CHAPTER 1. GENERAL
1.1 Purpose of This Advisory Circular (AC). This AC provides information to assist General Aviation (GA) pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors in complying with the flight reviews required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61, § 61.56 and the instrument proficiency check (IPC)/recent flight experience requirements of § 61.57. Additionally, this AC provides critical information to enhance GA safety.
1.2 Audience. The primary audience for this AC is GA pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors. The secondary audience includes flight schools, collegiate aeronautical institutions, and stakeholders supporting GA pilot safety and training.
1.3 Where You Can Find This AC. You can find this AC on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) website at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars.
1.4 What This AC Cancels. AC 61-98C, Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check, dated November 20, 2015, is canceled.
1.5 Related 14 CFR Sections:
• Section 61.189, Flight Instructor Records.
• Section 61.193, Flight Instructor Privileges.
• Section 61.195, Flight Instructor Limitations and Qualifications.
• Section 61.413, What Are the Privileges of My Flight Instructor Certificate with a Sport Pilot Rating?
• Section 61.415, What Are the Limits of a Flight Instructor Certificate with a Sport Pilot Rating?
1.6 Related Reading Material. Flight instructors and airmen under review should reference practical test standards (PTS) or Airman Certification Standards (ACS) documents appropriate to the certificates and ratings held by the pilot seeking a flight review or IPC prior to the review. You can find additional information in:
1. Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), official guide to basic flight information and air traffic control (ATC) procedures.
2. FAA Handbooks:
• FAA-H-8083-3, Airplane Flying Handbook.
• FAA-H-8083-15, Instrument Flying Handbook.
• FAA-H-8083-16, Instrument Procedures Handbook.
• FAA-H-8083-25, Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge.
1-1
3. Information for Operators (InFO) 15012 , Logging Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP), September 8, 2015.
4. FAA ACs (current editions):
• AC 60-28, FAA English Language Standard for an FAA Certificate Issued Under 14 CFR Parts 61, 63, 65, and 107.
• AC 61-65, Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors.
• AC 61-89, Pilot Certificates: Aircraft Type Ratings (guidance on advanced training criteria, pilot certificates, and aircraft type ratings may also be appropriate if the aircraft being used requires a type rating).
• AC 61-136, FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and Their Use for Training and Experience.
• AC 91-73, Parts 91 and 135 Single Pilot, Flight School Procedures During Taxi Operations.
5. The FAA, commercial sources, and industry associations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) make many additional sources of media on pilot currency and qualification available.
1.7 Background.
1.7.1 Regulatory Review. In 1997, the FAA initiated a major regulatory review and update of 14 CFR parts 61 and 141 to ensure that these regulations conformed to the then-current technological and operational environment and to address future pilot certification needs.
This version of AC 61-98 addresses changes in technology and the operational environment, and their impact on recurrent training and proficiency checks. Edits to this AC, since the original version, have expanded the scope to include recent flight experience and IPCs.
Note: The FAA no longer uses the term “Biennial Flight Review.” This term implied that pilots only needed currency training once every 24 calendar-months.
The FAA encourages currency training as often as appropriate to a pilot’s individual needs. Consequently, the FAA now uses the term “Flight Review.”
1.7.2 GA Pilots. The FAA supports initiatives designed to encourage voluntary compliance with existing regulations and to maintain and further improve the GA safety record with a minimum of new regulations. As a result, the FAA has determined that updated advisory guidance is necessary with respect to the currency, proficiency, and qualification needs of GA pilots. The guidance contained in this version of AC 61-98 provides such information and accomplishes the goals of the personal currency program, flight review, and IPC.
1-2
1.7.3 Reducing GA Accidents. The FAA added important General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) findings and recommendations to AC 61-98 pertaining to GA accidents (see paragraph 2.1).
1. GA pilots should become aware of this information and apply it to their personal currency program plans of action.
2. Flight instructors should apply this information to their training and evaluation plans of action.
1.8 FAA Aviation English Language Standard (AELS).
1.8.1 FAA Regulatory English Language Eligibility Requirements. AELS directly affects flight safety. Regulations require pilots to meet and maintain English language skill requirements for all grades of pilot certificates issued under part 61. When a flight instructor conducts a flight evaluation and/or flight training event, the flight instructor should identify any pilot who does not meet English language skill requirements and take appropriate action. Finally, all training, checking, or evaluation will be conducted in English. AC 60-28 provides information and guidance regarding English language standards required by part 61.
1.8.2 Flight Instructor Evaluation. The IPC and the flight review are both evaluations of a pilot’s ability to conduct a safe flight. Safety-related issues concerning language barriers to communications may arise if a pilot does not meet FAA English language skill standards. A flight instructor should continually evaluate the pilot’s English language skills during any flight evaluation or training event that he or she conducts and endorse the individual’s training record or logbook in English for the training and endorsement provided.
1.8.3 Flight Instructor Determination. A flight instructor conducting a flight review or IPC should not endorse the evaluation as satisfactorily completed if he or she determines that the pilot under review does not meet FAA English language skill standards. When a pilot has not accomplished a flight review satisfactorily, the evaluating instructor should endorse the pilot’s logbook to indicate only the training received (as is the case with any unsuccessful flight review). There is no provision in the regulation for the failure of a flight review; therefore, there should be no logbook endorsement reflecting a failure.
In the event the flight review is not successful, due to the flight instructor’s doubt that the pilot under review meets FAA English language skill requirements, the flight instructor should provide a logbook entry for training received, advise the pilot of the flight instructor’s finding, and notify his or her responsible Flight Standards office for further action. See paragraph 1.8.4 for additional flight instructor actions.
1.8.4 Responsible Flight Standards Office Evaluation. Although the FAA expects flight instructors to be aware of and follow the guidelines provided in AC 60-28, the FAA does not expect flight instructors to be responsible for a conclusive evaluation of an airman’s ability to meet the FAA AELS. Only an FAA aviation safety inspector (ASI) can determine if an applicant, student, or certificated pilot meets the FAA regulatory English language eligibility requirements. However, if a flight instructor questions the 1-3
ability of the airman under training or evaluation to read, speak, write, and understand the English language at a level that meets FAA English language standards, then that flight instructor must refer the airman to the responsible Flight Standards office for evaluation by an FAA ASI. Thus, the FAA ASI will make the determination. The flight instructor should also provide the airman’s contact information to the responsible Flight Standards office.
1.9 Personal Currency Program.
1.9.1 Currency Criteria. Pilots should design a currency program tailored to their individual operating environments and needs, which should emphasize proficiency beyond the minimum currency requirements. In most cases, pilots may integrate currency criteria with normal operations to reduce the need for separate currency flights. For example, pilots could incorporate additional takeoffs and landings, instrument approach procedures (IAP), or specialized takeoffs and landings, such as short or soft field, into a planned flight. In most cases, pilots should consider the need for currency beyond that specified by 14 CFR.
1.9.2 The FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam). The FAA strongly encourages pilots to participate in the FAASTeam’s Pilot Proficiency Program (WINGS), which includes numerous forms of training media such as online programs and recommended topics for pilots to review with flight instructors. Additionally, the FAASTeam conducts safety seminars, which are open to the public. You can find the FAASTeam website at https://www.faasafety.gov/.
1.9.3 Aviation Publications and Commercially Developed Materials. Pilots should also explore the wide range of publications and other commercially developed materials available for use in personal currency programs. To ensure staying up to date in regulatory changes and flying techniques, the FAA also encourages pilots to read aviation periodicals on a regular basis.
1.9.4 Additional Sources for Developing a Personal Currency Program. For assistance in developing a personal currency program, pilots may consult a wide variety of sources.
These sources include:
• Pilot examiners,
• Pilot schools,
• Individual flight instructors,
• FAASTeam Program Managers, and
• FAASTeam representatives.
Note: For information on local sources, pilots should contact their FAASTeam Program Manager at the responsible Flight Standards office. You can find your responsible FAASTeam Program Manager in the FAASTeam Online Directory at https://faasafety.gov/FAASTApp/directory/default.aspx. You can find your 1-4
responsible Flight Standards office at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ field_offices/fsdo/. You can find FAASTeam activities, courses, seminars, and webinars, plus other free FAA resources, at http://www.faasafety.gov/.
1.10 Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application.
1.10.1 Revised Airman Application Form. The FAA frequently updates FAA Form 8710-1, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, to meet the needs of the airman certification process and the aviation community. Flight instructors, pilots, and stakeholders should note that the latest FAA Form 8710-1 contains enhancements that include a new field for a flight review and another for IPC.
1.10.2 Flight Review and IPC. When a pilot satisfactorily completes a flight review or IPC, the applicant should provide, and the evaluating flight instructor should submit, a completed FAA Form 8710-1 to the Airmen Certification Branch (AFB-720). The FAA does not require FAA Form 8710-1 for a pilot’s flight review or IPC; however, the FAA strongly encourages all applicants and flight instructors to follow this recommendation. When submitted, AFB-720 will add the application to the pilot’s FAA record. Pilots should ensure that their data is current, because up-to-date records benefit everyone.
For example, a pilot’s total flight time and aeronautical experience determines insurance premiums. If a pilot loses his or her logbook, an FAA record is on file and available.
Nevertheless, submitting FAA Form 8710-1 for a flight review or IPC is optional.
1.10.3 Preferred Method. The preferred method for submitting an Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application is through the Integrated Airman Certification and/or Rating Application (IACRA) system. IACRA is the web-based certification/rating application that guides the user through the FAA’s airman application process. IACRA validates data. It also uses electronic signatures to protect the information’s integrity and eliminates paper forms.
• You can find IACRA at https://iacra.faa.gov/IACRA.
• You can find FAA Form 8710-1 at http://www.faa.gov/forms/.
1.11 AC Feedback Form. For your convenience, the AC Feedback Form is the last page of this AC. Note any deficiencies found, clarifications needed, or suggested improvements regarding the contents of this AC on the Feedback Form.
1-5
CHAPTER 2. REDUCING GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENTS
2.1 General Aviation (GA) Accidents. The General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) is the primary vehicle for government–industry cooperation, communication, and coordination on GA accident reduction. GAJSC findings reveal common pilot errors, while GAJSC recommendations provide mitigation strategies to reduce GA fatalities.
Pilots and flight instructors should apply GAJSC findings and recommendations to their plans of action as they pertain to personal currency programs, pilot proficiency training, flight reviews, and instrument proficiency checks (IPC). For these reasons, the FAA encourages pilots and flight instructors to keep informed on GAJSC findings and recommendations. You can find additional information about the GAJSC online at http://www.gajsc.org/.
2.1.1 Loss of Control (LOC). The GAJSC cites LOC as one of the six most critical and common causes of GA accidents. Further, LOC was the number one cause of GA fatalities from 2001 through 2010. LOC refers to aircraft accidents that result from situations in which a pilot should have maintained (or should have regained) aircraft control, but failed to do so. In some cases, training accidents occurred because the pilots were not in agreement as to who should be manipulating the flight controls.
A recommended three-step process of exchange includes a verbal handoff from the pilot flying, verbal acceptance by the pilot taking over, and a verbal and visual confirmation that the exchange has taken place by the pilot relinquishing control. This procedure should be briefed before flight, and include a method to relinquish and take control of the aircraft when normal communications are not possible (e.g., tandem cockpit interphone failure or wind noise). Pilots and flight instructors are encouraged to practice and use aircraft control handoff procedures on every instructional flight. In addition, flight instructors need to maintain diligence while providing instruction. A flight instructor should always be in a position to take over control of the aircraft when doubt exists as to the safe outcome of any maneuver. The FAA reminds pilots and flight instructors to regularly evaluate (and elevate) procedures and skills to avoid, recognize, and recover from emergencies such as LOC.
Note: Future updates to this AC may address other causes of GA accidents, including aeronautical decision-making (ADM), weather, controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and system failure.
2.1.2 Pilot Proficiency. Studies have shown that LOC usually occurs when pilots lack proficiency. Conditions exceeding personal skill limitations can present themselves at any time and can occur unexpectedly. In this event, the pilot should be able to avoid being startled, make appropriate decisions in a timely manner, and be able to exercise skills at a proficiency level he or she may not have maintained or attained since acquired during initial training. This makes personal currency programs and proficiency training essential. Personal currency programs serve to develop and maintain pilot proficiency by promoting attributes such as aeronautical knowledge, aeronautical skill, and ADM. These attributes collectively determine the degree of aeronautical ability a pilot possesses.
Highly proficient pilots are better able to avoid or manage an in-flight emergency in a safe and efficient manner. Consequently, the GAJSC recommends that pilots place 2-1
emphasis on their specific proficiency needs by including training that may exceed regulatory minimum currency requirements.
2.1.3 Traffic Pattern Operations.
2.1.3.1 LOC accidents often occur while pilots are maneuvering at low altitude and airspeed, such as in an airport traffic pattern. Pilots should adopt, and flight instructors should promote, training programs designed to reduce the risk of GA accidents in traffic pattern operations. Flight instructors should provide training to mitigate the three areas of highest risk involving maneuvering an airplane in an airport traffic pattern. The first area is the risk of a departure stall; the second area is the risk of LOC if attempting to return to the field after an engine failure on takeoff; and the third area is the risk of LOC on the base to final turn.
2.1.3.2 Flight instructors should emphasize training that ensures that pilots of small single-engine airplanes depart in coordinated flight at the best-rate-of-climb speed (VY) for normal takeoffs, and maintain this speed to the altitude necessary for a safe return to the airport in the event of an emergency. Flight instructors should train pilots of single-engine airplanes not to return to the field after an engine failure unless altitude and best glide requirements permit.
Accordingly, flight instructors should provide training that emphasizes the correct speeds at which light twin-piston aircraft depart the runway. Flight instructors should emphasize that a departure at the best-angle-of-climb speed (VX) is used for obstacle clearance and short-field takeoff procedures.
2.1.3.3 Flight instructors should also emphasize the risks and potential consequences of climbing out at speeds less or greater than what is required for a particular type of takeoff. Flight instructors should train pilots of single-engine airplanes not to return to the field after an engine failure unless altitude and best glide requirements permit a safe return. Therefore, flight instructors should not routinely train pilots to make a 180-degree turn from a simulated engine failure while climbing. However, this training should occur at a safe altitude.
A critical part of conducting this training is for the flight instructor to be fully aware of the need for diligence, the need to perform this maneuver properly, and to avoid any potential for an accelerated stall in the turn. It is essential for a pilot to know the altitude that will be lost in a 180-degree turn, in the specific make and model (M/M) flown, if and when a pilot considers turning back to the departure airport at best glide. During the before-takeoff check, the expected loss of altitude in the turn, plus a sufficient safety factor, should be related to the absolute altitude at which a turnback may be attempted.
In addition, the effect of existing winds on the preferred direction of a turnback should be briefed.
2.1.3.4 Flight instructors should also teach pilots to reject an approach and initiate a go-around when the pilot cannot maintain a stabilized approach. The GAJSC recommends that pilots and flight instructors emphasize stabilized approach 2-2
and landing proficiency and conduct stabilized approaches as a standard practice. Flight reviews and IPCs should emphasize evaluating a pilot’s ADM, departure skills, and ability to establish and maintain a stabilized approach and landing, while applying effective crosswind techniques to avoid the risk of LOC when maneuvering in an airport traffic pattern. Effective scenario-based training, emphasizing ADM, departures, and establishing and maintaining a stabilized approach to a landing, reduces the risk of LOC in an airport traffic pattern. Many of the principles discussed in this paragraph apply to multiengine aircraft, but do not apply to single-engine operations in the multiengine airplane. Flight instructors should emphasize the correct speeds at which light twin-piston aircraft are operated in the traffic pattern and provide training in response to an engine failure in a variety of situations.
2.1.4 Criteria for Stabilized Approaches Conducted in GA Airplanes. Under most circumstances, the airplane should be stabilized by 1,000 feet above airport elevation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet above airport elevation during straight-in approaches in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Pilots should monitor at least seven major elements that define a stabilized approach in a GA airplane.
The FAA considers an approach to touchdown to be stabilized when the airplane meets all of the following criteria, with only minor deviations:
2.1.4.1 Glidepath. The airplane is on the correct flightpath. Typically, the glidepath is 3 degrees to the runway touchdown zone (TDZ) (obstructions permitting).
2.1.4.2 Heading. The airplane is tracking the extended centerline to the runway with only minor heading/pitch changes necessary to correct for wind or turbulence to maintain alignment. Bank angle should not exceed 15 degrees on final approach.
2.1.4.3 Airspeed. The pilot maintains a constant target airspeed within +10/-5 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), which is usually at, but no lower than, the recommended landing speed specified in the pilot’s operating handbook (POH)/Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), approved placards/markings, or
1.3 times the stall speed or minimum steady flight speed at which the airplane is controllable in the landing configuration (VSO), if not specified.
Note: Most small airplanes maintain a speed well in excess of 1.3 times VSO on an instrument approach (pilot’s discretion).
An airplane with a VSO of 50 knots has a normal approach speed of 65 knots. However, this same airplane may maintain 90 knots
(1.8 VSO) while on the final segment of an instrument approach. Pilots generally select an appropriate approach speed for the prevailing weather, aircraft, traffic, and performance conditions, but not less than
1.3 VSO. However, aircraft are usually slowed to a normal landing speed when on the final approach just prior to landing. Refer to the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-15), Chapter 4, Aerodynamic Factors, page 4-9, paragraph titled Small Airplanes.
2-3
2.1.4.4 Configuration. The airplane is in the correct landing configuration with flaps as required, landing gear extended, and the airplane in trim.
2.1.4.5 Rate of Descent. Descent rate is a constant and generally no greater than 500 feet per minute (fpm). If a descent greater than 500 fpm is required due to approach considerations, it should be reduced prior to 300 feet above ground level (AGL) and well before the landing flare and touchdown phase.
2.1.4.6 Power Setting. Power setting is appropriate for the airplane configuration and is not below the minimum power for approach as defined by the POH/AFM.
2.1.4.7 Checklists/Briefings. All briefings and checklists (except the landing checklist) are completed prior to initiating the approach.
Note: For a typical GA piston airplane in a traffic pattern, if the approach becomes unstabilized below 300 feet AGL, the pilot should initiate an immediate go-around.
2.1.5 IMC. Another area where pilots have experienced LOC is while maneuvering in IMC.
Vertigo or spatial disorientation has been a significant factor in many aircraft accidents.
The common result when a noninstrument-rated pilot inadvertently continues flight into IMC is spatial disorientation of the pilot and LOC. Pilots who are instrument rated, but not instrument proficient, are also susceptible. Recovery from LOC in IMC can be nearly impossible without skills and competency. Additionally, instrument-rated pilots maneuvering in IMC who fail to prioritize pilot workload properly and use Crew Resource Management (CRM) or Single Pilot Resource Management (SRM) may become inattentive or distracted and lose situational awareness (SA), which too often can lead to LOC. The GAJSC determined that pilots and flight instructors need to emphasize effective preflight planning and pilot proficiency to reduce the risk of LOC in IMC.
Note: LOC is not limited to the examples provided above. Other examples of areas where pilots have experienced LOC include environmentally induced aircraft upsets, system malfunction/failure-induced upsets, and exceeding personal skills.
2.2 Manual Flight After Automation Failure. Pilots and aircraft owners have taken advantage of modern avionics and flight automation equipment. “Glass cockpits” are available for virtually every new aircraft, as well as for many legacy and experimental aircraft. Global Positioning Systems (GPS), positioning on a moving map, real-time weather, terrain/traffic awareness, and modern autopilots have made a significant presence in the GA fleet. Pilots also employ handheld equipment not installed in the aircraft much more frequently than in the past. This equipment can make flight operations safer and help avoid LOC situations; however, pilots should be proficient in all automation tools and know the system limitations. The FAA reminds flight instructors conducting flight reviews and IPCs to ensure that a pilot under evaluation is proficient with the automated system and knows what to do if it fails.
2-4
2.2.1 Pilot Knowledge. Pilots should learn their aircraft’s systems, limits, and recommended procedures before a pilot can fly the aircraft safely. This is especially important for technically advanced aircraft (TAA) equipped with the automated avionics described in paragraph 2.2 or flight automation systems (e.g., flight management system (FMS) or coupled autopilot). The FAA strongly recommends that a pilot receive a thorough evaluation from a qualified instructor with experience in the automation equipped in the specific aircraft M/M flown.
2.2.2 Reliance on Automation. Overreliance on automation or automated flight systems has resulted in accidents. A 2010 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety study concluded that glass cockpit aircraft (TAA) experience a lower total accident rate, but a higher fatal accident rate, than the same type of aircraft equipped with conventional analog instrumentation. (Refer to http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safetystudies/Documents/SS1001.pdf.) The NTSB study also reported, “Even before electronic displays became common, anecdotal reports from flight crews, as well as findings from accidents and research, revealed potential problems if pilots relied too heavily on automated systems or if they misunderstood automated system behavior” (page 6).
Automation can lull some pilots into complacency. Furthermore, automation bias presented a new breed of accident by creating the potential to erode a complacent pilot’s manual flight skills. Automation bias refers to the willingness of the pilot to trust and utilize automated systems while feeling that the automation is more capable than the pilot. This perception may result in passive automation management (commonly referred to as “set and go”). Eroded skills can degrade the pilot’s ability to recognize potential system issues and avoid or recover from LOC. The FAA strongly recommends that pilots who fly aircraft with automated flight systems manually control the aircraft at times to maintain manual flying skills. Pilots should actively manage automation by making use of all systems; cross-referencing data provided by the various systems; and monitoring and managing flight progress such as waypoints or checkpoints. Active automation management ensures enhanced SA while providing the opportunity for quick identification of automation failure.
2.2.3 Proficiency in Manual Aircraft Control. Pilots should be proficient in manual aircraft control and should be able to operate the aircraft without the use of the aircraft’s automation. Advanced avionics and flight automation offer many levels of automation.
Pilots need to understand that no one level of automation is appropriate for all flight situations. If a flight automation system failure occurs, in whole or in part, the pilot should possess the knowledge to address the situation. This may include isolating the defective components and/or manually flying the aircraft. In any event, manual flight may be necessary to ensure positive control of the aircraft while the pilot identifies problems and determines an appropriate course of action. All flight reviews conducted in aircraft equipped with automation should include training in manual aircraft control.
In this case, the flight instructor should simulate failures of critical components of automation through safe and practical means. The instructor should never actually render an automated system inoperative, such as turning off switches or disengaging circuit breakers. For example, a flight instructor can simulate an automation failure simply by disengaging an integrated autopilot on an approach. The FAA strongly recommends that 2-5
pilots and flight instructors strive for proficiency in manual aircraft control to mitigate the risk of loss of aircraft control.
2.3 Runway Incursion Risks and Avoidance. Runway incursions, like other pilot deviations (PD), are usually due to pilot error. GA pilots are responsible for the largest percent of PDs in our National Airspace System (NAS). PDs occur in flight and on the ground. Airborne deviations include occurrences that result when a pilot does not maintain an assigned heading, altitude, or instrument procedure while conducting flight operations under an air traffic control (ATC) clearance, or when a pilot penetrates airspace requiring an ATC clearance without having received one. Ground deviations include taxiing, taking off or landing without clearance, not maintaining an assigned taxi route, and failing to hold short of an assigned clearance limit.1 Although pilot airborne and ground deviations are avoidable, GA PDs continue to be the largest cause of runway incursions. Preventing runway incursions is one of the FAA’s top priorities.2 Flight instructors should also provide training to GA pilots to mitigate wrong surface landing incidents. Recently, the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has advised of an increase in wrong surface landings in the NAS. For more information, please refer to Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 17010, Incorrect Airport Surface Approaches and Landings.
To understand and mitigate the risk of a runway incursion, GA pilots and flight instructors should become familiar with the following information.
2.3.1 Definition. The FAA formally defines a runway incursion as “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.”3 The FAA divides runway incursions into three incident (human error) types:
2.3.1.1 Pilot Deviation (PD). A PD is an action by a pilot that violates FAA regulations, such as taxiing an airplane on a runway or taxiway without authorization from ATC.
2.3.1.2 Operational Incidents (OI). An OI is an action by an air traffic controller that results in either less than the required minimum separation between two or more aircraft, or between an aircraft and obstacles (e.g., vehicles or people); or an aircraft landing or departing on a closed runway.
2.3.1.3 Vehicle or Pedestrian Deviations (V/PD). A V/PD is a pedestrian or vehicle entering any portion of the airport movement areas (runways or taxiways) without authorization from ATC.
1 GAJSC Safety Enhancement Topic, Avoiding Pilot Deviations, September 2014:
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2014/media/SE_Topic_09_2014.pdf .
2 FAA, Reducing Runway Incursions: Guidance for Airports:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/call_to_action/.
3 FAA, Runway Safety: Runway Incursions: https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/runway_incursions/ .
2-6
2.3.2 Categories. There are four categories of runway incursions:
1. Category A is a serious incident in which the pilot barely avoided a collision.
2. Category B is an incident in which separation decreases and there is a significant potential for collision, which may result in a time-critical evasive response to avoid a collision.
3. Category C is an incident characterized by ample time and/or distance to avoid a collision.
4. Category D is an incident that meets the definition of runway incursion, such as the incorrect presence of a single vehicle, person, or aircraft on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft, but with no immediate safety consequences.
2.3.3 Background. PDs were responsible for 63 percent of runway incursions in fiscal year (FY) 2012. GA pilots were responsible for more than 80 percent of the PDs. In addition, OIs accounted for 20 percent of runway incursions and V/PDs accounted for 17 percent that year.4 For these reasons, the FAA is encouraging GA pilots and flight instructors to become familiar with industry best practices and mitigation procedures to avoid runway incursions.
2.3.4 Causal Factors of Runway Incursions. Detailed investigations of runway incursions over the past decade have identified three major areas (pilot errors) contributing to these events:5
1. Failure to comply with ATC instructions.
2. Lack of airport familiarity.
3. Nonconformance with standard operating procedures.
2.3.5 Challenges. Pilot proficiency, preflight planning, taxi procedures, runway confusion, SA, and the use of aircraft lights are all challenges that, if not properly managed, lead to deviations. Adverse weather, technology limitation, and complex airport designs are additional challenges that contribute to PDs such as runway incursions.
2.3.6 Runway Incursion Mitigation/Avoidance. As previously noted, runway incursions are generally the result of pilot error. To reduce this risk, pilots should adopt effective mitigation strategies to avoid runway incursions. Flight instructors should offer training that includes runway incursion avoidance strategies. Training and procedures developed in compliance with FAA policies and industry best practices reduce pilot errors and 4 FAA Office of the Inspector General Audit Report, Management Limitations May Hinder FAA’s Ability to Fully Implement and Assess the Effectiveness of its Runway Safety Initiatives, Report Number: AV -2014-130 September 25, 2014, page 4:
https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA%20Runway%20Safety%20Program%20Audit%20Report%5E9- 25-
14.pdf.
5 FAA Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautic Knowledge 2016, Chapter 14, page 14- 31, https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf .
2-7