"License to taxi"

[Mxsmanic]

In the movie _Airport_ (1971), the airport manager mentions that Joe
Patroni, the miraculous mechanic who gets a stuck 707 off the runway,
is "licensed to taxi." Is there really such a thing as a license to
taxi??

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

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> In the movie _Airport_ (1971), the airport manager mentions that Joe
> Patroni, the miraculous mechanic who gets a stuck 707 off the runway,
> is "licensed to taxi." Is there really such a thing as a license to
> taxi??
>
As far as the FAA is concerned, no. However the airlines typically
have their own rules. Usually mechanics are authorized to reposition
airplanes in addition to pilots. A 707 of the era of that movie doesn't
have a lot of automation. You need more than just the guy in the left
seat to get it fired up and moving so I'm pretty sure Patroni is just
asking for someone who is qualified to perform the right seat role in
moving the aircraft.

That movie is pretty accurate for the day (the PAR approach at the
end seems pretty word for word right0. The book it's based on is
fabulous as well, you should dig it up. Arthur Hailey writes
"insider" books for a number of fields. This is perhaps his best.

The sequels were pretty much all wacko however.

[Bob Moore]

Ron Natalie wrote
> You need more than just the guy in the left
> seat to get it fired up and moving so I'm pretty sure
> Patroni is just asking for someone who is qualified
> to perform the right seat role in moving the aircraft.

Probably a Flight Engineer instead of a 'right seater'.
In that generation airplane, the copilot played almost
no role during the engine start and taxi.

Bob Moore

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> That movie is pretty accurate for the day (the PAR approach at the
> end seems pretty word for word right0.

Does PAR predate ILS? Watching the movie I wondered why they didn't
use ILS, so I presume it simply didn't exist in 1971 (?).

> The book it's based on is fabulous as well, you should dig it up.
> Arthur Hailey writes "insider" books for a number of fields. This
> is perhaps his best.

I did read the book (while actually on a TWA plane to St. Louis, in
fact), and it was excellent ... better than the movie. The movie
wasn't too bad, either, at least for the aviation parts. Times have
changed, though!

> The sequels were pretty much all wacko however.

I thought _Airplane_ was funny.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> Probably a Flight Engineer instead of a 'right seater'.
> In that generation airplane, the copilot played almost
> no role during the engine start and taxi.

Which sends me off on a bit of a tangent again: John Travolta has a
707 of his own. How can he fly it without a copilot and engineer?

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

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> Which sends me off on a bit of a tangent again: John Travolta has a
> 707 of his own. How can he fly it without a copilot and engineer?

He can't and doesn't.

Bob Moore

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> He can't and doesn't.

So he has to hire some veteran 707 pilots to go with him every time he
flies? Doesn't sound like much fun. Then again, I don't suppose
there are too many jet airliners that can be flown by one person.

I note also that the real estate development where he parks the plane
has a very fragile runway. I wonder how he manages to take off and
land on a runway that is composed of only two inches of asphalt.

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

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> I note also that the real estate development where he parks the plane
> has a very fragile runway. I wonder how he manages to take off and
> land on a runway that is composed of only two inches of asphalt.

I can assure you that the runway is MUCH more substantial than
that. In the mid-80s. I was employed by the previous owner of
the development, Arthur Jones, inventor and manufacturer of the
Nautalis line of exercise equipment. He owned three B-707s which
we flew from that runway before it was lengthened to its present
length.

Do a 'google' for Terry Jones and Jumbolair....she flew as copilot
for me once. I was hired to train her for a B-707 Type Rating, but
quit before that happened...her husband was impossible to work for.

Bob Moore

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> So he has to hire some veteran 707 pilots to go with him every time he
> flies?

He can afford it. He still get to fly the aircraft, he can go wherever
whenever he wants; and it might actually be a reasonably fun post
retirement job for the copilot,

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> I can assure you that the runway is MUCH more substantial than
> that. In the mid-80s. I was employed by the previous owner of
> the development, Arthur Jones, inventor and manufacturer of the
> Nautalis line of exercise equipment. He owned three B-707s which
> we flew from that runway before it was lengthened to its present
> length.

AirNav says this:

Surface: asphalt, in poor condition

FIRST 1800 FT OF RY 18 DETERIORATING WITH POT HOLES AND SEVERE
CRACKING.
1 ASPHALT SURFACE IS ONLY 2 INCHES THICK. PAVEMENT STRUCTURE CAN ONLY
SUPPORT LIGHT LOAD SINGLE WHEEL ACFT. HEAVIER ACFT MAY CAUSE IMMEDIATE
STRUCTUAL DAMAGE TO THE DETERIORATED SURFACE AND MAY GENERATE FOD.
RY 18/36 NOT CROWNED OR GRVD CAUSING STANDING WATER DURING AND AFTER
RAIN.

From this I inferred that the entire runway was just a thin layer of
asphalt.

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

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> FIRST 1800 FT OF RY 18 DETERIORATING WITH POT HOLES AND SEVERE
> CRACKING.
> From this I inferred that the entire runway was just a thin layer of
> asphalt.

Ah yes...That 1800' is the extansion that was added after I left,
and one of the reasons that I did leave.

At light weights, the original r/w was long enough to accommodate
the required accelerate/stop distance for a B-707, but not long
enough to reach Vmcg before reaching V1, so V1 had to be increased
to the higher Vmcg speed. Arthur Jones, although a pilot himself,
did not seem to understand this concept. We argued about the safety
issue. The Cuban pilot who replaced me seemed unaware of the issue.

In a Google Earth view, one can see that the extension (dark) was
added at an angle to the original (light) pavement. It was added
only to allow stopping from the higher (Vmcg) V1 speeds, and is
indeed marked as stopway with a displaced threshold. The displaced
threshold on the other end is to clear the rather high circular
concrete blast fence.

Bob Moore

[Michelle P]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> In the movie _Airport_ (1971), the airport manager mentions that Joe
> Patroni, the miraculous mechanic who gets a stuck 707 off the runway,
> is "licensed to taxi." Is there really such a thing as a license to
> taxi??
>
No,
However the airline I used to work for we had to have Run/taxi
authorization for each type of aircraft. I eventually became an instructor.

Michelle P

[Ron Natalie]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote
>> Which sends me off on a bit of a tangent again: John Travolta has a
>> 707 of his own. How can he fly it without a copilot and engineer?
>
> He can't and doesn't.
>
> Bob Moore
As a matter of fact for the longest time he had no 707 type
rating. He was never pilot in command.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> That movie is pretty accurate for the day (the PAR approach at the
>> end seems pretty word for word right0.
>
> Does PAR predate ILS? Watching the movie I wondered why they didn't
> use ILS, so I presume it simply didn't exist in 1971 (?).
>

No they had both, but they had a stricken aircraft after the
depressurization and they had a lot of things to worry about.
Doing the PAR approach lessens the pilot workload.


> I thought _Airplane_ was funny.
>

It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.
It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.

[Emily]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Bob Moore wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote
>>> Which sends me off on a bit of a tangent again: John Travolta has a
>>> 707 of his own. How can he fly it without a copilot and engineer?
>>
>> He can't and doesn't.
>>
>> Bob Moore
> As a matter of fact for the longest time he had no 707 type
> rating. He was never pilot in command.

What's the point? If I had a 707 and his money, I'd sure work on
getting the rating!

[Ron Natalie]

Emily wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote
>>>> Which sends me off on a bit of a tangent again: John Travolta has a
>>>> 707 of his own. How can he fly it without a copilot and engineer?
>>>
>>> He can't and doesn't.
>>>
>>> Bob Moore
>> As a matter of fact for the longest time he had no 707 type
>> rating. He was never pilot in command.
>
> What's the point? If I had a 707 and his money, I'd sure work on
> getting the rating!

If you had the time, but if since you can't fly the thing solo
anyhow, you have all the benefits and publicity of calling yourself
the pilot even though you're only SIC.

[Emily]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote
>>>>> Which sends me off on a bit of a tangent again: John Travolta has a
>>>>> 707 of his own. How can he fly it without a copilot and engineer?
>>>>
>>>> He can't and doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Moore
>>> As a matter of fact for the longest time he had no 707 type
>>> rating. He was never pilot in command.
>>
>> What's the point? If I had a 707 and his money, I'd sure work on
>> getting the rating!
>
> If you had the time, but if since you can't fly the thing solo
> anyhow, you have all the benefits and publicity of calling yourself
> the pilot even though you're only SIC.

Me personally, I'd take the few weeks or whatever at Flight Safety. :-)

You're right though, I don't think the general public knows or cares...

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> What's the point? If I had a 707 and his money, I'd sure work on
> getting the rating!

I'd prefer something smaller but more modern for the same amount of
money. A 707 is a bit dated these days.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> No they had both, but they had a stricken aircraft after the
> depressurization and they had a lot of things to worry about.
> Doing the PAR approach lessens the pilot workload.

Did things like autopilot ILS approach and autoland exist back then?

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

[Bob Moore]

B A R R Y wrote
> Doesn't the B707 have (3) required crew? Don't you need a TR to act
> as a required crew member? Or is that stuff only when the acft is
> operated in revenue service?

Nope, not even in revenue service. The PIC must have a type rating,
the SIC must meet certain training requirements, and the FE must
have a turbojet rating on his Flight Engineer Certificate.

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

[Ron Natalie]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:53:14 -0400, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>> As a matter of fact for the longest time he had no 707 type
>> rating. He was never pilot in command.
>
> Interesting...
>
> Doesn't the B707 have (3) required crew? Don't you need a TR to act
> as a required crew member? Or is that stuff only when the acft is
> operated in revenue service?
>
Only the pilot in command needs a type rating.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> No they had both, but they had a stricken aircraft after the
>> depressurization and they had a lot of things to worry about.
>> Doing the PAR approach lessens the pilot workload.
>
> Did things like autopilot ILS approach and autoland exist back then?
>
Autopilot did, but it's much cruder than it was today. With an aircraft
that's aerodymanically challenged however, I'm not sure I'd have trusted
the autopilot. Let me concentrate on moving the controls, off load
navigation to ATC. That's what a PAR is good for.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Autopilot did, but it's much cruder than it was today. With an aircraft
> that's aerodymanically challenged however, I'm not sure I'd have trusted
> the autopilot. Let me concentrate on moving the controls, off load
> navigation to ATC. That's what a PAR is good for.

Seeing the movie, I was surprised that a PAR even existed or was
possible. I don't see how ATC could have a better idea of the
aircraft's exact position than the pilot, given that the pilot has
many more instruments. I know ATC has radar echos that position the
aircraft laterally with a varying degree of precision, but how can ATC
know the heading or attitude of the a/c, both important on an
approach? I guess the transponder can provide altitude (if mode C
existed back then).

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

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> Seeing the movie, I was surprised that a PAR even existed or was
> possible.

PAR was the Navy's only means of precision approach for most
of its aircraft during the years that I was a Naval Aviator,
1958-1967. During that period, PAR minimums were 100'-1/4 mi.
while ILS minimums were 200'-1/2 mile. GCA (PAR) controllers
were damn good!

Bob Moore

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Seeing the movie, I was surprised that a PAR even existed or was
> possible. I don't see how ATC could have a better idea of the
> aircraft's exact position than the pilot, given that the pilot has
> many more instruments.


PAR is a VERY accurate radar for approaches. There aren't many
around these days outside of military fields. It's a special
scope different from the normal radar that looks up the final
approach path. It uses the radar returns for both horizontal
and vertical guideance, it does not need a transponder.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Moore wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote
>>> Which sends me off on a bit of a tangent again: John Travolta has a
>>> 707 of his own. How can he fly it without a copilot and engineer?
>>
>> He can't and doesn't.
>>
>> Bob Moore
> As a matter of fact for the longest time he had no 707 type
> rating. He was never pilot in command.


He's still SIC only on the 707

Rating(s):

PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE









Type Ratings


P/B-707 P/B-720 P/CE-500 P/G-1159 P/HS-125
P/LR-JET




Limits


B-707 SIC PRIVILEGES ONLY.

CE-500 (VFR ONLY).

[Paul Riley]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Mxsmanic wrote
>> Seeing the movie, I was surprised that a PAR even existed or was
>> possible.
>
> PAR was the Navy's only means of precision approach for most
> of its aircraft during the years that I was a Naval Aviator,
> 1958-1967. During that period, PAR minimums were 100'-1/4 mi.
> while ILS minimums were 200'-1/2 mile. GCA (PAR) controllers
> were damn good!
>
> Bob Moore

Damn right they were good. I am a retired Master Army Aviator, and a PAR
controller saved my life and those of my crew one night (1965) in Vietnam.
Zero/zero , in fog, minimum fuel, no place to go. Brought me down safely in
a helicopter. Was well worth the 2 quarts of Cutty Sark I gave them the next
day. <G> God bless them all!!!!

Paul

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Riley writes:

> Damn right they were good. I am a retired Master Army Aviator, and a PAR
> controller saved my life and those of my crew one night (1965) in Vietnam.
> Zero/zero , in fog, minimum fuel, no place to go. Brought me down safely in
> a helicopter. Was well worth the 2 quarts of Cutty Sark I gave them the next
> day. <G> God bless them all!!!!

So a PAR is preferable to an ILS for safety/precision in very poor
conditions, if you can find one?

I'm just surprised that radar systems are precise enough to permit
this. I suppose if it's the right kind of special radar it would
work. After all, ILS or PAR, it's all electromagnetic radiation.

I assume PARs are not used much today because of the need for skilled
practioners on the ground?

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

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Paul Riley writes:
>
>> Damn right they were good. I am a retired Master Army Aviator, and a PAR
>> controller saved my life and those of my crew one night (1965) in Vietnam.
>> Zero/zero , in fog, minimum fuel, no place to go. Brought me down safely in
>> a helicopter. Was well worth the 2 quarts of Cutty Sark I gave them the next
>> day. <G> God bless them all!!!!
>
> So a PAR is preferable to an ILS for safety/precision in very poor
> conditions, if you can find one?
>
These days, at airports that have the facilities to permit it,
airliners can take ILS's to the ground (CAT II, III). This is
a big change from the way it was back in the late sixties for
commercial traffic or just about anywhere (especially on ships
or mobile encampments) for the military.