| ▲ | bombcar 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If 1,700 is a huge percentage of runway uses (obviously it isn't but grant it, say at a single airport), then it's mandatory it be investigated because it's so huge. If 1,700 is a minuscule fraction of all runway uses (as it likely is) then investigating it should be a proportionally minuscule amount of the budget. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | throw0101d 2 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are five categories of incursion, with the top one being where a collision occurs: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_incursion#Definition * https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_... All incursions (in the US) are tracked: * https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/statistics Given there are ~45,000 flights per days in the US (and so aircraft and vehicles would move hither and fro around an airport for each flight), 1700 feels like a small number. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||