question on student taxi practice

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
No, it's not very common. It's entirely legal, however. If
there is no intent to take off, there is no requirement to
have a pilot's license of any kind.

Questions of intent (to take-off or otherwise) are an open
invitation for a litigation problems involving cuplability
if some accident or incident ocurred. It won;t really matter
if what happened was "legal' or not, if someone sues its up
to a judge or jury to decide.

The FARs state that you can log time (PIC or otherwise) whenever
you are the sole manipulator of the controls and the airplane
is moving under its own power.

You left out the most important part......'for the purpose of flight.' Just
taxiing around cannot be considered flight time. Guess you could log it as
taxi time but nobody cares about taxi time.

Personally, I would never allow
a student to go out an operate an airplane alone (taxiing or
otherwise until he was signed off for solo. I wouldn't want to
have to explain such a situation in court if anything happened.

Dave Stadt wrote:

You left out the most important part......'for the purpose of flight.' Just
taxiing around cannot be considered flight time. Guess you could log it as
taxi time but nobody cares about taxi time.

Now that is interesting. A thread about Hobbs versus tach time came up
here a few months ago and a few experienced and respected regulars here
insisted that taxi time (admittedly taxiing to the runway for departure and
to the ramp after landing, assuming this subtlety is even defined
somewhere) is log-able.



--
Peter

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.



wrote in message
ups.com...
Mark asked:

Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour time, pre
solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?

Not just "no" but "hell, no". When I was instructing full time 'bout 5
years ago I wouldn't think of turning loose such a low time student
even if just for taxi practice. Too many chances of something stupid
(and preventable) happening IMO.

For that matter, the student would be better off having the CFI there
to instruct & give feedback and not just observe from the far side of
the ramp. Unless it's an uncontrolled field, there'd be radio calls to
make and no 2-hour pilot has any clue about what to say & to whom.
Also, they'd have no idea of what hold short lines mean. (yikes!)

There were one or two students that needed taxi practice I recall, but
most picked it up fairly quickly after the first few hours going back
and forth from the fligh school ramp to the active rwy.

"Peter R." wrote in message
news
Dave Stadt wrote:

You left out the most important part......'for the purpose of flight.'
Just
taxiing around cannot be considered flight time. Guess you could log it
as
taxi time but nobody cares about taxi time.

Now that is interesting. A thread about Hobbs versus tach time came up
here a few months ago and a few experienced and respected regulars here
insisted that taxi time (admittedly taxiing to the runway for departure
and
to the ramp after landing, assuming this subtlety is even defined
somewhere) is log-able.

That's true. Taxi time in conjunction with an actual or intended flight is
considered flight time. Taxi time not meeting the criteria is for naught
flight time wise. If you taxi to the runway intending to fly the taxi time
can be considered flight time. If you taxi around to condition new brake
linings or go get fuel and return to the hangar without intending to fly it
is simply taxi time.

--
Peter

When I was a kid, my father build a wooden go-cart for us that we steered
with our feet. It was simply an axle that pivoted. If you wanted to turn
left, push with your right foot.

Worked the same way as my Flexible Flyer sled.

When I started flight instruction, I always pushed the wrong rudder peddle
to turn, going back to my old instincts.

I would have jumped at the chance to taxi around for a 1/2 hour or so for
practice. But I was too cheap, and was learning at a controlled field.



"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.



wrote in message
ups.com...
Mark asked:

Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour time,
pre
solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?

Not just "no" but "hell, no". When I was instructing full time 'bout 5
years ago I wouldn't think of turning loose such a low time student
even if just for taxi practice. Too many chances of something stupid
(and preventable) happening IMO.

For that matter, the student would be better off having the CFI there
to instruct & give feedback and not just observe from the far side of
the ramp. Unless it's an uncontrolled field, there'd be radio calls to
make and no 2-hour pilot has any clue about what to say & to whom.
Also, they'd have no idea of what hold short lines mean. (yikes!)

There were one or two students that needed taxi practice I recall, but
most picked it up fairly quickly after the first few hours going back
and forth from the fligh school ramp to the active rwy.

Yes! Usually for the purpose of getting fuel or bringing the plane out
to the FBO.

-Robert, CFI

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 ?

I'm not sure if the FAA recognizes ground-only operations as a separate
type of solo.

The FAA doesn't but sometimes the question comes down to insurance.
Your post got me interested so I checked my AIG policy. It only limits
what pilots (and qualifications) can fly the plane. For helicpoters
they define flight as many self-propelled movement, but for fixed wing
they define it as leaving the ground. I know the airlines have training
they require of employees before they can move a plane, something
probably directed by insurance. If you ever watch the reality show
"Airline" there was an 18 year old guy working on getting his
certification to pull 737's with the tug. We got to see his first
"supervised solo" as he pulled a Southwest plane into a tight gate.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
I'm not sure if the FAA recognizes ground-only operations as a separate
type of solo.

The FAA doesn't but sometimes the question comes down to insurance.

The insurance companies are the de-facto regulatory agency these days.

Your post got me interested so I checked my AIG policy. It only limits
what pilots (and qualifications) can fly the plane. For helicpoters
they define flight as many self-propelled movement, but for fixed wing
they define it as leaving the ground. I know the airlines have training
they require of employees before they can move a plane, something
probably directed by insurance.

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.

On 04/06/06 12:41, Robert M. Gary wrote:
I'm not sure if the FAA recognizes ground-only operations as a separate
type of solo.

The FAA doesn't but sometimes the question comes down to insurance.
Your post got me interested so I checked my AIG policy. It only limits
what pilots (and qualifications) can fly the plane. For helicpoters
they define flight as many self-propelled movement, but for fixed wing
they define it as leaving the ground. I know the airlines have training
they require of employees before they can move a plane, something
probably directed by insurance. If you ever watch the reality show
"Airline" there was an 18 year old guy working on getting his
certification to pull 737's with the tug. We got to see his first
"supervised solo" as he pulled a Southwest plane into a tight gate.

-Robert


That was the line of thinking I had. My assumption was that prior to
being a certificated pilot, you would need some time of supervision to
move the airplane under it's own power (in effect, to run the engine),
and that would normally come in the form of a logbook endorsement.

After all, if the student didn't know what he was doing, he could cause
all kinds of havoc.

However, I know that pretty early in my flight training, I was taxiing
the airplane solo, and I didn't have a logbook endorsement, just the
CFI's verbal authorization.

There may be a good reason why the CFI allowed the low-time student to
practice taxiing around. Without knowing all the details, I would assume
the CFI has a good reason, and found it to be within acceptable safety
margins, etc.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

The FARs state that you can log time (PIC or otherwise) whenever
you are the sole manipulator of the controls and the airplane
is moving under its own power.

Where does it say that? The FARs I have say something different; there
is a phrase like "with the intention of flight" involved.

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