question on student taxi practice

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

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

wrote in message
ups.com...

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.


§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(i) 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.

95 percent of my flying is done from airports where there is no ATC..
no clearance required..

I agree, if the student is not ready to fly solo, he is not ready to taxi
solo.
BT


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.

if the student is not ready to fly solo, he is not ready to taxi
solo.

I disagree. Actually flying an airplane, keeping it within its aviation
envelope and reacting properly and swiftly should the aircraft approach
the edge of its envelope, making a smooth approach to the runway at the
proper speed, arriving sufficiently close to the desired touchdown
point, arresting the descent smoothly and touching down gently enough to
reuse the aircraft, and maintaining directional control on the ground at
close to flying speed requires significantly more skill than taxiing on
the ground, especially in a nosewheel.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...
if the student is not ready to fly solo, he is not ready to taxi solo.

I disagree. Actually flying an airplane, keeping it within its aviation
envelope and reacting properly and swiftly should the aircraft approach
the edge of its envelope, making a smooth approach to the runway at the
proper speed, arriving sufficiently close to the desired touchdown point,
arresting the descent smoothly and touching down gently enough to reuse
the aircraft, and maintaining directional control on the ground at close
to flying speed requires significantly more skill than taxiing on the
ground, especially in a nosewheel.

Jose

This might not be the best analogy to make for this issue Jose. Naturally it
takes more ability to accomplish all of these things than just the one skill
of taxiing the aircraft on the ground. That isn't the issues here. The issue
is instructor judgment.
An accident is an accident whether it happens in the air or on the ground.
It happens in aviation that one can easily kill someone with an airplane on
the ground. Also, as I have stated in another post, there is the issue of
responsibility transition as that applies to sound instruction procedure.
Making a case for allowing a 2 hour student to taxi an airplane unsupervised
is something you might want to revisit. Of course this is only my opinion. I
can only say that I wouldn't have hired any instructor to work for me who
would make this case.
Dudley Henriques

That isn't the issues here. The issue
is instructor judgment. [...]
Making a case for allowing a 2 hour student to taxi an airplane unsupervised
is something you might want to revisit.

Well, all we know about the pilot is that he is a "two hour student",
which doesn't say much. The same argument you made could be made for
IFR flight - allowing a ten hour student to fly an airplane all by
himself, through the air, and a hundred miles an hour, even though he is
not ready to fly in instrument conditions. The issue =there= is also
instructor judgement. However, the lack of instrument experience has no
bearing if the student is not going to fly on instruments. Likewise,
the (presumed) lack of ability to fly through the air safely and land
gently has no bearing if the student is only going to taxi at ten knots
with a nosewheel.

Instructor judgement would include this.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You and I are so diametrically opposed in our opinions on how to conduct
flight instruction that at this point I think I'll just hope we can agree to
disagree and bid each other a friendly goodbye :-)
Dudley Henriques

"Jose" wrote in message
...
That isn't the issues here. The issue is instructor judgment. [...]
Making a case for allowing a 2 hour student to taxi an airplane
unsupervised is something you might want to revisit.

Well, all we know about the pilot is that he is a "two hour student",
which doesn't say much. The same argument you made could be made for IFR
flight - allowing a ten hour student to fly an airplane all by himself,
through the air, and a hundred miles an hour, even though he is not ready
to fly in instrument conditions. The issue =there= is also instructor
judgement. However, the lack of instrument experience has no bearing if
the student is not going to fly on instruments. Likewise, the (presumed)
lack of ability to fly through the air safely and land gently has no
bearing if the student is only going to taxi at ten knots with a
nosewheel.

Instructor judgement would include this.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.