LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
Bob:I DID have an airport diagram, courtesy of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
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.
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.
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.
........
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, 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
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.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. ...
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.
Now you are caught lieing to the Feds. It is stupid, unintentional but it happens all the time.
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.
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.
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.
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. .
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.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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?:
Assuming here that you sped by choice.
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."
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.
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.
Correct. I've now fixed that in the post.