License To Taxi?

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article . com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

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


A lot of turbines have start/stop cycle limits, so short runs are
discouraged. Mostly, they would use a tug.

On the engines we had a cycle was defined as a start and increase to
full power, any amount of continuous run time, and a shutdown. So if
you did not go to full power you had a start but not a cycle.

Taxi was, however, a fuel killer. The tug (which ran on jet fuel)
would use less fuel in a week than we did with a single engine start
and taxi-which was against the rules anyway. On the three-holer you
could taxi on two, but the hotdogs would start just the center (#2) and
the APU.

Since maintenance had "other uses" for fuel the difference would,
somehow, vanish into thin air. The totally unsubstantiated and
scurrilous rumor was that it had absolutely nothing whatever to do with
the high numbers of diesel Benzes, Rabbits, and pickups in the parking
lot.

The _ballsy_ part, I thought, was the cases of non-detergent Grade 80
Aeroshell the company was buying, despite having not had a
recip-engined aircraft in the fleet since before most of the
maintenance department was out of grade school. Of course, it was pump
insurance, particularly for the VWs. The tugs _should_ have had this
oil added to their fuel as well, but saying so would have opened up a
can of worms, and in any event they lost no pumps or injectors to
lubricity as far as I knew.

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

In article .net,
says...


As one who trained mechanics to taxi jets.......
No license required but a "run card" is required. Classroom, Simulator
and practical. Basically an authorization from the company to perform
the operation specified.
Michelle



This famous incident comes to mind :-)
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/050163/M/

I don't know what the final cause was determined to be, but at the time
there was some consternation expressed about the fact that the mechanic
was operating the plane (on the ground). Of course, this was not in the
US - and I only said there was concern expressed, not thta this was
determined to be causal or contributing to the result . . .

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

SteveT wrote:

snip
Suppose there's a 747 parked
at a gate and they need to taxi it over to a maintenance area. Does it
require a licensed pilot to taxi a plane that large (or any plane, for
that matter) on the ground?

Of course! Don't you remember George Kennedy in the movie, "Airport?"

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Marty,
The controllers at IAD hate it when the Ramp crew tows an airplane from
one gate to another. It is just too slow. If you try this during a push
period forget it you will wait until the push is over. This could be 1-2
hours. Usually the decision comes down to who is available and what does
the ground traffic look like at the time of movement and how quickly
does it need to be moved. If for some reason we had to tow an airplane
from the gates to the Hangar, a distance of about 2 Miles, it was done
in the middle of the night. This operation would take about 40 minutes.

Michelle

Marty wrote:

"SteveT" wrote in message
roups.com...


Hello All,
Perhaps someone hereabouts can settle a discussion I had with a fellow
passenger on an airliner the other day: Suppose there's a 747 parked
at a gate and they need to taxi it over to a maintenance area. Does it
require a licensed pilot to taxi a plane that large (or any plane, for
that matter) on the ground? We are stipulating that the plane is not
going to take off -- merely drive from one part of the airport to
another. Also, if pilots do NOT usually perform this task, then who
usually does?
Thanks for any info to settle this!




No "license" needed to taxi, but when I worked at a small airport, we never
started a plane to move it. We used a tug or towbar.

Many GA airports use tugs to move the small ones around or simply use a tow
bar.As a service,
employees of the airport/FBO regularly retrive aircraft from hangers for
pilots. They will often refuel and park the aircraft for the pilots upon
their return.

My guess with airliners it comes down to economics. Just can't see any
reason to spool up an airliner just to taxi when there is plenty of tugs and
wing walkers around.

Starting engines just to taxi an aircraft seems like opening a liability
can-o-worms.

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.