"Movement Area" (airplanes and trucks)

[Andrew Gideon]

Landing on 22 at KCDW today (after a fantastic little trip with my wife
shooting photos of the fall colors around our town), I was instructed to
taxi via H to N to RN tie-down. P, the taxiway normally used to reach N
from that point, was closed for construction.

That taxi clearance put me in conflict with a truck. I asked ground for the
trucks intentions, and was told "I don't know; it's not a movement
area" (he may have said "controlled"; I don't recall the specific
verbiage). I had to move very close to parked aircraft to avoid this
truck, who had the grace to slow down. Somewhat.

Airport operations came on the frequency and told the tower to instruct the
trucks to stay somewhere (again, I don't recall the specifics). The tower
acknowledged. I added "thanks". The tower then asked if I understood that
H wasn't a movement area (or some such).

This situation irks me. Can ground control clear me through an area over
which they've no control? I've been cleared *to* uncontrolled areas; not
*through*. Does it become controlled when the taxiway normally used for
that route is closed? Should it?

- Andrew

[Denny]

.. He obviously did clear you into a uncontrolled ramp area... So the
answer is yes he can...

denny

[Andrew Gideon]

Denny wrote:

> . He obviously did clear you into a uncontrolled ramp area... So the
> answer is yes he can...

Your conclusion may be correct, but your reasoning isn't quite. Rather, one
cannot conclude by what was done that it is permitted to be done.

[Although if you mean "can" literally, as opposed to "may", then you'd be
correct <grin>.]

There've been incidents there before regarding trucks and aircraft, at least
one of which involved an aircraft being cleared onto a taxiway inhabited by
a truck.

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> [...]
> This situation irks me. Can ground control clear me through an area over
> which they've no control?

Yes, they may. Depending on the airport, it may or may not be common. In
some cases, the only reason for an area being a "non-movement area" is that
it's not in view of the control tower. A taxiing airplane might have to or
want to move through such an "out of view" area on their way from Point A to
Point B.

Anyone can move about freely within a non-movement area; it's just as if
you're at an uncontrolled airport. You should handle it the same way.

> I've been cleared *to* uncontrolled areas; not
> *through*. Does it become controlled when the taxiway normally used for
> that route is closed? Should it?

I don't see why it should. You can imagine the confusion that would reign
if a particular area of the airport went back and forth between being
controlled and uncontrolled.

Pete

[Bob Gardner]

"Movement area" is defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. At Renton,
Washington, the whole airport is non-movement except for the runway and the
runup areas. Ground Control will answer if you call, but no calls are
expected. Conflicts between airplanes and vehicles are worked out between
the participants with no input from the tower cab.

Bob Gardner
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Landing on 22 at KCDW today (after a fantastic little trip with my wife
> shooting photos of the fall colors around our town), I was instructed to
> taxi via H to N to RN tie-down. P, the taxiway normally used to reach N
> from that point, was closed for construction.
>
> That taxi clearance put me in conflict with a truck. I asked ground for
> the
> trucks intentions, and was told "I don't know; it's not a movement
> area" (he may have said "controlled"; I don't recall the specific
> verbiage). I had to move very close to parked aircraft to avoid this
> truck, who had the grace to slow down. Somewhat.
>
> Airport operations came on the frequency and told the tower to instruct
> the
> trucks to stay somewhere (again, I don't recall the specifics). The tower
> acknowledged. I added "thanks". The tower then asked if I understood
> that
> H wasn't a movement area (or some such).
>
> This situation irks me. Can ground control clear me through an area over
> which they've no control? I've been cleared *to* uncontrolled areas; not
> *through*. Does it become controlled when the taxiway normally used for
> that route is closed? Should it?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Landing on 22 at KCDW today (after a fantastic little trip with my wife
> shooting photos of the fall colors around our town), I was instructed to
> taxi via H to N to RN tie-down. P, the taxiway normally used to reach N
> from that point, was closed for construction.
>

Where's H? I'm looking at the NACO airport diagram, I see no H. Where's RN
tiedown?


>
> That taxi clearance put me in conflict with a truck. I asked ground for
> the trucks intentions, and was told "I don't know; it's not a movement
> area" (he may have said "controlled"; I don't recall the specific
> verbiage). I had to move very close to parked aircraft to avoid this
> truck, who had the grace to slow down. Somewhat.
>
> Airport operations came on the frequency and told the tower to instruct
> the trucks to stay somewhere (again, I don't recall the specifics). The
> tower
> acknowledged. I added "thanks". The tower then asked if I understood
> that H wasn't a movement area (or some such).
>
> This situation irks me. Can ground control clear me through an area over
> which they've no control?
>

What's the alternative if the only other route is via a closed taxiway?


>
> I've been cleared *to* uncontrolled areas; not
> *through*. Does it become controlled when the taxiway normally used for
> that route is closed?
>

No.


>
> Should it?
>

No taxiway should be nonmovement area.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Movement area" is defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. At Renton,
> Washington, the whole airport is non-movement except for the runway and
> the runup areas. Ground Control will answer if you call, but no calls are
> expected. Conflicts between airplanes and vehicles are worked out between
> the participants with no input from the tower cab.
>

FAR 91.129 states "No person may, at any airport with an operating control
tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take off or land an
aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from ATC." There is
no exception for taxiways designated as nonmovement area.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> FAR 91.129 states "No person may, at any airport with an operating control
> tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take off or land an
> aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from ATC." There is
> no exception for taxiways designated as nonmovement area.

You're pretty funny (read, "idiotic").

The areas within the non-movement area are not defined as "runway" or
"taxiway", with respect to that regulation.

Movement (including operation of an aircraft) without a clearance from ATC
happens all the time in non-movement areas at airports all over the country.
It happens that at Renton, they have defined the non-movement area to
include all of the airport except the runway. Technically, that means that
the pavement one taxis on is not a "taxiway".

You wishing it to be otherwise doesn't make it so.

Pete

[Andrew Gideon]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> Where's H?

Parallel to and east of P. It extends between N and D.

> I'm looking at the NACO airport diagram, I see no H. Where's
> RN tiedown?

It's the parking area near the east side of 9-27.

[...]

>
> What's the alternative if the only other route is via a closed taxiway?

Either H or 4-22, if P is closed anywhere between D and N. One could taxi
north on 4-22, left on B to N, thus keeping use of 4-22 to a minimum.

[It occurs to me that I could have made the right turn onto B. I was slow
enough. But that's "the wrong way", so it never occurred to me and nobody
else suggested it.]

- Andrew

[Greg Farris]

I have seen cases where airports have expanded, and access to some hangars
is provided via "taxiways" through non-mouvment areas, across local roads.
In the cases I recall, the local roads are always clearly marked with STOP
signs, and drivers are informed they must yield to aircraft on the ground.
Is it not a general rule, even in non-mouvment areas, that aircraft have
right of way over land vehicles?

G Faris

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Movement area" is defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. At Renton,
>> Washington, the whole airport is non-movement except for the runway and
>> the runup areas. Ground Control will answer if you call, but no calls are
>> expected. Conflicts between airplanes and vehicles are worked out between
>> the participants with no input from the tower cab.
>>
>
>FAR 91.129 states "No person may, at any airport with an operating control
>tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take off or land an
>aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from ATC." There is
>no exception for taxiways designated as nonmovement area.
>
....and that has bearing how?

Are you claiming that the non-movement area is somehow magically placed
under 91.129? Pray explain clearly how you arrive at that conclusion, or
clearly state that you didn't mean for us to infer that implication.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Newps]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> "Movement area" is defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. At Renton,
> Washington, the whole airport is non-movement except for the runway and the
> runup areas. Ground Control will answer if you call, but no calls are
> expected. Conflicts between airplanes and vehicles are worked out between
> the participants with no input from the tower cab.
>
> Bob Gardner

The airport operator will define what is or isn't a movement area. Some
taxiways are movement areas, some aren't. Usually the operator wants
the taxiways designated as movement areas so they can pin more blame on
the FAA for an incident.

[Andrew Gideon]

Michael Houghton wrote:

> Are you claiming that the non-movement area is somehow magically placed
> under 91.129? Pray explain clearly how you arrive at that conclusion, or
> clearly state that you didn't mean for us to infer that implication.

Well, this was on *taxiway* H. Given the cited wording, how can that be a
nonmovement area?

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Well, this was on *taxiway* H. Given the cited wording, how can that be a
> nonmovement area?

There are "taxiways" and there are "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.

In this particular case, "taxiway H" does not appear to be charted on the
official chart, and of course without seeing the airport myself, I can't
comment on how it's labeled or marked. However, looking at the airport
diagram it certainly seems plausible that there's an area described as
"taxiway H" but which is really just part of the ramp.

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. Renton, WA is one such example (already cited in this thread).

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 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.

Pete

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> There are "taxiways" and there are "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.

The markings and signage are both consistent with it being a taxiway.

> In this particular case, "taxiway H" does not appear to be charted on the
> official chart, and of course without seeing the airport myself, I can't
> comment on how it's labeled or marked. However, looking at the airport
> diagram it certainly seems plausible that there's an area described as
> "taxiway H" but which is really just part of the ramp.

Physically, it is "part of the ramp". But there are markings which draw the
distinction.

> 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. Renton, WA is one such example (already cited in this thread).

Looking at the diagram for RNT, taxiways A and B appear similar in structure
to H at CDW. Are they marked at RNT in such a way as to make a distinction
between "the ramp" and "the taxiway"?

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're pretty funny (read, "idiotic").
>

Ya think?


>
> The areas within the non-movement area are not defined as "runway" or
> "taxiway", with respect to that regulation.
>

They're not? What are they defined as? What controlled airport has a
runway that is designated as nonmovement area?


>
> Movement (including operation of an aircraft) without a clearance from ATC
> happens all the time in non-movement areas at airports all over the
> country.
>

Correct.


>
> It happens that at Renton, they have defined the non-movement
> area to include all of the airport except the runway. Technically, that
> means that the pavement one taxis on is not a "taxiway".
>

Oh? Well then what is the pavement that one taxis on in nonmovement area
that is not loading ramps or parking areas called?


>
> You wishing it to be otherwise doesn't make it so.
>

Agreed. It is the definition of nonmovement area in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary that makes it so.

NONMOVEMENT AREAS- Taxiways and apron (ramp) areas not under the control of
air traffic.

[james]

somewhat related but fun:

i stopped in mexico city en route to Buenos Aires a few weeks back.
they required our Mexicana flight from denver to deplane out on a ramp
in the boonies, as they learned they couldn't match a bag to a person.

we deplaned via stairway, had to stay in a bus for half hour, the (at
dusk), after everyone gathered their bags the two busses went careening
around jets down the mile long terminal.

the roadway next to the taxiway was marked about as well as any other
street in mexico, so i had a great time sitting in the front by the
driver dodging jets, baggage carts, and other assorted big city airport
things

i loved it :)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Parallel to and east of P. It extends between N and D.
>

I assume it has signage and markings consistent with other taxiways at CDW.
Any idea why taxiway H is not on the airport diagram?


>
> It's the parking area near the east side of 9-27.
>

Why is it called RN tiedown?


>
> Either H or 4-22, if P is closed anywhere between D and N. One could taxi
> north on 4-22, left on B to N, thus keeping use of 4-22 to a minimum.
>

Those routes require either taxiing on an active runway or crossing it, use
of H requires neither. That's likely why he instructed you to taxi via H to
N to RN tie-down.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> Looking at the diagram for RNT, taxiways A and B appear similar in
> structure
> to H at CDW. Are they marked at RNT in such a way as to make a
> distinction
> between "the ramp" and "the taxiway"?

Oddly enough, never actually have I been anywhere off the runway at Renton.
So I don't know what the on-ground signage is. However, since the
"everything but runway as non-movement area" is relatively new, it wouldn't
surprise me to find that the markings are more typical of what one might
find in controlled areas of the airport.

My point is that the regulation that was quoted, asserting that one cannot
operate an aircraft on a taxiway at a controlled airport without an ATC
clearance, is clearly not applicable to taxiways within a non-movement area.
Clearly, at least with respect to that regulation, those "taxiways" are not
defined as "taxiways" for the purpose of that regulation. Even if they are
otherwise exactly like a taxiway in every other respect (including being
called a "taxiway" by ATC).

In your case at KCDW, the important question is whether the boundary of the
non-movement area is clearly marked on the pavement. I don't 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.

If it's not, you have a fair grievance in this situation. If it is, then
you don't.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
> ...and that has bearing how?
>

Why is it you are so often unable to grasp the obvious?


>
> Are you claiming that the non-movement area is somehow magically placed
> under 91.129? Pray explain clearly how you arrive at that conclusion, or
> clearly state that you didn't mean for us to infer that implication.
>

No, I'm not claiming that the nonmovement area is somehow magically placed
under FAR 91.129, I'm pointing out that designating taxiways as nonmovement
areas does not remove them from the regulation. FAR 91.129(i) requires a
clearance to operate on a taxiway at any airport with an operating control
tower. It provides no exception for taxiways designated as nonmovement.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[Jose]

> 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.