"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Well, this was on *taxiway* H. Given the cited wording, how can that be a
nonmovement area?

There are "taxiways" and there are "taxiways". What matters is how the
airport operator has defined the non-movement areas. You can easily see
that from the markings on the pavement, or of course you could ask the
controllers or other officials at the airport. Just because a person might
use the word "taxiway" to describe an area on the airport, that doesn't mean
it's subject to the regulation that was quoted.

In this particular case, "taxiway H" does not appear to be charted on the
official chart, and of course without seeing the airport myself, I can't
comment on how it's labeled or marked. However, looking at the airport
diagram it certainly seems plausible that there's an area described as
"taxiway H" but which is really just part of the ramp.

Regardless, there are examples of places where taxiways (that is, long
stretches of pavement on which aircraft are expected to taxi) are simply not
part of the movement area, and are not subject to the regulation that was
quoted. Renton, WA is one such example (already cited in this thread).

If it were true that one could not operate an aircraft on a taxiway that is
within a non-movement area without an ATC clearance, then thousands of
pilots each day would be in violation of that regulation. I personally
don't believe that's the case, so through proof by contradiction, the
regulation doesn't apply to taxiways that are within a non-movement area.

If someone has some compelling evidence to suggest that these thousands of
pilots ARE violating the regulation, and can explain how that could be and
yet the FAA doesn't seem interested in citing any of those pilots, that
might be an interesting topic. But I doubt such evidence will be
forthcoming.

Pete