Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

Thomas Borchert writes:

Problem is, you still answer! This newsgroup is now mainly filled with
longwinded discussions on a simmer's questions about reality. Sad!

Why do you find questions about real flying in a piloting newsgroup
sad? What would you prefer to discuss?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gene Seibel writes:

It's not real. It's not the same as flying. There's no pressures on the
seat of the pants, or feeling of movement, or wind noise. I don't do
well on MSFS either. But why would I want to? It'll only get you from
Point A to Point A.

I consider that an advantage, as the objective is to fly, not to get
somewhere. Going from one real-life airport to another would be a
huge inconvenience unless I actually had a legitimate reason to
travel, which I virtually never do (I hate travel).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Don Poitras" wrote in message
...
Regulations are written to get the maximum meaning in the fewest words.

You base that assertion on what? The FARs certainly don't bear that out.
There's plenty of verbiage there, much of it excess if one takes the
position that one must make inferences with respect to definitions of words
in the regulations.

Sometimes that requires one to make some common sense interpretation of
the words.

One does need to occasionally use "common sense" definitions, yes. However,
when the FAA has provided a definition (as they have here), that is not
required.

You seem to want "operation" to mean "when the wheels turn" or
perhaps "when the wheels leave the ground". Most of us think it means
"when the engine starts" (for planes with engines).

YOU seem to want "operation" to mean "when the engine starts". This isn't
how the FAA defines it, nor does it make any sense that the FAA would write
a regulation that applies to all aircraft, but have some sort of implicit
exclusion for powered aircraft in which only "engine start" defines the
course of operation.

What happens with a motor glider? Is the aircraft not being operated when
the engine is shut down in flight? How about a regular powered airplane?
Does shutting the engine down in flight allow the pilot to stop using
anticollision lights? What about a balloon? Are lights required only when
the burner is operating?

Arguing over a
definition like this is a common, yet tiring, USENET exercise.

It's especially tiring when the FAA has already provided a definition, and
yet people insist that their definition is incomplete or that one should
infer additional meaning beyond that provided in the official definition.

It's
especially tiring when the entire thread is posted to multiple groups.
Followups set to RAS.

If you think that your comments and replies to them belong only in
r.a.student, then don't post your comments to another newsgroup in the first
place.

Pete

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. com...
Note that YOU were the one that set the parameters that the "aircraft's
engines are running", therefore, the regs quoted directly answered your
original question, as the PIC is always "operating an aircraft" if the
engines are running, and therefore it is not "just a polite custom".

The PIC is NOT "always 'operating an aircraft' if the engines are running".
The FAA specifically defines "operate" to relate to "air navigation". There
is nothing in the definition that suggests that simply having the engine
running constitutes "operating".

Is it a good idea to turn on the anticollision lights if you've got the
engine running? Sure, especially if you are going to move the airplane (for
example, taxiing from one spot on the ground to another). Is it a
regulatory requirement? No, it is not. If you are not engaged in "air
navigation", you are not "operating" the aircraft as far as the FARs are
concerned.

Once again, you choose to argue rather than learn.

Seems to me, that accusation is more appropriately leveled at many of the
other participants in this thread, this time.

Pete

But it's not flying. It's making pictures on a computer screen.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Mxsmanic wrote:
Gene Seibel writes:

It's not real. It's not the same as flying. There's no pressures on the
seat of the pants, or feeling of movement, or wind noise. I don't do
well on MSFS either. But why would I want to? It'll only get you from
Point A to Point A.

I consider that an advantage, as the objective is to fly, not to get
somewhere. Going from one real-life airport to another would be a
huge inconvenience unless I actually had a legitimate reason to
travel, which I virtually never do (I hate travel).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gene Seibel writes:

But it's not flying. It's making pictures on a computer screen.

Sitting in an aircraft isn't flying, either. The aircraft flies; you
sit and watch. Only birds actually fly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
RK Henry writes:

1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:

"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or
authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in
§91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of
aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner,
lessee, or otherwise)."

I don't see the word "engine" anywhere in the quoted text--again.

It's best to read what regulations say, and not try to guess what
you'd like them to mean. Legal documents are generally explicit;
imagination is neither required nor recommended.

If you're planning on using the airplane for flying, I'd interpret
that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til the airplane
is back in the hangar.

So it's your interpretation; it's not written in the regulations.



You are such a little cock wad. If you are starting the aircraft to fly
you are operating the aircraft.

601XL Builder wrote:
...
If you are starting the aircraft to fly
you are operating the aircraft.

Apparently less then even that. In the Florida state criminal
trial of the drunk airline pilots, they were stopped during the
pushback which they commanded before even starting the engines.
There was expert testimony, by either FAA or expert with prior
FAA exp, that the the mere authorization to push it back was
operating the aircraft for purpose of flight under FAA rules, and
therefore "operate" as one necessary element of the state crime
was there and the jury agreed.

F--

601XL Builder wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
RK Henry writes:

1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:

"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or
authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in
§91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of
aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner,
lessee, or otherwise)."

I don't see the word "engine" anywhere in the quoted text--again.

It's best to read what regulations say, and not try to guess what
you'd like them to mean. Legal documents are generally explicit;
imagination is neither required nor recommended.

If you're planning on using the airplane for flying, I'd interpret
that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til the airplane
is back in the hangar.

So it's your interpretation; it's not written in the regulations.



You are such a little cock wad. If you are starting the aircraft to fly
you are operating the aircraft.

Personally, I think we should point him in the direction of the FAA. As
much as I hate to defend them, I think that they'd love to hear that
this particular reasonably well written reg is open to interpretation.

Jim Macklin wrote:
The 727 has a prop. They install it under the tail while
parked.

Either that or you drop the rear airstairs if the plane is
so equipped. Don't know about the 727, but some of the
DC-9's you HAD to do that. When the plane was empty
it only took a couple of guys standing in the back to
tip it up off the nose gear.