Non-federal towers

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
arthlink.net...
Why? That regulation doesn't apply to non-movement areas.

It applies to runways and taxiways, it says nothing of "non-movement
areas".

Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
non-movement areas.

I taxi all the time in the non-movement areas at my home airport, as well as
any number of other airports. The pavement I am taxiing on is a taxiway,
but because it's a non-movement area 91.129(i) doesn't apply.

Your assertion is that I am in violation of 91.129(i) every time I do this?

I realize that you love to argue just for the sake of the troll, but this
time you are really off the deep end. The situation at Renton sounds
screwed up, to be sure, but if they want to classify the entire airport
except the runway as a non-movement area, then no ATC clearance is required
to taxi around the airport (except on the runway of course).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
non-movement areas.


I didn't bring up non-movement areas, you did.



I taxi all the time in the non-movement areas at my home airport, as well
as
any number of other airports. The pavement I am taxiing on is a taxiway,
but because it's a non-movement area 91.129(i) doesn't apply.


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".



Your assertion is that I am in violation of 91.129(i) every time I do
this?


Read the regulation, it's not complicated.



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.



The situation at Renton sounds
screwed up, to be sure, but if they want to classify the entire airport
except the runway as a non-movement area, then no ATC clearance is
required
to taxi around the airport (except on the runway of course).


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

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

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.


Is that how it works? Gee, I would have thought the person that referred to
non-movement areas in the message I was responding to would be considered
the person that brought it up.



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.


What do you base that on?



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


You believe I brought non-movement areas into this discussion. Clearly, I'm
not the one that's confused.



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


I suppose so, but you're still batting .000.



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.


I've already posted the regulation supporting my position, you've provided
nothing in support of yours. Looks like it's you that needs to put up or
shut up.

Of course, based on your history, you'll do neither.

Peter Duniho wrote:



Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
non-movement areas.


Not having been there an easy way to set it up is to announce on the
ATIS or by other means that all aircraft are to taxi to the runway in
use. I accomplish a similar thing on the midshift by issuing all IFR
clearances by ATIS. You get a transponder code and a taxi clearance
from me, the rest of the clearance is covered by the ATIS.

Newps wrote:

Not having been there an easy way to set it up is to announce on the
ATIS or by other means that all aircraft are to taxi to the runway in
use. I accomplish a similar thing on the midshift by issuing all IFR
clearances by ATIS. You get a transponder code and a taxi clearance
from me, the rest of the clearance is covered by the ATIS.

How does one handle read-backs?

Sydney

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

Newps wrote:

Not having been there an easy way to set it up is to announce on the
ATIS or by other means that all aircraft are to taxi to the runway in
use. I accomplish a similar thing on the midshift by issuing all IFR
clearances by ATIS. You get a transponder code and a taxi clearance
from me, the rest of the clearance is covered by the ATIS.


How does one handle read-backs?

The end of the ATIS message says..."All IFR aircraft are cleared to
their destination airport, via the Billings Two departure, then as
filed. Maintain one two thousand or your requested lower altitude,
expect your transponder code on taxi. All aircraft contact Billings
120.5, advise you have..." Only one guy normally reads back his
clearance, so he does, the normal way.

this guy is a net troll, he's using at least (6) other usernames,
killfile him ASAP, below is his posting history

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...5xS36mXc24h6ww


see the link above, he is using
at least (10) other usernames on Usenet, they include


MARCO R
ROBERT J. KOLKER
ROBERT MORIEN
NEWPS
ASK A DIFFERENT
ROBERT KOLKER
EARL KIOSTERUD
therefore, he has no credibility- merely another net troll