Non-federal towers

As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract tower,
and the controllers (or the local airport authority, I'm not sure which)
made everything except the runway non-movement areas, where the controllers
have no responsibility or authority. So pilots taxiing out are told to
monitor ground, told not to transmit on the ground control frequency, and if
there is a conflict on the taxiway the two pilots will have to work it out
on their own. No radio transmissions until "Ready for takeoff" on the tower
frequency.

You can dig it out of the A/FD if you look in Special Notices...not a word
in the regular listing.

Bob Gardner

"jacjohn" wrote in message
...
Ok...
With all the talk of "non-federal" towers, I got to thinking. What exactly
does that mean
to us pilots?

...without a clue


John Y.
PP-ASEL

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message newsWqPa.31718$N7.3950@sccrnsc03...
As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract tower,
and the

Contract towers and NFCT aren't synonous. There are federally operated contract
towers (which I suppose ****es off NATCA more than the NFCT's).

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
newsWqPa.31718$N7.3950@sccrnsc03...

As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract
tower,
and the controllers (or the local airport authority, I'm not sure which)
made everything except the runway non-movement areas, where the
controllers
have no responsibility or authority. So pilots taxiing out are told to
monitor ground, told not to transmit on the ground control frequency, and
if
there is a conflict on the taxiway the two pilots will have to work it out
on their own. No radio transmissions until "Ready for takeoff" on the
tower
frequency.


Hmmm.... Seems to me every pilot that operated on a taxiway there would be
in violation of FAR 91.129(i).

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Hmmm.... Seems to me every pilot that operated on a taxiway there would
be
in violation of FAR 91.129(i).

Why? That regulation doesn't apply to non-movement areas.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Why? That regulation doesn't apply to non-movement areas.


It applies to runways and taxiways, it says nothing of "non-movement areas".


§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. 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. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff runway assigned to the
aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to
taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways
that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance
to "taxi to" any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to
cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
arthlink.net...
Why? That regulation doesn't apply to non-movement areas.

It applies to runways and taxiways, it says nothing of "non-movement
areas".

Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
non-movement areas.

I taxi all the time in the non-movement areas at my home airport, as well as
any number of other airports. The pavement I am taxiing on is a taxiway,
but because it's a non-movement area 91.129(i) doesn't apply.

Your assertion is that I am in violation of 91.129(i) every time I do this?

I realize that you love to argue just for the sake of the troll, but this
time you are really off the deep end. The situation at Renton sounds
screwed up, to be sure, but if they want to classify the entire airport
except the runway as a non-movement area, then no ATC clearance is required
to taxi around the airport (except on the runway of course).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
non-movement areas.


I didn't bring up non-movement areas, you did.



I taxi all the time in the non-movement areas at my home airport, as well
as
any number of other airports. The pavement I am taxiing on is a taxiway,
but because it's a non-movement area 91.129(i) doesn't apply.


What do you base that on? The regulation says "runway or taxiway", it
doesn't say "runway or taxiway, except those designated as non-movement
areas".



Your assertion is that I am in violation of 91.129(i) every time I do
this?


Read the regulation, it's not complicated.



I realize that you love to argue just for the sake of the troll, but this
time you are really off the deep end.


You're an extremely poor judge of character.



The situation at Renton sounds
screwed up, to be sure, but if they want to classify the entire airport
except the runway as a non-movement area, then no ATC clearance is
required
to taxi around the airport (except on the runway of course).


FAR 91.129(i) says differently. I wouldn't get too excited about it, some
regulations are violated regularly without consequence.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
arthlink.net...
I didn't bring up non-movement areas, you did.

No, actually YOU did when you replied to a post that specifically said that
the taxiways had been designated non-movement areas. You should read the
posts to which you reply a little more carefully.

What do you base that on? The regulation says "runway or taxiway", it
doesn't say "runway or taxiway, except those designated as non-movement
areas".

Non-movement areas are implicitly excluded from the requirement for an ATC
clearance. While they physically can include a taxiway, those are not
ATC-controlled taxiways and as such, 91.129(i) doesn't apply. There is no
need for them to be mentioned explicitly in the regulation.

Read the regulation, it's not complicated.

You're right, it's not. And yet you still seem confused. Odd.

I realize that you love to argue just for the sake of the troll, but
this
time you are really off the deep end.

You're an extremely poor judge of character.

Perhaps. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

FAR 91.129(i) says differently. I wouldn't get too excited about it, some
regulations are violated regularly without consequence.

Put up or shut up. If you can find me one single FAA inspector that is
willing to agree with your stance that an ATC clearance is required to taxi
in non-movement area, I will happily admit I was wrong. Otherwise, the only
conclusion is that you have no point and are arguing just for the sake of
the troll.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:



Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
non-movement areas.


Not having been there an easy way to set it up is to announce on the
ATIS or by other means that all aircraft are to taxi to the runway in
use. I accomplish a similar thing on the midshift by issuing all IFR
clearances by ATIS. You get a transponder code and a taxi clearance
from me, the rest of the clearance is covered by the ATIS.

Newps wrote:

Not having been there an easy way to set it up is to announce on the
ATIS or by other means that all aircraft are to taxi to the runway in
use. I accomplish a similar thing on the midshift by issuing all IFR
clearances by ATIS. You get a transponder code and a taxi clearance
from me, the rest of the clearance is covered by the ATIS.

How does one handle read-backs?

Sydney