Some updated information. I was not aware that the NTSB held a 2 day discussion on runway incursions about a week before I stated this topic. There were representatives from the FAA, airlines contract controller company, AOPA, NBAA, BWI airport (Baltimore), ORD airport (O’Hare), European Aviation, Canada MOT, Stockholm Airport, equipment suppliers/contractors and I have likely missed one or two more.
They have recorded video of the meeting so if you are interested in viewing them you will find them http://www.capitolconnection.net/capcon/ntsb/ntsb.htm
(Note that they consist of 2 recordings lasting 13 hours)
I did note that with all those people over the course of 13 hours, not a single one ever quoted a regulation by number! 91, 121 & 135 were mentioned but only to denote a class of operations.
Some of the number breakdowns were interesting. You have likely heard that General Aviation represent 80% of all categories. But they went beyond that into the Categories of deviations.
Accident (obvious definition)
A = Serious incident collision narrowly avoided (less than 200 feet separation)
B= Incident of significant potential for a collision (200 to 400 feet separation) and may include critical corrective/evasive response to avoid.
C= Incident characterized by ample time/distance to avoid collision.
D= Meets definition of runway incursions but with no immediate safety consequences.
Also of note is that not all the GA’s 80% are runway incursions but that does not detract for the glaring 80%.
When you break down into deviation categories thing flip flop. In the A & B (serious) suddenly 60% are caused by ATC and GA is rarely in there. The most common incident is ATC clearing an aircraft to land while another aircraft in on the same runway.
The European numbers were about the same, only GA aircraft don’t operate at large airports so they really don't figure into the numbers there. Canada was also similar to these numbers.
These numbers also include un-controlled airports… Not sure who is recording these incidents.
I am always wary of Percentages. They are often used to hide numbers that don’t really support the conclusion that the author wants to tell… If there were 10 incidents, 1 baggage cart, 1 airliner radar dome over a hold line and 8 GA’s you still get 80% for GA.
I am not saying this to dismiss GA’s role and need to address this but I think the 80% was thrown out there for its shock value.
Causes were discussed, solutions were offered. A lot was said about automation and ADS-B out was mentioned in there along with other surveillance equipment.
Obviously training was high on the list. To that end, I have been rethinking my approach to it and will have a discussion about it at our next CFI meeting.