxiway, not an ideal situation.

This has gotten a lot of people at FCM, especially those on the north side of the airport, wondering why the FAA thought this was a good idea in the first place.

Mark Olson N407V RV-7A ~500 hrs

Hi Mark:
Hey, give me a ride sometime, willya!

I got the impression from the FAA guy (Andy Lott), that he wasn't that thrilled with the situation either. In fact, it wasn't until I was talking to him that I realized the hold short line for 28R is now at taxiway alpha.

I know they did some construction out there this summer. Did they widen the runways? Is that why they've moved the hold-short lines?

Bob Collins said:

Indeed, he did ask me. Unfortuntely, I was not well versed in the proper terminology so I said "very poor." Reading up afterwards, I learned that I should have said "nil."

Click to expand...

Nil definitely gets everyone's attention. Most air carrier Ops Specs require them to cease operations at an airport if Nil is reported (by any air carrier pilot) at that airport...and a report from a non air carrier pilot, while not operationally limiting (due to the size difference), would be considered carefully by others.

Bob Collins said:

Right. They told me to expect one. I don't know if the FAA has a mechanism for just saying "no harm. No foul." They can't very well say, "you didn't do anything wrong." Because I did. I slid across the line. Clearly, it wasn't the intent, and that's why I get off with just a reminder. And, frankly, it's a good reminder that makes me a better pilot. I'm now armed with the experience of taxiing on ice. It's data for a go/no go decision.

Click to expand...

Glad the gent was fair and willing to talk it through with you. And we've all learned and potentially gotten better due to your willingness to share! Thanks!

Bob Collins said:

There's a fair amount of legend involved here with suggestions that the FAA is patrolling blogs looking for ways to "catch" someone. As I said, before, it's hard to "catch" anyone in a lie if you're telling the truth. There's nothing on the blog I wouldn't say if FSDO had asked. Why would there be? I'm not trying to cover anything up.

Click to expand...

Concur!

Bob Collins said:

Correct. I've now fixed that in the post.

Click to expand...

Thanks again, and happy flying...try to stay warm up there!! Still some large piles of snow at Stead from plowing, but most everything is melting quickly. No "ice skating" till night time (when the melt freezes) 'round here!

Cheers,
Bob