question on student taxi practice

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
The time can't even be logged but it sure as hell can be billed for. I
think someone is just running up rental time here. I can't see where any
pilot whether they have 2 or 200 hours is going to gain anything taxiing
around the airport.

I'd find a new CFI ASAP.
snip

This would seem to be very profitable for the aircraft owner as the student
would likely be paying for Hobbs time but the owner's maintenance clock does
not start until airborne. Not much fuel burn either. As a student I was
often asked to taxi an aircraft to or from the shop or the fuel pump, but I
was never asked to pay for this time nor did I log it.

The cost for taxi time should be a concern for any student when they are
selecting a school as some have very visible locations that are close to the
road entry to the airport but require a long taxi to the runways. At many
large and often busy airports this is compounded by long waits in line at
the run-up bay and for takeoff clearance.

I did all my early training in a Citabria taildragger, and one of my
earliest lessons was all about the importance of correct taxing. We spent
the entire (short) lesson maneuvering on the taxiways and a controlled but
inactive and crosswind runway. We covered proper control positioning and
did several upwind and downwind turns including 360s and differential
braking. It was also my introduction to radio work and I know now that we
really did not need to make all the calls that we did. At the time I
thought it was a bit of a waste of money, but it was a good example of
presenting the material in small manageable chunks. During the second
lesson I had already developed some familiarity with the aircraft and we
could concentrate on takeoff and flying. Thinking back on it, I did log
this as dual training, and I did pay full Hobbs price for it but was not
charged any ground briefing time.

Happy landings,

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
It's not solo, since he's not acting as PIC, solo or
otherwise. No license is required for taxiing without the
intent to commit aviation. It may not be covered by
insurance, however, which is probably why it's not commonly
done.

Well you are splitting some very fine hairs Todd. 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. 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.

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.


Many A/P techs are not certificated pilots.... and they taxi around all the
time to and from runup areas and such. Even if that means calling ground
for taxi into a controled ramp/taxiway

I can find no point on the instruction curve where this would be either
necessary or advisable. Certainly I have never done this, nor would I allow
any instructor working for me to allow it. To cut a fine line on the
regulations to justify this is in my opinion anyway neglecting proper
instructional technique and procedures.
No instructor in my opinion, worth the title, should allow a student to
accept the FAA definition for "Pilot In Command" as the end of the line for
that definition.
Students should be taught from day one that a pilot becomes "pilot in
command" IN THE REAL WORLD from the INSTANT that pilot becomes involved as
the potential principle operator involving the movement of an airplane from
point A to point B, whether that be on the ground or otherwise.
Instructors should in my opinion make the transition of this responsibility
for the aircraft to the student at the solo point. The reason for this is
that the IMPORTANCE of the changeover in responsibility for the safety of
the aircraft should be clearly defined and understood by the student! This
transition includes the TOTAL responsibility for the aircraft including it's
ground operation.
What I'm talking about here goes beyond the FAA regulations for PIC
definition. It goes to the very heart of proper flight instruction.
To send a 2 hour student out to move an airplane from point A to point B
alone is in my opinion not responsible behavior on the part of the CFI
involved.
Dudley Henriques


"Mark" wrote in message
...
Has anybody ever heard of an instructor turning a pre-solo student loose
in
an airplane alone for taxi practice around an airport without supervision
?
It was basically "go taxi the airplane around the airport and taxiways
but
don't go on the runway and don't take off, I'll come back to check on you
in
30 minutes" Is this a normal thing ?

It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?

"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

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
[...]
Heck, I don't care if the FAA *and* the insurance company allows it.
If I owned something worth the better part of $100 Million, I sure
would want anybody moving the thing to have some sort of training.
Hangar rash gets real expensive real quick when you're talking 777's.

Well, ignoring for the moment that I don't think anyone here was "talking
777's"...

....of course some kind of training is required. Transport aircraft aren't
typically taxied under their own power in and around other airplanes; they
use tugs for that, and the operators of the tugs require training as well
(as Robert's post did point out). When they are taxied under their own
power, it's only with a properly trained person at the controls (even if
that person isn't a pilot).

Likewise, no one is suggesting student pilots just be handed the keys and
told to go play around. An instructor wouldn't have them practice taxiing
until the student had already been given some instruction.

As far as the practicality of it goes, I'm not sure I see the point of
having a student practice taxiing solo. Often, the trickiest part about
taxiing an airplane is out of and back into parking. Even if the airplane
is pulled by hand out of and back into the parking space proper, taxiing
near the space can be tight quarters. Once you get out onto the taxiway,
you usually have a lot of leeway (though at smaller airports this isn't
always the case). If you can get to the taxiway, you probably are already
plenty competent in taxiing.

Pete

"ktbr" wrote in message
...

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.


I assume you mean impunity, which means exemption from punishment or
penalty, and which implies there ordinarily is some punishment or penalty
for the act. In this case there isn't.

Gotta say, if I found out that this was happening at my FBO I'd ditch
it and find a new one whether the student was me or not. No way I
want some guy with 2 hours time chasing me across the ramp because he
lost control of the plane. There's something to be said for taxi
practice WITH an instructor but doing it solo... even to the fuel pump
before someone is signed off to solo is just dangerous.

ktbr wrote:
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
It's not solo, since he's not acting as PIC, solo or
otherwise. No license is required for taxiing without the
intent to commit aviation. It may not be covered by
insurance, however, which is probably why it's not commonly
done.

Well you are splitting some very fine hairs Todd. 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. 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.

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.

My answer to the original question is "no." However, I take issue with
the statement that a clearance is required to taxi. When you
call,ground control, you get taxi instructions, not a clearance. The
ATCH specifically prohibits the use of the word "cleared" by ground
controllers.

I still would not turn a 2-hour student loose in an airplane to do
anything.

Bob Gardner

A green student in our flying club many years ago had an endorsement
for presolo taxi so he could get the airplane out of the hanger & taxi
it to the opposite side of the field where the FBO & his flight
instructor were located. The student had a few hours before the
endorsement, & he was a person that definitely had his head screwed on
straight. I don't know if it was a verbal or written endorsement, but
it was a busy controlled field (FCM), a reputable instructor and FBO.
Knowing the situation and the people involved, it didn't bother me as a
co-owner.

wrote in message
ups.com...
However, I take issue with
the statement that a clearance is required to taxi. When you
call ground control, you get taxi instructions, not a clearance.

No, that's incorrect. FAR 91.129i:

"Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with an
operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take
off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from
ATC. A clearance to 'taxi to' the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is
not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that
runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that
intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to
'taxi to' any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to
cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point."

The ATCH specifically prohibits the use of the word "cleared" by ground
controllers.

Yes, AIM 4-3-18a5 mentions that quirk of radio phraseology. Nonetheless, AIM
4-3-18 speaks of clearances to taxi, reaffirming what FAR 91.129i says.

--Gary