question on student taxi practice

wrote in message
ups.com...

My answer to the original question is "no." However, I take issue with
the statement that a clearance is required to taxi. When you
call,ground control, you get taxi instructions, not a clearance. The
ATCH specifically prohibits the use of the word "cleared" by ground
controllers.


§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with an
operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take
off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from
ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is
not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that
runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that
intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to
"taxi to" any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to
cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.

USAF and probably WWII AAC let Mechanics taxi aircraft after a short
check out in taxing. These were multi million dollar aircraft.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:11:37 GMT, ktbr wrote:

Mark wrote:
It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?

No, it is not usual and accepted practice.

As far as the practicality of it goes, I'm not sure I see the point of
having a student practice taxiing solo.

Taildragger?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

95 percent of my flying is done from airports where there is no ATC..
no clearance required..

I agree, if the student is not ready to fly solo, he is not ready to taxi
solo.
BT


My answer to the original question is "no." However, I take issue with
the statement that a clearance is required to taxi. When you
call,ground control, you get taxi instructions, not a clearance. The
ATCH specifically prohibits the use of the word "cleared" by ground
controllers.

if the student is not ready to fly solo, he is not ready to taxi
solo.

I disagree. Actually flying an airplane, keeping it within its aviation
envelope and reacting properly and swiftly should the aircraft approach
the edge of its envelope, making a smooth approach to the runway at the
proper speed, arriving sufficiently close to the desired touchdown
point, arresting the descent smoothly and touching down gently enough to
reuse the aircraft, and maintaining directional control on the ground at
close to flying speed requires significantly more skill than taxiing on
the ground, especially in a nosewheel.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
if the student is not ready to fly solo, he is not ready to taxi solo.

I disagree. Actually flying an airplane, keeping it within its aviation
envelope and reacting properly and swiftly should the aircraft approach
the edge of its envelope, making a smooth approach to the runway at the
proper speed, arriving sufficiently close to the desired touchdown point,
arresting the descent smoothly and touching down gently enough to reuse
the aircraft, and maintaining directional control on the ground at close
to flying speed requires significantly more skill than taxiing on the
ground, especially in a nosewheel.

Jose

This might not be the best analogy to make for this issue Jose. Naturally it
takes more ability to accomplish all of these things than just the one skill
of taxiing the aircraft on the ground. That isn't the issues here. The issue
is instructor judgment.
An accident is an accident whether it happens in the air or on the ground.
It happens in aviation that one can easily kill someone with an airplane on
the ground. Also, as I have stated in another post, there is the issue of
responsibility transition as that applies to sound instruction procedure.
Making a case for allowing a 2 hour student to taxi an airplane unsupervised
is something you might want to revisit. Of course this is only my opinion. I
can only say that I wouldn't have hired any instructor to work for me who
would make this case.
Dudley Henriques

An A&P is a fully issued airman's certificate, were as a
student pilot certificate is not until endorsed for solo and
then only for limited purposes.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"nooneimportant" wrote in message
news:GFgZf.2689$qd.2446@fed1read08...
|
| "ktbr" wrote in message
| ...
| T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
| It's not solo, since he's not acting as PIC, solo or
| otherwise. No license is required for taxiing without
the
| intent to commit aviation. It may not be covered by
| insurance, however, which is probably why it's not
commonly
| done.
|
| Well you are splitting some very fine hairs Todd. I'm
not
| sure your argument (or the FARs you quoted) would
withstand
| the situation of someone taxiing around a controlled
airport
| where you need a clearance to taxi. It would seem to me
that
| you would have to be PIC in order to accept the
clearance
| and thus would be the "sole manipulator of the controls"
etc.
|
| I can't believe there was any intent by FAA to make it
entirely
| permissable for any unlicensed person to be taxiing
around
| airports with impugnity.
|
|
| Many A/P techs are not certificated pilots.... and they
taxi around all the
| time to and from runup areas and such. Even if that means
calling ground
| for taxi into a controled ramp/taxiway
|
|
|

taxi time is logged if you intend to actually fly, if you
are just moving on the surface, even for a high speed test
of the brakes or such, then it is not flight time.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter R." wrote in message
news | Dave Stadt wrote:
|
| You left out the most important part......'for the
purpose of flight.' Just
| taxiing around cannot be considered flight time. Guess
you could log it as
| taxi time but nobody cares about taxi time.
|
| Now that is interesting. A thread about Hobbs versus tach
time came up
| here a few months ago and a few experienced and respected
regulars here
| insisted that taxi time (admittedly taxiing to the runway
for departure and
| to the ramp after landing, assuming this subtlety is even
defined
| somewhere) is log-able.
|
|
|
| --
| Peter

Along these lines, of responsible actions, when I was
learning to fly, the FBO hired a farm boy with lots of
trailer and tractor experience as a lineboy. After an hour
of training they sent him to put the Illinois governor's
King Air 90 in the hanger by himself. He did a good job
except for the bi-fold door which stalled half way up. He
did put the fuselage in the hanger but removed the entire
vertical stabilizer and rudder.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
message
ink.net...
|I can find no point on the instruction curve where this
would be either
| necessary or advisable. Certainly I have never done this,
nor would I allow
| any instructor working for me to allow it. To cut a fine
line on the
| regulations to justify this is in my opinion anyway
neglecting proper
| instructional technique and procedures.
| No instructor in my opinion, worth the title, should allow
a student to
| accept the FAA definition for "Pilot In Command" as the
end of the line for
| that definition.
| Students should be taught from day one that a pilot
becomes "pilot in
| command" IN THE REAL WORLD from the INSTANT that pilot
becomes involved as
| the potential principle operator involving the movement of
an airplane from
| point A to point B, whether that be on the ground or
otherwise.
| Instructors should in my opinion make the transition of
this responsibility
| for the aircraft to the student at the solo point. The
reason for this is
| that the IMPORTANCE of the changeover in responsibility
for the safety of
| the aircraft should be clearly defined and understood by
the student! This
| transition includes the TOTAL responsibility for the
aircraft including it's
| ground operation.
| What I'm talking about here goes beyond the FAA
regulations for PIC
| definition. It goes to the very heart of proper flight
instruction.
| To send a 2 hour student out to move an airplane from
point A to point B
| alone is in my opinion not responsible behavior on the
part of the CFI
| involved.
| Dudley Henriques
|
|
| "Mark" wrote in message
| ...
| Has anybody ever heard of an instructor turning a
pre-solo student loose
| in
| an airplane alone for taxi practice around an airport
without supervision
| ?
| It was basically "go taxi the airplane around the
airport and taxiways
| but
| don't go on the runway and don't take off, I'll come
back to check on you
| in
| 30 minutes" Is this a normal thing ?
|
| It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks.
I'll rephrase my
| question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI
to let a 2 hour
| time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?
|
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:PtlZf.9845$t22.1756@dukeread08...
Along these lines, of responsible actions, when I was
learning to fly, the FBO hired a farm boy with lots of
trailer and tractor experience as a lineboy. After an hour
of training they sent him to put the Illinois governor's
King Air 90 in the hanger by himself. He did a good job
except for the bi-fold door which stalled half way up. He
did put the fuselage in the hanger but removed the entire
vertical stabilizer and rudder.

Ouch!! I see a mighty tax increase in there somewhere I think :-)

My issue with all this is of course the responsibility transition issue
between the instructor and a student as that addresses the pilot in command
issue. I've always stressed this to instructors whenever I could. It
pertains to the use of the FAR terms definition for "pilot in command", and
actually, the use of anything in the FAR's for that matter, as being
anything but a bare minimum definition for the competence/responsibility
issue.
I like to see instructors teaching new pilots to view the FAR's as minimum
requirements; then take the student above that level of understanding in how
the student views himself/herself in relation to the regulations.
It's this line of thinking that causes me to find fault with an instructor
who would allow a 2 hour student to go out un supervised and taxi an
airplane.
Doing this in my opinion fogs the issue of pilot responsibility for the
student, who can now easily start to believe that responsibility for the
safety of an airplane can be assumed in steps....or gradually, as the case
may be.
I like to see instructors work up to a definite dividing line for the
transition of responsibility for the aircraft to the student. The student
should realize that there is a moment in time when he/she has been
determined to be competent enough to assume total responsibility for an
airplane and it's operation. This operation should be considered as the
TOTAL operation of the aircraft, and the moment the student assumes this
responsibility from the instructor, if the instructor has done a credible
job of teaching, the student will make that all important TOTAL transition
to accepting responsibility and thinking as "pilot in command".
For me, this moment should occur at solo and not before. In fact, I believe
every action taken by an instructor during the pre-solo stage should be
designed to bring the student to this all important mental transition to
thinking as pilot in command, and that moment occurs with the responsibility
transition made from the instructor to the student as solo is accomplished.
Dudley Henriques