Non-federal towers

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
arthlink.net...
I didn't bring up non-movement areas, you did.

No, actually YOU did when you replied to a post that specifically said that
the taxiways had been designated non-movement areas. You should read the
posts to which you reply a little more carefully.

What do you base that on? The regulation says "runway or taxiway", it
doesn't say "runway or taxiway, except those designated as non-movement
areas".

Non-movement areas are implicitly excluded from the requirement for an ATC
clearance. While they physically can include a taxiway, those are not
ATC-controlled taxiways and as such, 91.129(i) doesn't apply. There is no
need for them to be mentioned explicitly in the regulation.

Read the regulation, it's not complicated.

You're right, it's not. And yet you still seem confused. Odd.

I realize that you love to argue just for the sake of the troll, but
this
time you are really off the deep end.

You're an extremely poor judge of character.

Perhaps. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

FAR 91.129(i) says differently. I wouldn't get too excited about it, some
regulations are violated regularly without consequence.

Put up or shut up. If you can find me one single FAA inspector that is
willing to agree with your stance that an ATC clearance is required to taxi
in non-movement area, I will happily admit I was wrong. Otherwise, the only
conclusion is that you have no point and are arguing just for the sake of
the troll.

Pete