License To Taxi?

[SteveT]

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!

[Lakeview Bill]

From what I have read, some of the mechanics have a sign-off that permits
them to taxi aircraft...


"SteveT" > wrote in message
oups.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!
>

[Dave S]

Airline mechanics may need such endorsement from their employer from a
liability and operations standpoint... ordinary A&P's operating GA
planes on the ground don't have any such restrictions or endorsements to
contend with (again, unless their employer requires it)

Dave

Lakeview Bill wrote:
> From what I have read, some of the mechanics have a sign-off that permits
> them to taxi aircraft...
>
>
> "SteveT" > wrote in message
> oups.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!
>>
>
>
>

[Michelle P]

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

SteveT wrote:

>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!
>
>
>

[Marty]

"SteveT" > wrote in message
oups.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.

[NW_PILOT]

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SteveT" > wrote in message
> oups.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.
>
>


I have never seen them start up and taxi around seen a few at KPDX moved
from place to place with a TUG


Steven Rhine
CP-ASEL-IA

[Newps]

NW_PILOT wrote:


>
>
>
> I have never seen them start up and taxi around seen a few at KPDX moved
> from place to place with a TUG

Depends on the layout of the airport. An airline based here at BIL has
the mechanics start one engine of their Beech 1900's to taxi from the
gate to the hangar. We would never let them do that amount of
repositioning on a taxiway with a tug.

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Bret Ludwig]

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...

When I was a ramp worker I had the opportunity to get a run card or
"start and taxi authorization" as we called it. I turned it down. I did
not have an A&P (either one) at that time. I have the P but not the A
now. Useless of course. People with less airframe experience than I
have, have bull****ted their way into authorization to take the test,
and I would just for the hell of it, but....why bother? One local FBO
has a kid with his A&P, FCC GROL, Amateur Extra, and a Class A CDL
(fuel truck!-but that only requires Class B...) working for $10.00. On
the line. He's thrilled to be around, you know, actual, real airplanes.
He's working on his private licese-through a club at a different
airport. The employee discount is $5 an hour there and he can rent a
Skyhawk for nearly $20 an hour cheaper elsewhere.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
"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.

[Bret Ludwig]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article om>,
> "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.

[Greg Farris]

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

[Greg Farris]

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

[Joe Morris]

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

[Peter R.]

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 =----

[Michelle P]

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
oups.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.
>
>
>
>

[George Patterson]

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.

[sfb]

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.

[Greg Farris]

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

[George Patterson]

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.

[Bob Chilcoat]

There was an accident at Newark a few years ago where mechanics were testing
a plane (MD-80?) and it jumped its chocks and ran into the terminal. They
were not intending to taxi it but did. I can't find in in the NTSB reports.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

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

I guess I was assuming "taxi" here meant with a tug. I'm sure being
"licensed" to move a plane from one part of the ramp to another
(including having to call for taxi clearance) is something the airlines
require training for.

-Robert

[Bob Martin]

George Patterson wrote:
> 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.

Well, if they can give you DUI for sitting in your car, in your
driveway, listening to your radio while drunk, they can certainly get
you for that. Incident I refer to was an arrest by a former police
officer I worked with a couple years ago. Case was upheld, apparently.

[Skywise]

Bob Martin > wrote in news:dihsgo$aot$1@news-
int.gatech.edu:

> George Patterson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, if they can give you DUI for sitting in your car, in your
> driveway, listening to your radio while drunk, they can certainly get
> you for that. Incident I refer to was an arrest by a former police
> officer I worked with a couple years ago. Case was upheld, apparently.

Since he was listening to the radio, the keys were in the ignition.
That's what made it DUI.

I once had a lengthy conversation with a night desk officer regarding
drunk driving. I had gotten tapped by a drunk driver at a red light
but he sped off before I could get him out of the car and/or snag his
keys.

I learned that the defining line for DUI in a car is if the keys are
in the ignition. The officer used a story like what you related as an
example.

I also learned that even though I had three witnesses in addition to
my testimony, that because an officer did not witness the incident
and did not witness the offender drunk in the car, they could do
nothing. Even if officers paid the guy a visit at home and I
identified him as the perp, if he denied it, he was off the hook.

Not having any vehicular damage made a difference as well. If there
was damage, then they might have gotten him on hit & run.

Also, it was explained that if I were to try a citizens arrest, even
if the guy was in fact drunk, I could be sued by him for violation of
his civil rights.

What I really learned from all this was that if someone taps me again
and they're drunk, I'm gonna chase them down and beat the **** of
them, and their car.

Sorry for the OT ramble. :)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? Supernews Sucks!

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>

>I learned that the defining line for DUI in a car is if the keys are
>in the ignition. The officer used a story like what you related as an
>example.
>


That might vary depending on what state you're in, and whether you're a
repeat offender. I know a guy who has a problem of this nature in Vermont
state, and the police told him that if they happen to be watching, and he
even goes out to get something from his trunk, as soon as he touches the
car in any way they've got him on intent to commit repeat DUI, with the
same effect as if they actually caught him driving.

GF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>
>>I learned that the defining line for DUI in a car is if the keys are
>>in the ignition. The officer used a story like what you related as an
>>example.
>>
>
>
> That might vary depending on what state you're in, and whether you're a
> repeat offender. I know a guy who has a problem of this nature in Vermont
> state, and the police told him that if they happen to be watching, and he
> even goes out to get something from his trunk, as soon as he touches the
> car in any way they've got him on intent to commit repeat DUI, with the
> same effect as if they actually caught him driving.
>
> GF
>

Just because the police told him that doesn't mean the DA prosecuting such a
trumped up charge could get a conviction. For that matter the threat alone
could be considered harassment and actionable.

You just have to have good lawyers.

[Lakeview Bill]

Reminds me of the old "Investigation of suspicion of attempting to possess
with intent to distribute mary-jay-wanna"...




"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:Rke3f.26987$b65.3470@okepread01...
>
> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,

> > says...
> >>
> >
> >>I learned that the defining line for DUI in a car is if the keys are
> >>in the ignition. The officer used a story like what you related as an
> >>example.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That might vary depending on what state you're in, and whether you're a
> > repeat offender. I know a guy who has a problem of this nature in
Vermont
> > state, and the police told him that if they happen to be watching, and
he
> > even goes out to get something from his trunk, as soon as he touches the
> > car in any way they've got him on intent to commit repeat DUI, with the
> > same effect as if they actually caught him driving.
> >
> > GF
> >
>
> Just because the police told him that doesn't mean the DA prosecuting such
a
> trumped up charge could get a conviction. For that matter the threat alone
> could be considered harassment and actionable.
>
> You just have to have good lawyers.
>
>

[Morgans]

"Greg Farris" > wrote

> That might vary depending on what state you're in, and whether you're a
> repeat offender. I know a guy who has a problem of this nature in Vermont
> state, and the police told him that if they happen to be watching, and he
> even goes out to get something from his trunk, as soon as he touches the
> car in any way they've got him on intent to commit repeat DUI, with the
> same effect as if they actually caught him driving.

THAT is all police power trip, and bluster. There is no way any court would
uphold such an arrest, unless he got in the driver's seat. No way, no how.
--
Jim in NC

[Don Hammer]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:45:39 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>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?" ;)

[Don Hammer]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:03:31 -0500, Don Hammer > wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:45:39 -0400, "Peter R." >
>wrote:
>
>>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?" ;)

At most major airports, aircraft get taxied to and from the
maintenance areas by the mechanics. It is safer for the aircraft than
towing and towing across runways will clog up operations.

There is no license required. Airlines train and approve some line
mechanics to taxi. Airlines carry an abbreviated checklist in the
cockpit specifically for these operations. I was in corporate
aviation and we trained all our mechanics to taxi. A bunch of
inspections and repairs require engine runs and trips to the run-up
area.