"Movement Area" (airplanes and trucks)

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

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

denny

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

"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

"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

"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.

"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

"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.

Howdy!

In article . net,
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/

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