question on student taxi practice

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
Well you are splitting some very fine hairs Todd.

Not at all.

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.

Not that it would need to, since no inspector would consider even bringing
it up as an issue. But should it happen, the argument would hold up just
fine.

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.

There is no requirement for a person accepting a clearance from ATC to be a
pilot. More to the point, on a controller airfield many types of vehicles
share the taxiways and even runways besides aircraft, and clearly the
operators of those vehicles are not required to be pilots.

Providing the aircraft is being operated not in flight, without the intent
of flight, there is no requirement for the operator to be a pilot.
Non-pilots may and do operate airplanes, even in controlled areas on an
airport, all the time.

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.

Your incredulity is irrelevant.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
Your incredulity is irrelevant.

Pete



Fortunatley you are irrelevent or I would probably be angered by your tendency to be an
a$$hole.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Fortunatley you are irrelevent or I would probably be angered by your
tendency to be an a$$hole.

lol...

You're the one who went off on an entirely incorrect criticism of Todd's
post. All I did (along with others) was to correct you.

Are you saying that your inability to believe the truth IS relevant to
whether it's the truth or not?

Someone's being an asshole here, but it ain't me.

Peter Duniho wrote:
You're the one who went off on an entirely incorrect criticism of Todd's
post. All I did (along with others) was to correct you.

"Correct" me all you want if it makes you happy. I happen to be a
certified flight instructor and that investment in training and
experience leads me down the path of thinking that it would be
very poor judgment indeed for a CFI to encourage or allow a student
pilot without a solo endorsement to operate an aircraft, even if
'only' in taxi. If an incident ocurred the CFI could (and probably
would) be cited.


Are you saying that your inability to believe the truth IS relevant to
whether it's the truth or not?

Someone's being an asshole here, but it ain't me.


Whatever.

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
"Correct" me all you want if it makes you happy. I happen to be a
certified flight instructor

Whoopee. Lots of CFIs don't have their facts straight.

and that investment in training and
experience leads me down the path of thinking that it would be
very poor judgment indeed for a CFI to encourage or allow a student
pilot without a solo endorsement to operate an aircraft, even if
'only' in taxi.

Indeed it probably would be. I agree that a student should not be solo
taxiing until they are qualified for solo flight, and have the necessary
solo endorsement.

However, that isn't the question you replied to, nor is it the response you
gave. Regardless of what is prudent and reasonable, it is LEGAL for a
non-pilot to taxi an airplane, student or otherwise.

If an incident ocurred the CFI could (and probably
would) be cited.

Not if it were during a taxi operation, on the ground, not in flight.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
Whoopee. Lots of CFIs don't have their facts straight.

Boy, I'm so glad we have YOU to set us all straight Peter.

There are several areas of the FARs where particular activities/actions
etc. are not specifically mentioned as "prohibited" but neither are
they specifically authorized or sanctioned. The FAA issues Advisory
Circulars to clarify their positions on losts of these sorts of subjects,
often stating positions which to some may seem at odds with the wording
of the FARs. In most cases they seem to come down on the side of more
restrictive than what the casual reader may glean from reading the FAR.

You can be assured that in the event of an accident/violation etc. that
the FAA will come down as holding the CFI (or whatever party supposedly
authorized/sanctioned the questionable activity) as being culpable.
Safety and good judgement is one of the criteria used to determine the
cause of incident and thats what that is emphasized to much to CFIs, as
they are to instill this into their students.

But I don't need to tell you this because you already know it all.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Boy, I'm so glad we have YOU to set us all straight Peter.

It seems that for now, you are the only person in need of setting straight.
No one else is claiming to know of hidden regulations prohibiting a
non-pilot from taxiing an airplane.

There are several areas of the FARs where particular activities/actions
etc. are not specifically mentioned as "prohibited" but neither are
they specifically authorized or sanctioned.

Such as?

The FAA issues Advisory
Circulars to clarify their positions on losts of these sorts of subjects,
often stating positions which to some may seem at odds with the wording
of the FARs.

Are you claiming there's an AC that prohibits a non-pilot from taxiing an
airplane?

In most cases they seem to come down on the side of more
restrictive than what the casual reader may glean from reading the FAR.

You can be assured that in the event of an accident/violation etc. that
the FAA will come down as holding the CFI (or whatever party supposedly
authorized/sanctioned the questionable activity) as being culpable.

Assured by whom?

I assume you have documentation to support your claim? Where is it
prohibited for a student (or anyone else without a pilot certificate)
without a solo endorsement to taxi an airplane?

Safety and good judgement is one of the criteria used to determine the
cause of incident and thats what that is emphasized to much to CFIs, as
they are to instill this into their students.

Safety and good judgment are both good things. So what? There's lots of
stuff that's legal but unsafe or in poor judgment.

But I don't need to tell you this because you already know it all.

I appreciate your support.

Pete