License To Taxi?

In article .com,
says...



Robert M. Gary wrote:
Insurance sets the requirements. The FAA doesn't care.


The FAA only gets involved if there is "intent to fly". If you have a
license and you have a wreck on the ramp or a taxiway, you can have a
license action if they can show you were intending to fly. At
uncontrolled fields therefore you order everyone out and claim it was
not your intent to fly...


Not so sure - there was that account widely published in the aviation
press about a guy who had his certificate pulled for operating under the
influence - he only wanted to taxi the aircraft to the hangar (after
dinner and a few somethings) and drove it off the taxiway. Unless I'm
recalling it poorly, the FAA wasn't interested in his "no intent to fly"
argument, even though the fact was clearly established.

G Faris

Greg Farris writes:
says...
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Insurance sets the requirements. The FAA doesn't care.

The FAA only gets involved if there is "intent to fly". If you have a
license and you have a wreck on the ramp or a taxiway, you can have a
license action if they can show you were intending to fly. At
uncontrolled fields therefore you order everyone out and claim it was
not your intent to fly...

Not so sure - there was that account widely published in the aviation
press about a guy who had his certificate pulled for operating under the
influence - he only wanted to taxi the aircraft to the hangar (after
dinner and a few somethings) and drove it off the taxiway. Unless I'm
recalling it poorly, the FAA wasn't interested in his "no intent to fly"
argument, even though the fact was clearly established.

The key difference is whether it's "intent to fly" (pilot license required)
or "careless or reckless" operation (license irrelevent).

Look at FAR 91.13(b):

*Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation*

No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of
air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by
aircraft for aircommerce (including areas used by those aircraft
for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

So as noted upthread, the FAA doesn't require a license to taxi an
aircraft with an unambiguous lack of intent to become airborne,
but if you *do* taxi it, don't do so in a careless or reckless manner.

Note that the definition of "operate" in FAR 1 normally is restricted
to aircraft use "for the purpose of air navigation," but the definition
has an explicit exception for the use of the word in FAR 91.13 .

Joe Morris

Joe Morris wrote:

The key difference is whether it's "intent to fly" (pilot license required)
or "careless or reckless" operation (license irrelevent).

If I recall the incident correctly, they didn't charge him with careless
operation. They charged him with operating the plane under the influence of alcohol.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Under the influence is objective and much easier to prove than careless
operation which is subjective. If the penalties are comparable, the
prosecutor always goes for the easiest to prove.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:fQv2f.1843$Uj2.96@trndny03...
Joe Morris wrote:

The key difference is whether it's "intent to fly" (pilot license
required)
or "careless or reckless" operation (license irrelevent).

If I recall the incident correctly, they didn't charge him with
careless operation. They charged him with operating the plane under
the influence of alcohol.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

In article ZZv2f.27258$q81.17776@trnddc06, says...


Under the influence is objective and much easier to prove than careless
operation which is subjective. If the penalties are comparable, the
prosecutor always goes for the easiest to prove.


Perhaps - but doesn't this negate the previous "intent to fly" rule?
My recollection was also that they charged him with operating an aircraft
under the influence, when it was clear there was no intent to fly. . .

G Faris

sfb wrote:
Under the influence is objective and much easier to prove than careless
operation which is subjective. If the penalties are comparable, the
prosecutor always goes for the easiest to prove.

The problem with that is that the regs forbid the act of *flying* the plane
while under the influence. The FAA attempted to apply those regulations to the
act of taxiing the plane.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

George Patterson wrote:
sfb wrote:

Under the influence is objective and much easier to prove than
careless operation which is subjective. If the penalties are
comparable, the prosecutor always goes for the easiest to prove.


The problem with that is that the regs forbid the act of *flying* the
plane while under the influence. The FAA attempted to apply those
regulations to the act of taxiing the plane.

Well, if they can give you DUI for sitting in your car, in your
driveway, listening to your radio while drunk, they can certainly get
you for that. Incident I refer to was an arrest by a former police
officer I worked with a couple years ago. Case was upheld, apparently.

Bob Martin wrote in news:dihsgo$aot$1@news-
int.gatech.edu:

George Patterson wrote:
sfb wrote:

Under the influence is objective and much easier to prove than
careless operation which is subjective. If the penalties are
comparable, the prosecutor always goes for the easiest to prove.


The problem with that is that the regs forbid the act of *flying* the
plane while under the influence. The FAA attempted to apply those
regulations to the act of taxiing the plane.

Well, if they can give you DUI for sitting in your car, in your
driveway, listening to your radio while drunk, they can certainly get
you for that. Incident I refer to was an arrest by a former police
officer I worked with a couple years ago. Case was upheld, apparently.

Since he was listening to the radio, the keys were in the ignition.
That's what made it DUI.

I once had a lengthy conversation with a night desk officer regarding
drunk driving. I had gotten tapped by a drunk driver at a red light
but he sped off before I could get him out of the car and/or snag his
keys.

I learned that the defining line for DUI in a car is if the keys are
in the ignition. The officer used a story like what you related as an
example.

I also learned that even though I had three witnesses in addition to
my testimony, that because an officer did not witness the incident
and did not witness the offender drunk in the car, they could do
nothing. Even if officers paid the guy a visit at home and I
identified him as the perp, if he denied it, he was off the hook.

Not having any vehicular damage made a difference as well. If there
was damage, then they might have gotten him on hit & run.

Also, it was explained that if I were to try a citizens arrest, even
if the guy was in fact drunk, I could be sued by him for violation of
his civil rights.

What I really learned from all this was that if someone taps me again
and they're drunk, I'm gonna chase them down and beat the **** of
them, and their car.

Sorry for the OT ramble.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? Supernews Sucks!