Greg Farris writes:
says...
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Insurance sets the requirements. The FAA doesn't care.

The FAA only gets involved if there is "intent to fly". If you have a
license and you have a wreck on the ramp or a taxiway, you can have a
license action if they can show you were intending to fly. At
uncontrolled fields therefore you order everyone out and claim it was
not your intent to fly...

Not so sure - there was that account widely published in the aviation
press about a guy who had his certificate pulled for operating under the
influence - he only wanted to taxi the aircraft to the hangar (after
dinner and a few somethings) and drove it off the taxiway. Unless I'm
recalling it poorly, the FAA wasn't interested in his "no intent to fly"
argument, even though the fact was clearly established.

The key difference is whether it's "intent to fly" (pilot license required)
or "careless or reckless" operation (license irrelevent).

Look at FAR 91.13(b):

*Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation*

No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of
air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by
aircraft for aircommerce (including areas used by those aircraft
for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

So as noted upthread, the FAA doesn't require a license to taxi an
aircraft with an unambiguous lack of intent to become airborne,
but if you *do* taxi it, don't do so in a careless or reckless manner.

Note that the definition of "operate" in FAR 1 normally is restricted
to aircraft use "for the purpose of air navigation," but the definition
has an explicit exception for the use of the word in FAR 91.13 .

Joe Morris