question on student taxi practice
Mark
an airplane alone for taxi practice around an airport without supervision ?
It was basically "go taxi the airplane around the airport and taxiways but
don't go on the runway and don't take off, I'll come back to check on you in
30 minutes" Is this a normal thing ?
Mark Hansen
Did your instructor give you a solo endorsement?
I'm not sure if the FAA recognizes ground-only operations as a separate
type of solo.
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
Dave Stadt
"Mark" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FrcZf.4626$yy4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Far as I know anybody can taxi a GA training type airplane.
Jim Macklin
pilot. Aircraft mechanics often get a "taxi approval" from
their employer to cover insurance requirements. Just
taxiing may not require a solo endorsement, but it sure
raises some issues of liability and insurance coverage.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Mark" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FrcZf.4626$yy4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Mark
question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?
Jim Macklin
ktbr
> No, it's not very common. It's entirely legal, however. If
> there is no intent to take off, there is no requirement to
> have a pilot's license of any kind.
>
Questions of intent (to take-off or otherwise) are an open
invitation for a litigation problems involving cuplability
if some accident or incident ocurred. It won;t really matter
if what happened was "legal' or not, if someone sues its up
to a judge or jury to decide.
The FARs state that you can log time (PIC or otherwise) whenever
you are the sole manipulator of the controls and the airplane
is moving under its own power. Personally, I would never allow
a student to go out an operate an airplane alone (taxiing or
otherwise until he was signed off for solo. I wouldn't want to
have to explain such a situation in court if anything happened.
ktbr
> It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
> question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
> time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?
No, it is not usual and accepted practice.
ktbr
> otherwise. No license is required for taxiing without the
> intent to commit aviation. It may not be covered by
> insurance, however, which is probably why it's not commonly
> done.
Well you are splitting some very fine hairs Todd. I'm not
sure your argument (or the FARs you quoted) would withstand
the situation of someone taxiing around a controlled airport
where you need a clearance to taxi. It would seem to me that
you would have to be PIC in order to accept the clearance
and thus would be the "sole manipulator of the controls" etc.
I can't believe there was any intent by FAA to make it entirely
permissable for any unlicensed person to be taxiing around
airports with impugnity.
Mark Hansen
> Mark Hansen <m...@NOSPAMwinfirst.com> wrote:
>
>>Did your instructor give you a solo endorsement?
>
>
>>I'm not sure if the FAA recognizes ground-only operations as a separate
>>type of solo.
>
> otherwise. No license is required for taxiing without the
> intent to commit aviation. It may not be covered by
> insurance, however, which is probably why it's not commonly
> done.
>
> authorizations.
> (a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in
> command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight
> crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that
> person—
> (1) Has a valid pilot certificate ....
>
> § 1.1 "Pilot in command" means the pilot responsible for
> the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.
>
> "Flight time" means the time from the moment the aircraft
> first moves under its own power for the purpose of flight
> until the moment it comes to rest at the next point of
> landing. ("Block-to-block" time.)
Thanks, Todd. Those were exactly the pieces I was trying to think of.
Dave Stadt
"ktbr" <kt...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:gPcZf.6338$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
>T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>> No, it's not very common. It's entirely legal, however. If
>> there is no intent to take off, there is no requirement to
>> have a pilot's license of any kind.
>>
> Questions of intent (to take-off or otherwise) are an open
> invitation for a litigation problems involving cuplability
> if some accident or incident ocurred. It won;t really matter
> if what happened was "legal' or not, if someone sues its up
> to a judge or jury to decide.
>
> The FARs state that you can log time (PIC or otherwise) whenever
> you are the sole manipulator of the controls and the airplane
> is moving under its own power.
You left out the most important part......'for the purpose of flight.' Just
taxiing around cannot be considered flight time. Guess you could log it as
taxi time but nobody cares about taxi time.
Peter R.
> You left out the most important part......'for the purpose of flight.' Just
> taxiing around cannot be considered flight time. Guess you could log it as
> taxi time but nobody cares about taxi time.
Now that is interesting. A thread about Hobbs versus tach time came up
here a few months ago and a few experienced and respected regulars here
insisted that taxi time (admittedly taxiing to the runway for departure and
to the ramp after landing, assuming this subtlety is even defined
somewhere) is log-able.
--
Peter
king...@hotmail.com
>>>Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?<<<
Not just "no" but "hell, no". When I was instructing full time 'bout 5
years ago I wouldn't think of turning loose such a low time student
even if just for taxi practice. Too many chances of something stupid
(and preventable) happening IMO.
For that matter, the student would be better off having the CFI there
to instruct & give feedback and not just observe from the far side of
the ramp. Unless it's an uncontrolled field, there'd be radio calls to
make and no 2-hour pilot has any clue about what to say & to whom.
Also, they'd have no idea of what hold short lines mean. (yikes!)
There were one or two students that needed taxi practice I recall, but
most picked it up fairly quickly after the first few hours going back
and forth from the fligh school ramp to the active rwy.
Gig 601XL Builder
someone is just running up rental time here. I can't see where any pilot
whether they have 2 or 200 hours is going to gain anything taxiing around
the airport.
I'd find a new CFI ASAP.
<king...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144349393....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Dave Stadt
"Peter R." <pjr...@gmailX.com> wrote in message
news:oa7d97q9...@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
That's true. Taxi time in conjunction with an actual or intended flight is
considered flight time. Taxi time not meeting the criteria is for naught
flight time wise. If you taxi to the runway intending to fly the taxi time
can be considered flight time. If you taxi around to condition new brake
linings or go get fuel and return to the hangar without intending to fly it
is simply taxi time.
> --
> Peter
Steve Foley
with our feet. It was simply an axle that pivoted. If you wanted to turn
left, push with your right foot.
Worked the same way as my Flexible Flyer sled.
When I started flight instruction, I always pushed the wrong rudder peddle
to turn, going back to my old instincts.
I would have jumped at the chance to taxi around for a 1/2 hour or so for
practice. But I was too cheap, and was learning at a controlled field.
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
news:123aplg...@news.supernews.com...
Robert M. Gary
my students should be able to taxi to the fuel pump without me. They
should be able to pre-flight and fuel the plane on their own.
-Robert, CFI
Robert M. Gary
to the FBO.
-Robert, CFI
Robert M. Gary
> type of solo.
The FAA doesn't but sometimes the question comes down to insurance.
Your post got me interested so I checked my AIG policy. It only limits
what pilots (and qualifications) can fly the plane. For helicpoters
they define flight as many self-propelled movement, but for fixed wing
they define it as leaving the ground. I know the airlines have training
they require of employees before they can move a plane, something
probably directed by insurance. If you ever watch the reality show
"Airline" there was an 18 year old guy working on getting his
certification to pull 737's with the tug. We got to see his first
"supervised solo" as he pulled a Southwest plane into a tight gate.
-Robert
Roy Smith
>> I'm not sure if the FAA recognizes ground-only operations as a separate
>> type of solo.
>
>The FAA doesn't but sometimes the question comes down to insurance.
The insurance companies are the de-facto regulatory agency these days.
>Your post got me interested so I checked my AIG policy. It only limits
>what pilots (and qualifications) can fly the plane. For helicpoters
>they define flight as many self-propelled movement, but for fixed wing
>they define it as leaving the ground. I know the airlines have training
>they require of employees before they can move a plane, something
>probably directed by insurance.
Heck, I don't care if the FAA *and* the insurance company allows it.
If I owned something worth the better part of $100 Million, I sure
would want anybody moving the thing to have some sort of training.
Hangar rash gets real expensive real quick when you're talking 777's.
Mark Hansen
That was the line of thinking I had. My assumption was that prior to
being a certificated pilot, you would need some time of supervision to
move the airplane under it's own power (in effect, to run the engine),
and that would normally come in the form of a logbook endorsement.
After all, if the student didn't know what he was doing, he could cause
all kinds of havoc.
However, I know that pretty early in my flight training, I was taxiing
the airplane solo, and I didn't have a logbook endorsement, just the
CFI's verbal authorization.
There may be a good reason why the CFI allowed the low-time student to
practice taxiing around. Without knowing all the details, I would assume
the CFI has a good reason, and found it to be within acceptable safety
margins, etc.
Jose
> you are the sole manipulator of the controls and the airplane
> is moving under its own power.
Where does it say that? The FARs I have say something different; there
is a phrase like "with the intention of flight" involved.
Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Private
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
news:123aplg...@news.supernews.com...
> think someone is just running up rental time here. I can't see where any
> pilot whether they have 2 or 200 hours is going to gain anything taxiing
> around the airport.
>
> I'd find a new CFI ASAP.
This would seem to be very profitable for the aircraft owner as the student
would likely be paying for Hobbs time but the owner's maintenance clock does
not start until airborne. Not much fuel burn either. As a student I was
often asked to taxi an aircraft to or from the shop or the fuel pump, but I
was never asked to pay for this time nor did I log it.
The cost for taxi time should be a concern for any student when they are
selecting a school as some have very visible locations that are close to the
road entry to the airport but require a long taxi to the runways. At many
large and often busy airports this is compounded by long waits in line at
the run-up bay and for takeoff clearance.
I did all my early training in a Citabria taildragger, and one of my
earliest lessons was all about the importance of correct taxing. We spent
the entire (short) lesson maneuvering on the taxiways and a controlled but
inactive and crosswind runway. We covered proper control positioning and
did several upwind and downwind turns including 360s and differential
braking. It was also my introduction to radio work and I know now that we
really did not need to make all the calls that we did. At the time I
thought it was a bit of a waste of money, but it was a good example of
presenting the material in small manageable chunks. During the second
lesson I had already developed some familiarity with the aircraft and we
could concentrate on takeoff and flying. Thinking back on it, I did log
this as dual training, and I did pay full Hobbs price for it but was not
charged any ground briefing time.
Happy landings,
nooneimportant
Many A/P techs are not certificated pilots.... and they taxi around all the
time to and from runup areas and such. Even if that means calling ground
for taxi into a controled ramp/taxiway
Dudley Henriques
necessary or advisable. Certainly I have never done this, nor would I allow
any instructor working for me to allow it. To cut a fine line on the
regulations to justify this is in my opinion anyway neglecting proper
instructional technique and procedures.
No instructor in my opinion, worth the title, should allow a student to
accept the FAA definition for "Pilot In Command" as the end of the line for
that definition.
Students should be taught from day one that a pilot becomes "pilot in
command" IN THE REAL WORLD from the INSTANT that pilot becomes involved as
the potential principle operator involving the movement of an airplane from
point A to point B, whether that be on the ground or otherwise.
Instructors should in my opinion make the transition of this responsibility
for the aircraft to the student at the solo point. The reason for this is
that the IMPORTANCE of the changeover in responsibility for the safety of
the aircraft should be clearly defined and understood by the student! This
transition includes the TOTAL responsibility for the aircraft including it's
ground operation.
What I'm talking about here goes beyond the FAA regulations for PIC
definition. It goes to the very heart of proper flight instruction.
To send a 2 hour student out to move an airplane from point A to point B
alone is in my opinion not responsible behavior on the part of the CFI
involved.
Dudley Henriques
"Mark" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:QHcZf.4633$yy4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Peter Duniho
Not at all.
> I'm not
> sure your argument (or the FARs you quoted) would withstand
> the situation of someone taxiing around a controlled airport
> where you need a clearance to taxi.
Not that it would need to, since no inspector would consider even bringing
it up as an issue. But should it happen, the argument would hold up just
fine.
> It would seem to me that
> you would have to be PIC in order to accept the clearance
> and thus would be the "sole manipulator of the controls" etc.
There is no requirement for a person accepting a clearance from ATC to be a
pilot. More to the point, on a controller airfield many types of vehicles
share the taxiways and even runways besides aircraft, and clearly the
operators of those vehicles are not required to be pilots.
Providing the aircraft is being operated not in flight, without the intent
of flight, there is no requirement for the operator to be a pilot.
Non-pilots may and do operate airplanes, even in controlled areas on an
airport, all the time.
> I can't believe there was any intent by FAA to make it entirely
> permissable for any unlicensed person to be taxiing around
> airports with impugnity.
Your incredulity is irrelevant.
Pete
Peter Duniho
news:e13rf9$b1q$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> [...]
> Heck, I don't care if the FAA *and* the insurance company allows it.
> If I owned something worth the better part of $100 Million, I sure
> would want anybody moving the thing to have some sort of training.
> Hangar rash gets real expensive real quick when you're talking 777's.
Well, ignoring for the moment that I don't think anyone here was "talking
777's"...
...of course some kind of training is required. Transport aircraft aren't
typically taxied under their own power in and around other airplanes; they
use tugs for that, and the operators of the tugs require training as well
(as Robert's post did point out). When they are taxied under their own
power, it's only with a properly trained person at the controls (even if
that person isn't a pilot).
Likewise, no one is suggesting student pilots just be handed the keys and
told to go play around. An instructor wouldn't have them practice taxiing
until the student had already been given some instruction.
As far as the practicality of it goes, I'm not sure I see the point of
having a student practice taxiing solo. Often, the trickiest part about
taxiing an airplane is out of and back into parking. Even if the airplane
is pulled by hand out of and back into the parking space proper, taxiing
near the space can be tight quarters. Once you get out onto the taxiway,
you usually have a lot of leeway (though at smaller airports this isn't
always the case). If you can get to the taxiway, you probably are already
plenty competent in taxiing.
Pete
Steven P. McNicoll
> permissable for any unlicensed person to be taxiing around
> airports with impugnity.
>
I assume you mean impunity, which means exemption from punishment or
penalty, and which implies there ordinarily is some punishment or penalty
for the act. In this case there isn't.
Sylan...@gmail.com
it and find a new one whether the student was me or not. No way I
want some guy with 2 hours time chasing me across the ramp because he
lost control of the plane. There's something to be said for taxi
practice WITH an instructor but doing it solo... even to the fuel pump
before someone is signed off to solo is just dangerous.
bob...@gmail.com
My answer to the original question is "no." However, I take issue with
the statement that a clearance is required to taxi. When you
call,ground control, you get taxi instructions, not a clearance. The
ATCH specifically prohibits the use of the word "cleared" by ground
controllers.
I still would not turn a 2-hour student loose in an airplane to do
anything.
Bob Gardner
nrp
for presolo taxi so he could get the airplane out of the hanger & taxi
it to the opposite side of the field where the FBO & his flight
instructor were located. The student had a few hours before the
endorsement, & he was a person that definitely had his head screwed on
straight. I don't know if it was a verbal or written endorsement, but
it was a busy controlled field (FCM), a reputable instructor and FBO.
Knowing the situation and the people involved, it didn't bother me as a
co-owner.
Gary Drescher
news:1144372252....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> However, I take issue with
> the statement that a clearance is required to taxi. When you
No, that's incorrect. FAR 91.129i:
"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."
> The ATCH specifically prohibits the use of the word "cleared" by ground
> controllers.
Yes, AIM 4-3-18a5 mentions that quirk of radio phraseology. Nonetheless, AIM
4-3-18 speaks of clearances to taxi, reaffirming what FAR 91.129i says.
--Gary
Steven P. McNicoll
> the statement that a clearance is required to taxi. When you
> call,ground control, you get taxi instructions, not a clearance. The
> ATCH specifically prohibits the use of the word "cleared" by ground
> controllers.
>
§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with an
Big John
check out in taxing. These were multi million dollar aircraft.
Big John
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:11:37 GMT, ktbr <kt...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>> It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
>> question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
>> time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?
>
>No, it is not usual and accepted practice.
Jose
> having a student practice taxiing solo.
Taildragger?
BTIZ
no clearance required..
I agree, if the student is not ready to fly solo, he is not ready to taxi
solo.
BT
Jose
> solo.
I disagree. Actually flying an airplane, keeping it within its aviation
envelope and reacting properly and swiftly should the aircraft approach
the edge of its envelope, making a smooth approach to the runway at the
proper speed, arriving sufficiently close to the desired touchdown
point, arresting the descent smoothly and touching down gently enough to
reuse the aircraft, and maintaining directional control on the ground at
close to flying speed requires significantly more skill than taxiing on
the ground, especially in a nosewheel.
Dudley Henriques
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:NBkZf.23557$NS6....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> if the student is not ready to fly solo, he is not ready to taxi solo.
>
> I disagree. Actually flying an airplane, keeping it within its aviation
> envelope and reacting properly and swiftly should the aircraft approach
> the edge of its envelope, making a smooth approach to the runway at the
> proper speed, arriving sufficiently close to the desired touchdown point,
> arresting the descent smoothly and touching down gently enough to reuse
> the aircraft, and maintaining directional control on the ground at close
> to flying speed requires significantly more skill than taxiing on the
> ground, especially in a nosewheel.
>
> Jose
This might not be the best analogy to make for this issue Jose. Naturally it
takes more ability to accomplish all of these things than just the one skill
of taxiing the aircraft on the ground. That isn't the issues here. The issue
is instructor judgment.
An accident is an accident whether it happens in the air or on the ground.
It happens in aviation that one can easily kill someone with an airplane on
the ground. Also, as I have stated in another post, there is the issue of
responsibility transition as that applies to sound instruction procedure.
Making a case for allowing a 2 hour student to taxi an airplane unsupervised
is something you might want to revisit. Of course this is only my opinion. I
can only say that I wouldn't have hired any instructor to work for me who
would make this case.
Dudley Henriques
Jim Macklin
student pilot certificate is not until endorsed for solo and
then only for limited purposes.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"nooneimportant" <no....@me.com> wrote in message
news:GFgZf.2689$qd.2446@fed1read08...
Jim Macklin
are just moving on the surface, even for a high speed test
of the brakes or such, then it is not flight time.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Peter R." <pjr...@gmailX.com> wrote in message
news:oa7d97q9...@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
| Dave Stadt <dhs...@ameritech.net> wrote:
|
| > You left out the most important part......'for the
purpose of flight.' Just
| > taxiing around cannot be considered flight time. Guess
you could log it as
| > taxi time but nobody cares about taxi time.
|
| Now that is interesting. A thread about Hobbs versus tach
time came up
| here a few months ago and a few experienced and respected
regulars here
| insisted that taxi time (admittedly taxiing to the runway
for departure and
| to the ramp after landing, assuming this subtlety is even
defined
| somewhere) is log-able.
|
|
|
| --
| Peter
Jim Macklin
learning to fly, the FBO hired a farm boy with lots of
trailer and tractor experience as a lineboy. After an hour
of training they sent him to put the Illinois governor's
King Air 90 in the hanger by himself. He did a good job
except for the bi-fold door which stalled half way up. He
did put the fuselage in the hanger but removed the entire
vertical stabilizer and rudder.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:IuhZf.3937$i41....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Dudley Henriques
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:PtlZf.9845$t22.1756@dukeread08...
> Along these lines, of responsible actions, when I was
> learning to fly, the FBO hired a farm boy with lots of
> trailer and tractor experience as a lineboy. After an hour
> of training they sent him to put the Illinois governor's
> King Air 90 in the hanger by himself. He did a good job
> except for the bi-fold door which stalled half way up. He
> did put the fuselage in the hanger but removed the entire
> vertical stabilizer and rudder.
Ouch!! I see a mighty tax increase in there somewhere I think :-)
My issue with all this is of course the responsibility transition issue
between the instructor and a student as that addresses the pilot in command
issue. I've always stressed this to instructors whenever I could. It
pertains to the use of the FAR terms definition for "pilot in command", and
actually, the use of anything in the FAR's for that matter, as being
anything but a bare minimum definition for the competence/responsibility
issue.
I like to see instructors teaching new pilots to view the FAR's as minimum
requirements; then take the student above that level of understanding in how
the student views himself/herself in relation to the regulations.
It's this line of thinking that causes me to find fault with an instructor
who would allow a 2 hour student to go out un supervised and taxi an
airplane.
Doing this in my opinion fogs the issue of pilot responsibility for the
student, who can now easily start to believe that responsibility for the
safety of an airplane can be assumed in steps....or gradually, as the case
may be.
I like to see instructors work up to a definite dividing line for the
transition of responsibility for the aircraft to the student. The student
should realize that there is a moment in time when he/she has been
determined to be competent enough to assume total responsibility for an
airplane and it's operation. This operation should be considered as the
TOTAL operation of the aircraft, and the moment the student assumes this
responsibility from the instructor, if the instructor has done a credible
job of teaching, the student will make that all important TOTAL transition
to accepting responsibility and thinking as "pilot in command".
For me, this moment should occur at solo and not before. In fact, I believe
every action taken by an instructor during the pre-solo stage should be
designed to bring the student to this all important mental transition to
thinking as pilot in command, and that moment occurs with the responsibility
transition made from the instructor to the student as solo is accomplished.
Dudley Henriques
ncoa...@cox.net
instructor that I will be taxiing until I get that under control. I
will be flying from a rural uncontrolled airport. It'll be in my own
aircraft, a Luscombe 8A. It's apparently very important to have the
brakes and ground steering under control and since it's my aircraft,
not very expensive.
Linda
Jim Macklin
They did rebuild it, it is probably still flying. That was
back in the days when a Bonanza was about $40,000 and 90
King Air was about $400,000.
Lots of things that are legal are not safe, lots of safe
things are not legal and good judgment can be taught by
example. Some people will not learn, some instructor don't
teach, when those two types get together bad things happen.
We've all seen pilots do stupid tricks and get away with
most of them. I've also seen other things they didn't get
away with, the AeroCommander salesman, demo'd a Turbo 690
[?] to a university. He wanted to show the customer, not a
pilot, how safe the airplane was. He decided that putting
the gear lever UP while taxiing would be a good idea, to
show that the gear would not retract on the ground. He
didn't could on the struts being over-inflated. The gear
did retract but the plane just settled on the flat belly and
the props did not hit the ground. Actually sold that same
model to the customer. The damage was to the skin and
antennas.
Saw a Tulsa police officer and owner of a nice Citabra taxi
in after a few beers and a short flight at the Tulsa
Downtown Airpark. Everything would have been fine if he'd
stopped before the prop louvered the trunk lid on his car.
One winter, back in the 60s, I saw a Beech 18 mail plane
operated by an outfit called SEMO, land and take-off at SPI
with a 30 knot headwind on a sub-freezing night. They took
off on rwy 30 and used 3,000 feet to get the tail up and
about 4,000 feet to lift off. I don't know how many pounds
over gross the plane was, but I saw them load two trucks of
mail bags and boxes.
Too many CFIs are just trying to earn a living and get the
hours needed for a "real" job, too many students are
interested in the quickest time from first flight to the
license. JFK Jr. should be alive, so should John Denver, so
should Buddy Holly, so should a lot of people. As far as I
know all my students are alive and well.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:GPlZf.1285$sq5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jim Macklin
and lots of responsibilities. The mechanic you hire is
responsible for the work he does, but you as the owner are
legally responsible for making [or having made] all the
required entries in the logbooks for the engine, propeller,
airframe and appliances. You're responsible for ADs under
FAR 39 and as the owner, your CFI has less control over what
you do with your airplane. Once you are endorsed for solo,
you can fly whenever you want, whether the CFI approves.
You will need a solo entry in your logbook every 90 days,
but the CFI can not lock up your airplane. He can place
limitations on his solo endorsement in your logbook for
weather conditions and areas/airports you can use, but you
must follow those ethically. Many years ago, pilots would
get soled and 40 hours and then fly for years all over the
country as solo students, without any more contact with any
instructor. That changed in FAR 61 back in the late 60s and
has been modified and made more restrictive. FAR 61.31
requires a tailwheel endorsement as well as the solo
endorsement before you take the practical test and get your
PPL certificate.
Have your instructor and mechanic instruct you on the
requirements of FAR43 and 61/91, as owner you're the
responsible party.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
<ncoa...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1144384809....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dudley Henriques
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
So true! When it's all been said and done, all we can expect to leave with
is the knowledge we did the best we could with what we had to work with.
God only knows I've been given a second chance more than once by something a
lot more powerful than me :-)
I remember one day coming out of a loop as the trailer in a two ship P51
formation where the lead had taken us in way too fast at the high apex. On
the bottom, he had me pinned between the ground and his airplane. I was
cutting grass at 300 plus and looking up the butt crack of a cow. My prop
probably shaved his antlers a bit as I went over him and with no place to
go, I hollered "give me some room...NOW!!" Lead pitched up to the right and
I went between two buildings in knife edge, standing on the right rudder
with forward stick. Think I had about 4 feet of tip clearance, but I'm
here!!! :-)
Yup...we've ALL had our moments
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques
Peter Duniho
> Taildragger?
As far as I'm concerned, the type of airplane is irrelevant to the question.
Peter Duniho
> [...] you as the owner are
> legally responsible for making [or having made] all the
> required entries in the logbooks for the engine, propeller,
> airframe and appliances.
The FAA has held that the PIC, whether the owner or not, is responsible for
ensuring that the airplane is airworthy (eg, "required entries in the
logbooks for the engine, propeller, airframe and appliances").
> You're responsible for ADs under
> FAR 39 and as the owner, your CFI has less control over what
> you do with your airplane. Once you are endorsed for solo,
> you can fly whenever you want, whether the CFI approves.
> You will need a solo entry in your logbook every 90 days,
> but the CFI can not lock up your airplane. [...]
As long as I'm nitpicking, the CFI has no more or less control over your
airplane when you are the owner. It's the FBO that controls access to the
airplane itself. I admit that this distinction is subtle, and it's true
that an airplane owner doesn't have to deal with the FBO which is always
nice. :) But still, if the FBO lets the student take the airplane out, the
fact that the CFI didn't want that to happen won't matter.
Pete
Private
Once you are airborne taildraggers are no more difficult to fly than
tricycle gear. Things don't get interesting until the wheels touch down and
then you get busy! Like all aircraft the secret is a good stable approach.
'It is easier to maintain control than to regain it'.
Taildragger ground handling and maneuvering is more complicated and
difficult than a tricycle and you should get lots of training in crosswind
taxi and the crosswind to downwind turn. IIRC the Luscombe has a fairly
narrow track which can cause them to be tippy.
IMHO you should expect the learning to take longer and you will want to fly
with GREAT RESPECT for the strength and direction of the wind, but IMHO you
will become a better pilot and will know what to do with your feet. There
will be days when others are flying and you should stay tied down.
Women pilots are not common and women taildragger pilots are VERY special.
You will intimidate many men.
Happy landings,
kontiki
> Your incredulity is irrelevant.
>
> Pete
>
>
Fortunatley you are irrelevent or I would probably be angered by your tendency to be an
a$$hole.
Judah
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>> No, it's not very common. It's entirely legal, however. If
>> there is no intent to take off, there is no requirement to
>> have a pilot's license of any kind.
>>
> Questions of intent (to take-off or otherwise) are an open
> invitation for a litigation problems involving cuplability
> if some accident or incident ocurred. It won;t really matter
> if what happened was "legal' or not, if someone sues its up
> to a judge or jury to decide.
>
> The FARs state that you can log time (PIC or otherwise) whenever
> you are the sole manipulator of the controls and the airplane
> is moving under its own power. Personally, I would never allow
> a student to go out an operate an airplane alone (taxiing or
> otherwise until he was signed off for solo. I wouldn't want to
> have to explain such a situation in court if anything happened.
>
And the instructor, who wasn't even in the plane, may arguably be equally
or even MORE liable than the student himself if an accident were to occur!
Quite frankly, these days, anybody and everybody could be sued (even if not
very successfully) if the student were to have an accident and get killed
while taxiing, regardless of his intent to fly the plane: The manufacturer
of the aircraft, the owner of the plane, the owner of the property where
the accident occurred, the controller who cleared him to taxi, the airport
management for being airport management, and all the people on this
newsgroup for discussing it without contacting the proper authorities to
report it! :)
Liability is probably not the driving issue here... If it was, none of us
would ever taxi an airplane, let alone fly it.
Judah
structure is enforced upon instructors in their training of the Practical
Test Standards. However, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards do
specifically require, in "Area II: Preflight Procedures, Task D: Taxiing",
that a private pilot be able to
1. Exhibit knowledge of the elements related to safe taxi procedures.
2. Perform a brake check immediately after the airplane begins
moving.
3. Position the flight controls properly for the existing wind conditions.
4. Control direction and speed without excessive use of brakes.
5. Comply with airport/taxiway markings, signals, ATC clearances,
and instructions.
6. Taxi so as to avoid other aircraft and hazards.
Personally, my instructors never had me taxi solo before flying solo - we
had 10 hours of flight time during which some percentage of that involved
taxiing and we covered taxiing enough in that process, that I was able to
eventually meet the PTS standards. And quite frankly, based on the rates
for taxiing a plane on a hobbs meter, I probably would not have been eager
to spend time taxiing separately anyway.
But all we know here is that a CFI asked a 2-hour time student to go taxi
an airplane. We don't know anything else about the circumstances around
this or the reasons that the CFI asked him to do this - or perhaps if the
student, in his eagerness to spend time learning to fly, wanted to get some
plane time while his CFI was with another student or otherwise
unavailable...
Jim Macklin
moments. And all the details that you see.
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:8wmZf.1512$Es3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jim Macklin
the required maintenance entries in the logbook and that the
airplane is ready for the flight. The owner is responsible
for having the work done and making the entries [making sure
that the mechanic properly signs everything off and returns
to service.] A student pilot/aircraft owner is expected to
know those regulations and maintain the airplane as well as
the 10,000 hour plane owner. That was my point.
Most students rent airplanes from an FBO and the CFI can, as
an employee or the FBO or the FBO as an agent of the CFI,
restrict access to a student pilot. If the student pilot
owns the airplane, they can fly it when they want and only
the students training and the restrictions that are complied
with, will restrict the owner/student.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in
message news:123bust...@corp.supernews.com...
Dudley Henriques
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
> Isn't amazing how much time seems to exist in those few
> moments. And all the details that you see.
Yup! In a fraction of a second there, I was doing the mental footwork
between the ground, my prop arc (my Hamilton 24D50 cut an 11' 2" swath ),
the angular sight distance between my plane and the other Mustang, my
wingspan vs the ground if I attempted to bank out of it, the buildings
coming right at me at 300 plus, AND that damn cow!!
I had almost accepted hitting the cow and trying to put the airplane down
somehow between the two buildings as I was yelling at lead to give me some
air.
It's funny. I've discussed this same "feeling" with friends of mine in
NASCAR and Indy Racing. They all say the same thing.
In these moments, the mind short circuits and thought based on reason stops
cold. Reaction is instinctive and will be right or wrong based on how deeply
ingrained your training has taken your mind.
I'm far from being qualified to analyze what actually happens to you
mentally, but I can tell you this much. To this day, I can sit here in the
den typing this post and remember in my mind's eye the exact markings on
that cow standing in that field :-))
Dudley Henriques
Jose
> Making a case for allowing a 2 hour student to taxi an airplane unsupervised
> is something you might want to revisit.
Well, all we know about the pilot is that he is a "two hour student",
which doesn't say much. The same argument you made could be made for
IFR flight - allowing a ten hour student to fly an airplane all by
himself, through the air, and a hundred miles an hour, even though he is
not ready to fly in instrument conditions. The issue =there= is also
instructor judgement. However, the lack of instrument experience has no
bearing if the student is not going to fly on instruments. Likewise,
the (presumed) lack of ability to fly through the air safely and land
gently has no bearing if the student is only going to taxi at ten knots
with a nosewheel.
Instructor judgement would include this.
Jose
> As far as I'm concerned, the type of airplane is irrelevant to the question.
It bears on the skill required for taxiing, and the possible reasons for
solo taxi practice before solo flight.
Jim Macklin
skill, this is what instruction is, protect the student from
their errors while they gain experience. First explain,
then demonstrate, then practice. Critique, practice,
eventually skill develops. Then solo, with a logbook and
certificate endorsement. Still, no passengers and a flight
check at least every 90 days in each make and model.
For a certificated land pilot, 90% of the seaplane rating is
how to taxi, sail and dock, beaching, and the rules of water
navigation. Yet no seaplane instructor would allow a
student to practice solo in the seaplane, yet if the
instructor in a land plane or seaplane is just sitting
there, not flying or riding the controls, the student is
effectively "solo." When the student has demonstrated skill
and judgment, the instructor takes the steps to advance the
student to the next level.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:IawZf.2971$mu2....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
Jose
> how to taxi, sail and dock, beaching, and the rules of water
> navigation. Yet no seaplane instructor would allow a
> student to practice solo in the seaplane
Then you'd agree that the ability to taxi a land plane (on land) has
little bearing on the ability to taxi a seaplane (on water). One
without the skills to solo a seaplane could very easily have the skills
to taxi a land plane (or even fly it).
One without the skills to fly any kind of plane could still have the
skills to taxi a nosewheel landplane safely solo (but not have the
skills to taxi a tailwheel landplane safely solo).
This gets down to instructor judgement, and the type of plane (sea,
land, nosewheel, ski) makes a difference in what would be considered
good judgement.
Jose
> student, who can now easily start to believe that responsibility for the
> safety of an airplane can be assumed in steps....or gradually, as the case
> may be.
I disagree. It is not the responsibility that is transferred in steps,
but rather, the authority (whether self imposed or not). A pilot who is
endorsed for solo flight has full responsibility for the flight during
all its stages, but is not (typically) authorized to fly at night or on
instruments. That comes later, with experience (and often, with other
endorsements, which could include certification). A smart, newly minted
instrument pilot does not give himself the =authority= (I'm stretching
the word here but I trust you get the concept) to fly in convective
activity, the edge of icing conditions, or widespread low IFR; that too
comes later with experience (and equipment capability). But the
responsibility for the flight always rests with the pilot.
I don't see how letting a student (who has demonstrated his ability,
irrespective of the number of hours he has) taxi an airplane solo prior
to being ready for and endorsed for actual through-the-air flying
transfers only =partial= responsibility for the handling of the aircraft.
Jim Macklin
may even have the skill and desire to practice. But that
does not make it right.
The student should not be allowed in the position of
operating solo before they are fully trained for solo.
The student gains nothing of value and risks a lot. The CFI
risks a lot too, it just isn't worth the risk.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:NGwZf.2977$mu2....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
Jim Macklin
student who has not yet soloed and been properly endorsed to
operate an airplane of any type or configuration as the only
occupant of the airplane. Whether the student has the skill
or judgment to taxi a trike, tailwheel, seaplane or
skiplane, they are NOT yet good enough to do so until they
have enough skill and experience to rate the solo
endorsement. Now, if they are on an island about to be hit
by a tidal wave and there are just enough planes and seats
to take everybody to safety and one lane has to be flown
solo by a student pilot, your exercise emergency authority
and go.
The skill required to taxi is vitally important to flying,
you can't take-off or land without taxiing. You can crash
during taxi. The FAA/NTSB accident and incident reports
indicate that taxiing is a very hazardous area of operation.
So for me, students are either dual or endorsed and
supervised.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:NBwZf.2976$mu2....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
Jose
> or judgment to taxi a trike, tailwheel, seaplane or
> skiplane, they are NOT yet good enough to do so until they
> have enough skill and experience to rate the solo
> endorsement.
I disagree. Maybe we need to just agree to disagree, but I'd like to
know how the lack of skill in flying through the air (solo) affects the
ability to excercise good judgement at ten knots on the ground on a calm
day (we don't know that it wasn't a nice day, and you are making an
absolute pronouncement)
... and I don't see the connection between this and getting a 12 year
old girl pregnant.
LJ
may be a lie here some place.My be not. LJ
Jim Macklin
Jim Macklin
an airplane. A non-yet soled student can have an accident
at 10 mph, even death is not unheard of at low speeds.
Rated pilots often have loss of directional control
accidents, just because a student can operate one or two
times safely does not make the operation safe.
A 12 year old is not ready for sex any more than a 2 hour
student pilot is ready to be alone in an airplane with the
engine running. That is my opinion and your are entitled to
your opinion if you are a certified flight instructor.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:CdxZf.2984$mu2...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
Jim Macklin
hours or twenty, it is lack of a solo endorsement.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"LJ" <blod...@fmtc.com> wrote in message
news:123d83q...@corp.supernews.com...
Peter Duniho
news:I8rZf.6389$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
> Fortunatley you are irrelevent or I would probably be angered by your
> tendency to be an a$$hole.
lol...
You're the one who went off on an entirely incorrect criticism of Todd's
post. All I did (along with others) was to correct you.
Are you saying that your inability to believe the truth IS relevant to
whether it's the truth or not?
Someone's being an asshole here, but it ain't me.
Peter Duniho
> It bears on the skill required for taxiing, and the possible reasons for
> solo taxi practice before solo flight.
Why should a taildragger pilot be MORE in need of solo taxi practice than a
nosewheel pilot?
If anything, the taildragger pilot is in more need of supervision.
ktbr
> 2 hours was the stated amount of time. the key isn't 2
> hours or twenty, it is lack of a solo endorsement.
Exactly. The FARs are very explicit as to extent of training
required before someone can be endorsed for solo operation of
an airplane... this includes training in virtually every aspect
of airplane operation. to wit: weather breifing, pre-flight,
taxiing, ATC communications, airport signs, aborting take-offs,
simulated engine failures, ground reference manuevers, stall
awareness/recovery, climbs and decents, go-arounds, cross wind
landings and take-offs.... etc. etc. etc. etc. And then there
a pre-solo written test with questions covering subjects of
operation of the make/model of airplane as well as operations
and procedures pertinent to the airport must be administered.
In fact, in order to be signed off for solo operation, the student has
to be trained in almost every aspect and subject covered by the PP PTS.
Perhaps cross country navigation might be the only subject not needed
to have been covered (and logged in the students logbook) before solo
operation of that category and class of aircraft.
To argue that its perfectly OKAY (or even beneficial) to taxi around
an airport without a solo endorsement shows a lack of judgement in
and of itself.
ktbr
> ... and I don't see the connection between this and getting a 12 year
> old girl pregnant.
Jeeeze... you guys are beating this horse to death with a wet noodle.
The facts are (and the FARs are very clear) that to be signed off for
solo operation of an airplane the student must have received and logged
training in virtually every aspect of airplane operation. That means
weather breifing, pre-flight, taxiing, ATC communications, airport
signs, aborting take-offs, simulated engine failures, ground reference
manuevers, stall awareness/recovery, climbs and decents, go-arounds,
cross wind landings and take-offs.... etc. etc. etc. etc. And then
they have to have taken a pre-solo written test with questions covering
subjects of operation of the make/model of airplane as well as
operations and procedures pertinents to the airport they are at.
In fact, in order to be signed off for solo operation, the student has
to be trained in almost every aspect and subject covered by the PP PTS.
Perhaps cross country navigation might be the only subject not needed
to have been covered (and logged in the students logbook) before solo
operation of that category and class of aircraft.
To argue that its perfectly OKAY (or even beneficial) to taxi around
an airport without a solo endorsement is shows a lack of judgement in
and of itself.
Steve Foley
> That is my opinion and your are entitled to
> your opinion if you are a certified flight instructor.
So not being a certificated flight instructor means I am not entitled to an
opinion?
ktbr
> You're the one who went off on an entirely incorrect criticism of Todd's
> post. All I did (along with others) was to correct you.
"Correct" me all you want if it makes you happy. I happen to be a
certified flight instructor and that investment in training and
experience leads me down the path of thinking that it would be
very poor judgment indeed for a CFI to encourage or allow a student
pilot without a solo endorsement to operate an aircraft, even if
'only' in taxi. If an incident ocurred the CFI could (and probably
would) be cited.
>
> Are you saying that your inability to believe the truth IS relevant to
> whether it's the truth or not?
>
> Someone's being an asshole here, but it ain't me.
>
Whatever.
William Snow
What: Taxi
Why: To maneuver the airplane on the ground from the parking area to the
takeoff area, maintenance area or fueling area.
How: See the PTS.
It is NOT common practice to allow a presolo student to taxi around the
airport, thereby increasing traffic, and increasing risk for all others
unnecessarily. It may be legal but it is not wise.
What happened to judgment?
"Judah" <ju...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns979E5BB5B1D2...@69.28.186.158...
Jose
> an airplane.
Taxiing is not "almost flying" an airplane. It is "not flying" an airplane.
> A non-yet soled student can have an accident
> at 10 mph, even death is not unheard of at low speeds.
A 20,000 ATP CFI can have an accident at low speeds, and if he kills
himself he's just as dead. Ratings are not a shield. Your statement is
irrelevant.
> That is my opinion and your are entitled to
> your opinion if you are a certified flight instructor.
I am entitled to my opinion even if all I do is draw pictures of
airplanes and make engine noises in my cubicle.
Jose
> solo operation of an airplane the student must have received and logged
> training in virtually every aspect of airplane operation.
... then how can non-pilots taxi solo safely and legally? They do all
the time.
Vic7
Private Wrote:
> Women pilots are not common and women taildragger pilots are VERY
> special.
> You will intimidate many men.
>
> Happy landings,
I agree with the bits about "not common" and "very special", but - as
another newly-minted taildragger driver - I have a much more positive
feeling than intimidated.
--
Vic7
kontiki
> ... then how can non-pilots taxi solo safely and legally? They do all
> the time.
Earth to Jose... HELLLOOO... those individuals get special training and
are licensed to perform aircraft surface movement operations within the
constraints of their job functions, and within limited areas. I doubt
they have a blanket authorization to taxi an airplane out to a runway.
We are NOT talking about THOSe sorts of indivisuals we are talking about
a student with just a few hours of training, supposedly asked to "go taxi
an airplane around" for the purposes of learning how to do it.
Sheesh...
Peter Duniho
news:WgzZf.6432$tT....@news01.roc.ny...
> "Correct" me all you want if it makes you happy. I happen to be a
> certified flight instructor
Whoopee. Lots of CFIs don't have their facts straight.
> and that investment in training and
> experience leads me down the path of thinking that it would be
> very poor judgment indeed for a CFI to encourage or allow a student
> pilot without a solo endorsement to operate an aircraft, even if
> 'only' in taxi.
Indeed it probably would be. I agree that a student should not be solo
taxiing until they are qualified for solo flight, and have the necessary
solo endorsement.
However, that isn't the question you replied to, nor is it the response you
gave. Regardless of what is prudent and reasonable, it is LEGAL for a
non-pilot to taxi an airplane, student or otherwise.
> If an incident ocurred the CFI could (and probably
> would) be cited.
Not if it were during a taxi operation, on the ground, not in flight.
Pete
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Earth to Jose... HELLLOOO... those individuals get special training and
> are licensed to perform aircraft surface movement operations within the
> constraints of their job functions, and within limited areas. I doubt
> they have a blanket authorization to taxi an airplane out to a runway.
>
What are the requirements for an aircraft surface movement license? Where
is such a license required?
Dudley Henriques
flight instruction that at this point I think I'll just hope we can agree to
disagree and bid each other a friendly goodbye :-)
Dudley Henriques
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:c3wZf.2964$mu2...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
>> That isn't the issues here. The issue is instructor judgment. [...]
>> Making a case for allowing a 2 hour student to taxi an airplane
>> unsupervised is something you might want to revisit.
>
> Well, all we know about the pilot is that he is a "two hour student",
> which doesn't say much. The same argument you made could be made for IFR
> flight - allowing a ten hour student to fly an airplane all by himself,
> through the air, and a hundred miles an hour, even though he is not ready
> to fly in instrument conditions. The issue =there= is also instructor
> judgement. However, the lack of instrument experience has no bearing if
> the student is not going to fly on instruments. Likewise, the (presumed)
> lack of ability to fly through the air safely and land gently has no
> bearing if the student is only going to taxi at ten knots with a
> nosewheel.
>
> Instructor judgement would include this.
Dudley Henriques
flight instruction that at this point I think I'll just hope we can agree to
disagree and bid each other a friendly goodbye :-)
Dudley Henriques
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:NGwZf.2977$mu2....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
Jose
> are licensed to perform aircraft surface movement operations within the
> constraints of their job functions, and within limited areas.
Right. And they are not (necessarily) legal to fly an airplane solo
around the pattern. How much "special training" do you think it would
take Joe Mechanic before he can taxi a 150 safely from the tiedowns to
the service area, which is across the runway and down the taxiway a bit?
Not much.
Judah
news:I4-dnWl9cLu...@comcast.com:
> The long and short of it is very simple.
>
> What: Taxi
> Why: To maneuver the airplane on the ground from the parking area to
> the takeoff area, maintenance area or fueling area.
> How: See the PTS.
>
> It is NOT common practice to allow a presolo student to taxi around
> the airport, thereby increasing traffic, and increasing risk for all
> others unnecessarily. It may be legal but it is not wise.
>
> What happened to judgment?
You seem to find judgement easily...
But based on what? You don't have enough facts to make that judgement.
You don't know whether or not a student is qualified to taxi an aircraft
safely just because he is not yet qualified to land it safely.
I agree that it would seem to be a non-standard practice, but is it
representative of a lack of judgement? I could envision scenarios where it
was representative of good judgement. Your conclusions are faulty.
Dave Stadt
>> Earth to Jose... HELLLOOO... those individuals get special training and
>> are licensed to perform aircraft surface movement operations within the
>> constraints of their job functions, and within limited areas.
>
> Right. And they are not (necessarily) legal to fly an airplane solo
> around the pattern. How much "special training" do you think it would
> take Joe Mechanic before he can taxi a 150 safely from the tiedowns to the
> service area, which is across the runway and down the taxiway a bit?
>
> Not much.
My guess it would take all of 15 or 20 minutes. It seems some people think
taxiing the typical trainer airplane is akin to brain surgery, In fact it's
more like riding a tricycle.
Cub Driver
<p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote:
>You can't get a little pregnant, neither can you almost fly
>an airplane
Actually, that's exactly how the French taught flying in WWI, and
therefore how most American pilots learned to fly. They employed a
"Penguin" that could taxi but not fly. You got in, taxied like crazy
across a field, turned it around, and the guy on the other side
stepped in and taxied back, and so on until everyone had had a turn.
I suppose the idea was to save money and not have the student pilots
tie up an actual airplane (and risk pranging it) while they learned to
taxi -- a considerable skill in a taildragger.
-- all the best, Dan Ford
email: usenet AT danford DOT net
Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com
Cub Driver
>In fact, in order to be signed off for solo operation, the student has
>to be trained in almost every aspect and subject covered by the PP PTS.
And at my airport the student had to show proof of insurance. It was
$15K then; it's $40K now.
kontiki
>
> My guess it would take all of 15 or 20 minutes. It seems some people think
> taxiing the typical trainer airplane is akin to brain surgery, In fact it's
> more like riding a tricycle.
Easy for some, harder for others. I think driving a car is pretty easy too but
its still requires a learner permit at minimum (requiring a licensed driver present)
to operate the vehicle on any public roads. I have seen licensed pilots unable
to put an airplane squarely into a tiedown spot.... repeatedly. Perhaps they lack
the skill to really master the plane (scarey), perhaps they were poorly trained....
The reason is simple.. until you have reached a point of demonstrating ability
to safely master the control of the [insert whatever machine you want in here]
and have received a license/signoff/endorsement for solo operation you are a
potential accident... no matter how "easy" it seems to some people, or how smart
you think you are.
I'm sure Peter Duniho (being the most capable and knowledgable pilot to ever
have taken flight) could safely taxi an F-15 when he was six with 10 minutes
of training. For most people, learning to taxi an airplane SAFELY takes some
training and experience.
kontiki
> Whoopee. Lots of CFIs don't have their facts straight.
Boy, I'm so glad we have YOU to set us all straight Peter.
There are several areas of the FARs where particular activities/actions
etc. are not specifically mentioned as "prohibited" but neither are
they specifically authorized or sanctioned. The FAA issues Advisory
Circulars to clarify their positions on losts of these sorts of subjects,
often stating positions which to some may seem at odds with the wording
of the FARs. In most cases they seem to come down on the side of more
restrictive than what the casual reader may glean from reading the FAR.
You can be assured that in the event of an accident/violation etc. that
the FAA will come down as holding the CFI (or whatever party supposedly
authorized/sanctioned the questionable activity) as being culpable.
Safety and good judgement is one of the criteria used to determine the
cause of incident and thats what that is emphasized to much to CFIs, as
they are to instill this into their students.
But I don't need to tell you this because you already know it all.
Dave Stadt
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> My guess it would take all of 15 or 20 minutes. It seems some people
>> think taxiing the typical trainer airplane is akin to brain surgery, In
>> fact it's more like riding a tricycle.
>
> Easy for some, harder for others. I think driving a car is pretty easy too
> but
> its still requires a learner permit at minimum (requiring a licensed
> driver present)
> to operate the vehicle on any public roads. I have seen licensed pilots
> unable
> to put an airplane squarely into a tiedown spot.... repeatedly. Perhaps
> they lack
> the skill to really master the plane (scarey), perhaps they were poorly
> trained....
But they have the certificate which by your implication below makes them
accident proof..
> The reason is simple.. until you have reached a point of demonstrating
> ability
> to safely master the control of the [insert whatever machine you want in
> here]
> and have received a license/signoff/endorsement for solo operation you are
> a
> potential accident... no matter how "easy" it seems to some people, or how
> smart
> you think you are.
So you believe receiving a license/signoff/endorsement means you are no
longer a potential accident. Interesting, I wasn't aware a signature or a
piece of paper had that ability.
> I'm sure Peter Duniho (being the most capable and knowledgable pilot to
> ever
> have taken flight) could safely taxi an F-15 when he was six with 10
> minutes
> of training. For most people, learning to taxi an airplane SAFELY takes
> some
> training and experience.
No one has denied that but face facts, taxiing a 152 in normal conditions
does not take much training for the average Joe or Judy.
Dudley Henriques
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:47cc967a56e62acc...@dizum.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net>
>
>>I had almost accepted hitting the cow and trying to put the airplane down
>>somehow between the two buildings as I was yelling at lead to give me some
>>air.
>
> There's a "$100 hamburger" joke in there, somewhere. :)
Yeah, but it's a tossup who would have been the hamburger; the cow, or me.
:-))
Dudley Henriques
Jim Macklin
practice taxiing on a paved uncontrolled airport. Wind is
calm at 9:30 AM, at 9:45 the wind picks up to 20G35.....
you be the judge about student pilot skill.
Same conditions, except Cessna 152, student pilot still is
in trouble.
The skills needed to safely taxi an airplane include weather
and forecasts, control positioning, having the wing tips and
tail miss contacting other airplanes, not killing people who
may walk into the area, radio monitoring and perhaps
talking, hand, foot and eye coordination....
Airplanes designed by Ted Smith use nosewheel steering, but
not in a standard way, some are steered by electrical
switches mounted on the panel, some by holding the rudders
still and tapping the brakes. Some planes have steerable
tailwheels, some have toe brakes and some have heel brakes.
Learjets, Beechjets and Boeings are different too.
If a student pilot needs "practice" in the "simple art of
taxiing" they need a CFI present until they are ready to
solo.
see http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/sample/taxi.html
for a eye-opener which also opened a fuel tank.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
news:sf4f329ubd3sg26ve...@4ax.com...
Peter Duniho
> Boy, I'm so glad we have YOU to set us all straight Peter.
It seems that for now, you are the only person in need of setting straight.
No one else is claiming to know of hidden regulations prohibiting a
non-pilot from taxiing an airplane.
> There are several areas of the FARs where particular activities/actions
> etc. are not specifically mentioned as "prohibited" but neither are
> they specifically authorized or sanctioned.
Such as?
> The FAA issues Advisory
> Circulars to clarify their positions on losts of these sorts of subjects,
> often stating positions which to some may seem at odds with the wording
> of the FARs.
Are you claiming there's an AC that prohibits a non-pilot from taxiing an
airplane?
> In most cases they seem to come down on the side of more
> restrictive than what the casual reader may glean from reading the FAR.
>
> You can be assured that in the event of an accident/violation etc. that
> the FAA will come down as holding the CFI (or whatever party supposedly
> authorized/sanctioned the questionable activity) as being culpable.
Assured by whom?
I assume you have documentation to support your claim? Where is it
prohibited for a student (or anyone else without a pilot certificate)
without a solo endorsement to taxi an airplane?
> Safety and good judgement is one of the criteria used to determine the
> cause of incident and thats what that is emphasized to much to CFIs, as
> they are to instill this into their students.
Safety and good judgment are both good things. So what? There's lots of
stuff that's legal but unsafe or in poor judgment.
> But I don't need to tell you this because you already know it all.
I appreciate your support.
Pete
Jim Macklin
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in
message news:123g0e7...@corp.supernews.com...
Jose
> to safely master the control of the [insert whatever machine you want in here]
> and have received a license/signoff/endorsement for solo operation you are a
> potential accident...
... and once you get the signoff, you are =not= a potential accident?