"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
arthlink.net...
Because you wrote the message I was responding to.

Bull. Here's your original reply. As you'll note, Bob Gardner wrote the
message to which you were responding:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
newsWqPa.31718$N7.3950@sccrnsc03...

As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract
tower,
and the controllers (or the local airport authority, I'm not sure which)
made everything except the runway non-movement areas, where the
controllers
have no responsibility or authority. So pilots taxiing out are told to
monitor ground, told not to transmit on the ground control frequency,
and
if
there is a conflict on the taxiway the two pilots will have to work it
out
on their own. No radio transmissions until "Ready for takeoff" on the
tower
frequency.


Hmmm.... Seems to me every pilot that operated on a taxiway there would
be
in violation of FAR 91.129(i).

The AIM is not regulatory, the regulation says nothing about non-movement
areas.

Well, perhaps you'd prefer a quote from the ATC handbook. From "3-7-2. TAXI
AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS":

"NOTE -- 2. Movement of aircraft or vehicles on nonmovement areas is the
responsibility of the pilot, the aircraft operator, or the airport
management."

You ARE familiar with the ATC handbook, right?

The regulation does apply to taxiways.

You can say that 'til the cows come home, it doesn't make it true.

However, you've been sufficiently discredited in this thread. I don't see
any need to rub your face in it, so please, feel free to make whatever lame
reply you think you need to. I don't intend to embarass you any further.
Besides, you'll do that well enough yourself in your next reply.

Pete