License To Taxi?

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

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

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.

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!

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

"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.

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.

"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

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?"

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.