If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... 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. Is that how it works? Gee, I would have thought the person that referred to non-movement areas in the message I was responding to would be considered the person that brought it up. 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. What do you base that on? You're right, it's not. And yet you still seem confused. Odd. You believe I brought non-movement areas into this discussion. Clearly, I'm not the one that's confused. Perhaps. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. I suppose so, but you're still batting .000. 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. I've already posted the regulation supporting my position, you've provided nothing in support of yours. Looks like it's you that needs to put up or shut up. Of course, based on your history, you'll do neither. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote: 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? The end of the ATIS message says..."All IFR aircraft are cleared to their destination airport, via the Billings Two departure, then as filed. Maintain one two thousand or your requested lower altitude, expect your transponder code on taxi. All aircraft contact Billings 120.5, advise you have..." Only one guy normally reads back his clearance, so he does, the normal way. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
arthlink.net... Because you wrote the message I was responding to. Bull. Here's your original reply. As you'll note, Bob Gardner wrote the message to which you were responding: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message rthlink.net... "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). The AIM is not regulatory, the regulation says nothing about non-movement areas. Well, perhaps you'd prefer a quote from the ATC handbook. From "3-7-2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS": "NOTE -- 2. Movement of aircraft or vehicles on nonmovement areas is the responsibility of the pilot, the aircraft operator, or the airport management." You ARE familiar with the ATC handbook, right? The regulation does apply to taxiways. You can say that 'til the cows come home, it doesn't make it true. However, you've been sufficiently discredited in this thread. I don't see any need to rub your face in it, so please, feel free to make whatever lame reply you think you need to. I don't intend to embarass you any further. Besides, you'll do that well enough yourself in your next reply. Pete |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... Bull. Here's your original reply. As you'll note, Bob Gardner wrote the message to which you were responding: I don't see any message from Bob Gardner in the discussion of FAR 91.129(i). Well, perhaps you'd prefer a quote from the ATC handbook. From "3-7-2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS": "NOTE -- 2. Movement of aircraft or vehicles on nonmovement areas is the responsibility of the pilot, the aircraft operator, or the airport management." Swell. So what's your point? You ARE familiar with the ATC handbook, right? Extremely familiar. You can say that 'til the cows come home, it doesn't make it true. It's true regardless what you or I say. However, you've been sufficiently discredited in this thread. I don't see any need to rub your face in it, so please, feel free to make whatever lame reply you think you need to. I don't intend to embarass you any further. Besides, you'll do that well enough yourself in your next reply. In this thread you've stated that the person responding to a subject is the person that brings up that subject and that FAR 91.129(i) does not apply to taxiways. I'll leave it to the more astute readers of this forum to decide for themselves which of us has been discredited and should feel embarrassment. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
thlink.net: In this thread you've stated that the person responding to a subject is the person that brings up that subject and that FAR 91.129(i) does not apply to taxiways. I'll leave it to the more astute readers of this forum to decide for themselves which of us has been discredited and should feel embarrassment. At my home airport, we have taxiways which lie in both Movement and Non- movement areas and are delineated by single solid and single dashed lines. The areas are described in AIM 2-3-6(c) (and figure 2-3-21); we MUST get clearances to taxi in the movement and not in the non-movement areas. A courtesy informational call to Ground Control is sometimes appropriate when taxiing to the movement areas when you can't be seen from the tower. -- John Godwin Silicon Rallye Inc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Four Winds 192 Crash into the Miami Federal Reserve Building, a year ago today | Billgran | Home Built | 3 | December 6th 03 03:22 PM |
"Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951" - Federal Documents | B2431 | Military Aviation | 0 | November 13th 03 04:26 AM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
What Don Young, R-AK says about ATC privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | September 19th 03 05:10 AM |
Bu$h Jr's Iran-Contra -- The Pentagone's Reign of Terror | PirateJohn | Military Aviation | 1 | September 6th 03 10:05 AM |