"Movement Area" (airplanes and trucks)

Michael Houghton wrote:

Are you claiming that the non-movement area is somehow magically placed
under 91.129? Pray explain clearly how you arrive at that conclusion, or
clearly state that you didn't mean for us to infer that implication.

Well, this was on *taxiway* H. Given the cited wording, how can that be a
nonmovement area?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Well, this was on *taxiway* H. Given the cited wording, how can that be a
nonmovement area?

There are "taxiways" and there are "taxiways". What matters is how the
airport operator has defined the non-movement areas. You can easily see
that from the markings on the pavement, or of course you could ask the
controllers or other officials at the airport. Just because a person might
use the word "taxiway" to describe an area on the airport, that doesn't mean
it's subject to the regulation that was quoted.

In this particular case, "taxiway H" does not appear to be charted on the
official chart, and of course without seeing the airport myself, I can't
comment on how it's labeled or marked. However, looking at the airport
diagram it certainly seems plausible that there's an area described as
"taxiway H" but which is really just part of the ramp.

Regardless, there are examples of places where taxiways (that is, long
stretches of pavement on which aircraft are expected to taxi) are simply not
part of the movement area, and are not subject to the regulation that was
quoted. Renton, WA is one such example (already cited in this thread).

If it were true that one could not operate an aircraft on a taxiway that is
within a non-movement area without an ATC clearance, then thousands of
pilots each day would be in violation of that regulation. I personally
don't believe that's the case, so through proof by contradiction, the
regulation doesn't apply to taxiways that are within a non-movement area.

If someone has some compelling evidence to suggest that these thousands of
pilots ARE violating the regulation, and can explain how that could be and
yet the FAA doesn't seem interested in citing any of those pilots, that
might be an interesting topic. But I doubt such evidence will be
forthcoming.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

There are "taxiways" and there are "taxiways". What matters is how the
airport operator has defined the non-movement areas. You can easily see
that from the markings on the pavement, or of course you could ask the
controllers or other officials at the airport. Just because a person
might use the word "taxiway" to describe an area on the airport, that
doesn't mean it's subject to the regulation that was quoted.

The markings and signage are both consistent with it being a taxiway.

In this particular case, "taxiway H" does not appear to be charted on the
official chart, and of course without seeing the airport myself, I can't
comment on how it's labeled or marked. However, looking at the airport
diagram it certainly seems plausible that there's an area described as
"taxiway H" but which is really just part of the ramp.

Physically, it is "part of the ramp". But there are markings which draw the
distinction.

Regardless, there are examples of places where taxiways (that is, long
stretches of pavement on which aircraft are expected to taxi) are simply
not part of the movement area, and are not subject to the regulation that
was
quoted. Renton, WA is one such example (already cited in this thread).

Looking at the diagram for RNT, taxiways A and B appear similar in structure
to H at CDW. Are they marked at RNT in such a way as to make a distinction
between "the ramp" and "the taxiway"?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
Looking at the diagram for RNT, taxiways A and B appear similar in
structure
to H at CDW. Are they marked at RNT in such a way as to make a
distinction
between "the ramp" and "the taxiway"?

Oddly enough, never actually have I been anywhere off the runway at Renton.
So I don't know what the on-ground signage is. However, since the
"everything but runway as non-movement area" is relatively new, it wouldn't
surprise me to find that the markings are more typical of what one might
find in controlled areas of the airport.

My point is that the regulation that was quoted, asserting that one cannot
operate an aircraft on a taxiway at a controlled airport without an ATC
clearance, is clearly not applicable to taxiways within a non-movement area.
Clearly, at least with respect to that regulation, those "taxiways" are not
defined as "taxiways" for the purpose of that regulation. Even if they are
otherwise exactly like a taxiway in every other respect (including being
called a "taxiway" by ATC).

In your case at KCDW, the important question is whether the boundary of the
non-movement area is clearly marked on the pavement. I don't know whether
it is or not; I suspect that because ATC treats it as a non-movement area,
that it is so marked, but it's possible that it's not.

If it's not, you have a fair grievance in this situation. If it is, then
you don't.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Clearly, at least with respect to that regulation, those "taxiways" are
not defined as "taxiways" for the purpose of that regulation.Â*Â*EvenÂ*if
theyÂ*are otherwise exactly like a taxiway in every other respect
(including being called a "taxiway" by ATC).

This is giving me what I'll choose to call a headache, even if it is similar
to every other headache but for the differences between this headache and
all headaches.

In your case at KCDW, the important question is whether the boundary of
the non-movement area is clearly marked on the pavement.Â*Â*IÂ*don'tÂ*know
whether it is or not; I suspect that because ATC treats it as a
non-movement area, that it is so marked, but it's possible that it's not.

I'm not sure; I'll have to look.

- Andrew

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

There are "taxiways" and there are "taxiways".


So how do "taxiways" differ from "taxiways"?



What matters is how the
airport operator has defined the non-movement areas. You can easily see
that from the markings on the pavement, or of course you could ask the
controllers or other officials at the airport. Just because a person
might use the word "taxiway" to describe an area on the airport, that
doesn't mean it's subject to the regulation that was quoted.


Why not?



Regardless, there are examples of places where taxiways (that is, long
stretches of pavement on which aircraft are expected to taxi) are simply
not part of the movement area, and are not subject to the regulation that
was quoted.


How does the regulation that was quoted differentiate between those
taxiways?



If it were true that one could not operate an aircraft on a taxiway that
is within a non-movement area without an ATC clearance, then thousands of
pilots each day would be in violation of that regulation. I personally
don't believe that's the case, so through proof by contradiction, the
regulation doesn't apply to taxiways that are within a non-movement area.


If the posted speed limit is 70, but the state patrol doesn't issue speeding
citations for less than 75, is the speed limit then 75?



If someone has some compelling evidence to suggest that these thousands of
pilots ARE violating the regulation, and can explain how that could be and
yet the FAA doesn't seem interested in citing any of those pilots, that
might be an interesting topic. But I doubt such evidence will be
forthcoming.


They're violating the letter of the law, no evidence beyond that is needed.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
So how do "taxiways" differ from "taxiways"?

One kind is in movement areas, the other kind is not.

Why not?

Non-movement areas are defined as not being under ATC control. How would
ATC issue a legal clearance to aircraft operating only within the
non-movement area? By definition, being in a non-movement area means you
are not under ATC control.

How does the regulation that was quoted differentiate between those
taxiways?

It doesn't.

If the posted speed limit is 70, but the state patrol doesn't issue
speeding citations for less than 75, is the speed limit then 75?

No, it's not.

They're violating the letter of the law, no evidence beyond that is
needed.

You have no evidence that they are violating the letter of the law.

Pete