If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Movement Area" (airplanes and trucks)
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... There are "taxiways" and there are "taxiways". So how do "taxiways" differ from "taxiways"? What matters is how the airport operator has defined the non-movement areas. You can easily see that from the markings on the pavement, or of course you could ask the controllers or other officials at the airport. Just because a person might use the word "taxiway" to describe an area on the airport, that doesn't mean it's subject to the regulation that was quoted. Why not? Regardless, there are examples of places where taxiways (that is, long stretches of pavement on which aircraft are expected to taxi) are simply not part of the movement area, and are not subject to the regulation that was quoted. How does the regulation that was quoted differentiate between those taxiways? If it were true that one could not operate an aircraft on a taxiway that is within a non-movement area without an ATC clearance, then thousands of pilots each day would be in violation of that regulation. I personally don't believe that's the case, so through proof by contradiction, the regulation doesn't apply to taxiways that are within a non-movement area. If the posted speed limit is 70, but the state patrol doesn't issue speeding citations for less than 75, is the speed limit then 75? If someone has some compelling evidence to suggest that these thousands of pilots ARE violating the regulation, and can explain how that could be and yet the FAA doesn't seem interested in citing any of those pilots, that might be an interesting topic. But I doubt such evidence will be forthcoming. They're violating the letter of the law, no evidence beyond that is needed. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Movement Area" (airplanes and trucks)
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net... So how do "taxiways" differ from "taxiways"? One kind is in movement areas, the other kind is not. Why not? Non-movement areas are defined as not being under ATC control. How would ATC issue a legal clearance to aircraft operating only within the non-movement area? By definition, being in a non-movement area means you are not under ATC control. How does the regulation that was quoted differentiate between those taxiways? It doesn't. If the posted speed limit is 70, but the state patrol doesn't issue speeding citations for less than 75, is the speed limit then 75? No, it's not. They're violating the letter of the law, no evidence beyond that is needed. You have no evidence that they are violating the letter of the law. Pete |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Movement Area" (airplanes and trucks)
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I assume it has signage and markings consistent with other taxiways at CDW. Yes. Any idea why taxiway H is not on the airport diagram? None. FYI: Up until about a year or two ago, it wasn't a taxiway. It had no official name. People called P "outer" and what-is-now-H "inner" (I might have reversed these). It's the parking area near the east side of 9-27. Why is it called RN tiedown? No idea. There's a story that the taxiway and ramp areas were named by one individual with fits of odd creativity. Taxiway T, for example, is so named (according to this story) because of its proximity to the tower. The bravo tiedown is along side of taxiway B. The delta ramp is near taxiway delta. RN is reached via taxiway N...but that leave the R part of the name something of a mystery. Perhaps another CDW-dweller here knows the answer? - Andrew |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Movement Area" (airplanes and trucks)
Peter Duniho wrote:
Clearly, at least with respect to that regulation, those "taxiways" are not defined as "taxiways" for the purpose of that regulation.Â*Â*EvenÂ*if theyÂ*are otherwise exactly like a taxiway in every other respect (including being called a "taxiway" by ATC). This is giving me what I'll choose to call a headache, even if it is similar to every other headache but for the differences between this headache and all headaches. In your case at KCDW, the important question is whether the boundary of the non-movement area is clearly marked on the pavement.Â*Â*IÂ*don'tÂ*know whether it is or not; I suspect that because ATC treats it as a non-movement area, that it is so marked, but it's possible that it's not. I'm not sure; I'll have to look. - Andrew |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Movement Area" (airplanes and trucks)
There's a story that the taxiway and ramp areas were named by one
individual with fits of odd creativity. Taxiway T, for example, is so named (according to this story) because of its proximity to the tower. I was under the impression that taxiways had to be named in the order in which they appear going around a clock face (and they all had to be renamed if a new taxiway was added). Any idea why that was considered a good idea? Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|