Two fine points of FAR interpretation

[Dave Russell]

A friend of mine is curious:

1. If a runway is closed by NOTAM at a non-towered airport, does that
mean that the adjacent *taxiway* can't be used to legally take-off and
land? (I know the insurance company would have an opinion about this,
also, but let's ignore that aspect for the moment.)

2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required reserve
(and without a good reason for using part of the reserve), can the FAA
violate you for negligence?

Please post in the groups (the email address I'm using here is
primarily a spam-trap) and, no, I'm not in trouble. :-)

-Dave Russell
8KCAB

[C J Campbell]

"Dave Russell" > wrote in message
m...
> A friend of mine is curious:
>
> 1. If a runway is closed by NOTAM at a non-towered airport, does that
> mean that the adjacent *taxiway* can't be used to legally take-off and
> land? (I know the insurance company would have an opinion about this,
> also, but let's ignore that aspect for the moment.)
>

Show me an FAR that requires you to use a runway for taking off and landing.


> 2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
> one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required reserve
> (and without a good reason for using part of the reserve), can the FAA
> violate you for negligence?
>

If you are not allowed to use the reserve, what is it for? The reserve is in
case of unforseen delays. The FAA might do almost anything, of course, but
it is unlikely that they would violate you for negligence if you used part
of your reserve due to unforeseen delays.

[Andrew Sarangan]

(Dave Russell) wrote in
m:

> A friend of mine is curious:
>
> 1. If a runway is closed by NOTAM at a non-towered airport, does that
> mean that the adjacent *taxiway* can't be used to legally take-off and
> land? (I know the insurance company would have an opinion about this,
> also, but let's ignore that aspect for the moment.)

There is no specific requirement to land on a runway, but if something
happens, the FAA can get you for being careless and reckless.

Helicopters routinely land in front of their hangars. It is not even a
taxiway.

>
> 2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
> one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required reserve
> (and without a good reason for using part of the reserve), can the FAA
> violate you for negligence?

The fuel reserve only applies for takeoff. However, this is a moot point
because the question of fuel reserves will only arise if there was a
fuel related accident. In such cases they can get you one way or the
other even if you departed with legal reserves. Again, the careless and
reckless is a catch-all reg that can be used.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 18 Jul 2004 18:45:23 -0700, (Dave Russell) wrote:

>A friend of mine is curious:
>
>1. If a runway is closed by NOTAM at a non-towered airport, does that
>mean that the adjacent *taxiway* can't be used to legally take-off and
>land? (I know the insurance company would have an opinion about this,
>also, but let's ignore that aspect for the moment.)
>

The FAA has little to do with where you take off and land, so long as you
are not in violation of "careless and reckless". The owner of the airport
would be a better entity to ask. At Nashua (which is towered) when the
runway was closed for reconstruction, use of the adjacent grass was
frequent and "at your own risk". Use of the taxiway would have been
"careless and reckless" due to taxiing aircraft.

At EPM, the taxiway is occasionally used by some during strong crosswind
conditions.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Capt.Doug]

>"Dave Russell" wrote in message > 1. If a runway is closed by NOTAM at a
>non-towered airport, does that
> mean that the adjacent *taxiway* can't be used to legally take-off and
> land?

Helicopters do it routinely. The antiques land in the grass along-side the
runway routinely. Keep in mind that if you screw up, it will be much harder
to plead your case.

> 2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
> one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required reserve
> (and without a good reason for using part of the reserve), can the FAA
> violate you for negligence?

NTSB case law has demonstrated that if you burned some reserves in spite of
doing proper fuel calculations during pre-flight planning, but otherwise
landed safely, you won't be convicted.

D.

[Jack]

Capt.Doug wrote:

> NTSB case law has demonstrated that if you burned some reserves in spite of
> doing proper fuel calculations during pre-flight planning, but otherwise
> landed safely, you won't be convicted.

Is this a joke?

When does the NTSB get involved post-safe-landing?


Jack

[Peter Duniho]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> When does the NTSB get involved post-safe-landing?

They are the first line of appeal for any FAA enforcement action. The FAA
has been known to issue a violation against a pilot, even if the landing
itself was safe. Most pilots would appeal a negative outcome, so the NTSB
would get involved practically every time.

That's when.

Pete

[BTIZ]

when ASH was non towered.. the use of the old grass strip to the east of the
runway was a normal occurrence.. and even more so when the runway was closed
for resurfacing.. and then the heavy twins would use the taxiway.. with lots
of radio calls... but way back then.. there was nothing north of the ASH
tower.. NOTHING but the taxi way to the north end..

BT

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Jul 2004 18:45:23 -0700, (Dave Russell) wrote:
>
> >A friend of mine is curious:
> >
> >1. If a runway is closed by NOTAM at a non-towered airport, does that
> >mean that the adjacent *taxiway* can't be used to legally take-off and
> >land? (I know the insurance company would have an opinion about this,
> >also, but let's ignore that aspect for the moment.)
> >
>
> The FAA has little to do with where you take off and land, so long as you
> are not in violation of "careless and reckless". The owner of the airport
> would be a better entity to ask. At Nashua (which is towered) when the
> runway was closed for reconstruction, use of the adjacent grass was
> frequent and "at your own risk". Use of the taxiway would have been
> "careless and reckless" due to taxiing aircraft.
>
> At EPM, the taxiway is occasionally used by some during strong crosswind
> conditions.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:10:54 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>when ASH was non towered.. the use of the old grass strip to the east of the
>runway was a normal occurrence.. and even more so when the runway was closed
>for resurfacing.. and then the heavy twins would use the taxiway.. with lots
>of radio calls... but way back then.. there was nothing north of the ASH
>tower.. NOTHING but the taxi way to the north end..

That resurfacing must have taken place prior to '76.

But even now, the grass on the NE side of the runway still gets used from
time to time. But they don't keep it up they way they used to.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Russell wrote:
>
> 2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
> one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required reserve
> (and without a good reason for using part of the reserve), can the FAA
> violate you for negligence?

The regulations require that you have sufficient fuel on takeoff. They do not require
that you have the required reserve when you land. If checked, you might be required
to demonstrate how you calculated the reserve. You might be violated if they think
you did not do a good job of that. I've never heard of such a case in non-commercial
flights, but it's certainly possible.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi George,

>> 2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
>> one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required
>> reserve (and without a good reason for using part of the reserve),
>> can the FAA violate you for negligence?
>
> The regulations require that you have sufficient fuel on takeoff.
> They do not require that you have the required reserve when you land.
> If checked, you might be required to demonstrate how you calculated
> the reserve. You might be violated if they think you did not do a
> good job of that. I've never heard of such a case in non-commercial
> flights, but it's certainly possible.

To my knowledge, airliner pilots quite regularly file flight plans to
closer airports than their real destinations in order to be allowed to
take of with less fuel than what would be required including reserve
for the full distance. At some point during the flight, they re-file a
new flight plan the the real destination, by which time the remaining
fuel is sufficient for the rest of the flight including required
reserve. consequently, they land with less fuel than what would have
been required reserve for the whole distance.

Can anyone confirm this practice?

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Bob Moore]

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote

> To my knowledge, airliner pilots quite regularly file flight plans to
> closer airports than their real destinations in order to be allowed to
> take of with less fuel than what would be required including reserve
> for the full distance. At some point during the flight, they re-file a
> new flight plan the the real destination, by which time the remaining
> fuel is sufficient for the rest of the flight including required
> reserve. consequently, they land with less fuel than what would have
> been required reserve for the whole distance.
>
> Can anyone confirm this practice?

This was common practice when I flew for PanAm. The procedure was
acceptable because of the 10% fuel factor for international flights.
The procedure was called "redispatch". The procedure was not applicable
to domestic flights because of the fixed 45 minute reserve fuel
requirement. International flights require 30 minutes of fuel plus
fuel for 10% of the total flight time, which for a 10 hour flight would
amount to one and one-half hours of reserve fuel while a domestic
flight arriving at the same time at the same airport would only require
45 minutes of reserve fuel. It was a paper-work and communications
drill which required the co-operation of the dispatcher with an updated
flight release and weather. However, the flight plan with ATC was filed
to the "real" destination, they never knew that you might have to land
short if the destination wx or enroute fuel burn didn't work-out as
desired.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[BTIZ]

yes... actually that resurfacing would have been about that time..

I left ASH in 1982 and the new tower was not open then..
I was at NEAI/DWC from 1974-1977, earned my Private ASEL through NEAI in
1974

BT


"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:10:54 -0700, "BTIZ" >
> wrote:
>
> >when ASH was non towered.. the use of the old grass strip to the east of
the
> >runway was a normal occurrence.. and even more so when the runway was
closed
> >for resurfacing.. and then the heavy twins would use the taxiway.. with
lots
> >of radio calls... but way back then.. there was nothing north of the ASH
> >tower.. NOTHING but the taxi way to the north end..
>
> That resurfacing must have taken place prior to '76.
>
> But even now, the grass on the NE side of the runway still gets used from
> time to time. But they don't keep it up they way they used to.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[john price]

Dave... How's it going???

"Dave Russell" > wrote in message
m...
> A friend of mine is curious:
>
> 1. If a runway is closed by NOTAM at a non-towered airport, does that
> mean that the adjacent *taxiway* can't be used to legally take-off and
> land? (I know the insurance company would have an opinion about this,
> also, but let's ignore that aspect for the moment.)

I routinely take off and land the L3 on the grass next to the runway...
Airport manager hasn't yelled at me... Nothing in my insurance
says I can't...

>
> 2. We all know about the minimum fuel requirement for take-off. If
> one were to land with less fuel in the tanks than the required reserve
> (and without a good reason for using part of the reserve), can the FAA
> violate you for negligence?

Rule is have to have required reserves on takeoff...

John Price
CFII/AGI/IGI
http://home.att.net/~jm.price

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:50:06 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>yes... actually that resurfacing would have been about that time..
>
>I left ASH in 1982 and the new tower was not open then..
>I was at NEAI/DWC from 1974-1977, earned my Private ASEL through NEAI in
>1974

Well we overlapped a bit. I moved to the area in 1976 and left in 2000.
We still go back to visit from time to time, though.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)