Legalities of high speed taxi w. exported aircraft?

ClimbnSink said:
Once the check cleared and the paperwork was settled I wouldn't touch it. Lots of ways that could end badly.
Click to expand...

Notice how short and sweet this is? Direct and to the point. It's not yours anymore! Leave it alone! After the check cleared, you have no business touching it! Do you know a lawyer? Ask him!!! And to repeat a prior word of advice, by running the engines, not flying it but running it some , your probably doing more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
Completely off topic and not your problem, but I was wondering how the supply of AvGas is in Siberia. I have heard it not very common. I remember investigating this a few years ago when I posted pictures from Petropavlovsk and people asked about flying there in a smaller airplane (we were in a Sovereign). There was no AvGas in Petro at that point.
Click to expand...

Interesting you should ask this, as this is exactly the reason they bought the aircraft. It has GO-435 engines and like almost all geared engines, was certified straight from Lycoming for Mogas (although that word didn't exist at the time). Mine was certified for RON 81 octane, which allows it to be flown on pretty much any gas in the world, as long as it doesn't have ethanol in it.

Most geared engines rely on high RPM (max power on mine was limited to 5 mins) for max power. This eliminates the need for high compression pistons and therefore make them ideal for Mogas use. Even the higher powered GO-480 with superchargers can be had with low compression pistons and will then be able to run Mogas.

I'm not gonna run it anymore now that I've found out it doesn't do it any good, even though the new owner asked me to do so. However, it still is in my interest to keep it as airworthy as I can as I am the one who will have to teach the new owner how to operate it. There are about 5 airworthy (maybe less) 520's still on the FAA register, I'm pretty much the only one on the west coast with any recent experience on this rare type. So, you can see perhaps where I'm coming from.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
Interesting you should ask this, as this is exactly the reason they bought the aircraft. It has GO-435 engines and like almost all geared engines, was certified straight from Lycoming for Mogas (although that word didn't exist at the time). Mine was certified for RON 81 octane, which allows it to be flown on pretty much any gas in the world, as long as it doesn't have ethanol in it.

Most geared engines rely on high RPM (max power on mine was limited to 5 mins) for max power. This eliminates the need for high compression pistons and therefore make them ideal for Mogas use. Even the higher powered GO-480 with superchargers can be had with low compression pistons and will then be able to run Mogas.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I didn't know that. I was just curious what they were doing buying a piston airplane when finding the correct fuel might be a problem. But I see why now.
 
High speed taxi isn't like to do anything good for the engines. You're not running them hard enough to get the moisture burned off, but you're likely not got enough airflow to properly cool them at the power settings you're running them at.

Ditch your illusions, from an engine longevity, regulatory, liability, and moral angles you are doing the wrong thing.
 
Don't think I'm piling on (I fully see your very charitable reasons here) but it sounds to me like the perfect set-up for the old adage, "No good deed goes unpunished"!
 
Here's part two to the situation. The FCC allows you to operate the radio in the aircraft using the aircraft call sign (registration) as the radio station identifier. The registration has expired, you no longer have a valid radio station call sign and could be cited for operating the an unlicensed radio station by the FCC. I forget if the fine is $10K or $5K.

Catch 22, the FCC no longer requires you to do the paperwork for a radio station license for a radio in the registered aircraft. So could paragraph 1 above be enforced?

That extra radio you have in the hanger to listen to local traffic is not an issue if you you never transmit. But hook up a mic, and you are required to have a radio station license.

As far as taxiing or even starting the engines. Once it sold check cashed, I would not touch it. Certainly try to protect it from harm, but I would have moved it out of the tiedown I was paying for, unless the storage was part of the sales agreement. Storage does not include operating it. Hope that part you "fixed" after the sale does not fail over water on the way to its new home.
 
Tell us, do you also visit the car dealer to check on your trade in to see if it's getting proper care? That their not abusing it? Do they let you occasionally start it up to keep the juices flowing? Get a grip.
 
BillTIZ said:
Here's part two to the situation. The FCC allows you to operate the radio in the aircraft using the aircraft call sign (registration) as the radio station identifier. The registration has expired, you no longer have a valid radio station call sign and could be cited for operating the an unlicensed radio station by the FCC. I forget if the fine is $10K or $5K.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not from my reading of the reg. There's nothing in the rule on aircraft station licenses that has squat to do with registration (47 CFR 87.18 (b)):

An aircraft station is licensed by rule and does not need an individual license issued by the FCC if the aircraft station is not required by statute, treaty, or agreement to which the United States is signatory to carry a radio, and the aircraft station does not make international flights or communications.​
 
I'll add that most airports require any aircraft operating on the airport (including taxiing) need to be insured. I'm assuming it's off of your insurance, but even if it wasn't, you're not likely covered for loss since the aircraft is unairworthy. If it's not insured, you're likely running afoul of the airport's rules.

If you wanted to help you could have pickled the engine.
 
Strange predicament.... the Ruskees must be very rich. Pay sight unseen, fuel to Siberia ... all the hassle ...

That's a shame it has to sit. Might as well fly it if you're firing it up and moving it. The risk is equivalent.
 
You are not doing the new owner any favors by running the engines on the ground. That does more harm than just letting it sit.
 
Most airports don't want any movement of the aircraft ,if it's not insured. You must have plenty of money to accept the risk.
 
frfly172 said:
Most airports don't want any movement of the aircraft ,if it's not insured. You must have plenty of money to accept the risk.
Click to expand...

I don't know of a single one. Maybe there is one but that is certainly not common
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Doesn't have to have ANYTHING on it just to taxi it around the airport.
Click to expand...

Yep. By law, you don't even have to be pilot or an adult or a human to taxi an airplane.

Being covered by insurance is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
 
Aside from 91.13, no one has come up with any legal reason not to taxi it around, and run up the engines. Lots of other-than-legal reasons but if the OP wants to drive the plane around the ramp, as long as he has no intent to commit aviation, go for it. Use the correct RA call sign when moving in compliance with the regs, but so long as all three wheels remain planted, I see no issues.

As for it being bad, it depends on how long, and how hard you run it. The key here is getting it hot enough, for long enough to burn the water(emulsified) out of the oil. Longer is better, but I'm guessing that if the crankcase was well vented, maybe by leaving the fill cap off the water would boil off in thirty minutes or so. Just a guess of course.

Given that this is a cam-high Lycoming engine, the alternative of not running the engines at all, and risking cam damage is a conundrum. One of those 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kinda deals. Also, the rest of the oil seals, the iron jugs(if so equipped), and the fuel system will like having things moving around a bit.

I suppose if I were in the OP shoes, and did want to deliver a good product, I'd prolly run the engines at very lean condition on the ramp for 25 minutes with the oil fill cap removed, then put the fill caps in, and go do a few fast passes down the runway as long as you are not committing aviation. This also would include cycling the props regularly to keep the pumps and actuators well serviced.

YMMV, proceed at your own risk, pro driver on a closed course, etc.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
How can they enforce that?
Click to expand...

The bigger issue in this case is the airport has no one to get a hold of. They probably still have the OP as the owner of record. I doubt they're automated enough to match the tenant aircraft list with a list of de-registered aircraft, but if they did, they might figure it out.

Bigger issue is if OP gets into an accident incident in the now Russian owned plane, and it's discovered that there is no insurance, in addition to everything else, the OP and his new plane will be kicked off the airport for violating airport insurance rules.
 
Brad Z said:
The bigger issue in this case is the airport has no one to get a hold of. They probably still have the OP as the owner of record. I doubt they're automated enough to match the tenant aircraft list with a list of de-registered aircraft, but if they did, they might figure it out.

Bigger issue is if OP gets into an accident incident in the now Russian owned plane, and it's discovered that there is no insurance, in addition to everything else, the OP and his new plane will be kicked off the airport for violating airport insurance rules.
Click to expand...
again, please show an example of such rules

no airport that has accepted federal funds could have such a rule.

they can require insurance to occupy a hangar, and a private airport can require anything the owner wants, but the vast majority of public use airport can definitely NOT require insurance to operate an aircraft in the movement areas and runways.
 
I've never seen a larger collection of people talking out of their ass than I have in this thread. Maybe the treadmill thread...maybe. No. This thread surpasses that.
 
EdFred said:
I've never seen a larger collection of people talking out of their ass than I have in this thread. Maybe the treadmill thread...maybe. No. This thread surpasses that.
Click to expand...

You've never been to DC, have you?
 
JHW said:
again, please show an example of such rules

no airport that has accepted federal funds could have such a rule.

they can require insurance to occupy a hangar, and a private airport can require anything the owner wants, but the vast majority of public use airport can definitely NOT require insurance to operate an aircraft in the movement areas and runways.
Click to expand...

The plane is hangared at the airport, per the OP.

As you know airports often have a requirement for hangared aircraft to be insured. If the aircraft is in an incident at the airport, do you not think the management will inquire about it's insurance status when it is determined to have been de-registered?
 
So am I to understand I can just go out and jump in and taxi a de-registered plane (or any plane for that matter) and tear the wings off of it and two other planes and park it and walk away no questions asked?

After all, any monkey can taxi a plane, just not fly it... right?

3239390f_DrEvil-Riiight.jpeg
 
txflyer said:
So am I to understand I can just go out and jump in and taxi a de-registered plane (or any plane for that matter) and tear the wings off of it and two other planes and park it and walk away no questions asked?

After all, any monkey can taxi a plane, just not fly it... right?

3239390f_DrEvil-Riiight.jpeg
Click to expand...

You don't need a license to taxi an airplane, if that is what you are getting at.
 
txflyer said:
So am I to understand I can just go out and jump in and taxi a de-registered plane (or any plane for that matter) and tear the wings off of it and two other planes and park it and walk away no questions asked?

After all, any monkey can taxi a plane, just not fly it... right?
Click to expand...

Right. If he taxis, just be sure to fasten the monkey's seatbelt.

There would be no legal difference in causing damage by starting the engine and rolling a plane than by causing damage by hitting planes with a sledge hammer.
 
mikea said:
Right. If he taxis, just be sure to fasten the monkey's seatbelt.

There would be no legal difference in causing damage by starting the engine and rolling a plane than by causing damage by hitting planes with a sledge hammer.
Click to expand...


That's kind of ****ed up, but I get it... :yesnod:
 
Brad Z said:
The plane is hangared at the airport, per the OP.

As you know airports often have a requirement for hangared aircraft to be insured. If the aircraft is in an incident at the airport, do you not think the management will inquire about it's insurance status when it is determined to have been de-registered?
Click to expand...
no, he said it was tied down. regardless that pertains to the tied down part, not to the taxiing
 
EdFred said:
I've never seen a larger collection of people talking out of their ass than I have in this thread. Maybe the treadmill thread...maybe. No. This thread surpasses that.
Click to expand...

I know what I'm talking about and referenced it in post #27. The aircraft is not US registered, it is foreign registered and requires a special flight authorization to operate. Nothing to do with intent to fly - you are confusing an NTSB definition (49 CFR 830.2) with FAA regulations. Starting the engines....eh. Taxing? Taxing is definitely operating.
 
Every person who has posted here is right...Just ask them.....

Tony
 
JHW said:
no, he said it was tied down. regardless that pertains to the tied down part, not to the taxiing
Click to expand...

He did say tied down, but again, it doesn't matter, an airport may require its tie down tenants to carry insurance as well.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
I know what I'm talking about and referenced it in post #27. The aircraft is not US registered, it is foreign registered and requires a special flight authorization to operate. Nothing to do with intent to fly - you are confusing an NTSB definition (49 CFR 830.2) with FAA regulations. Starting the engines....eh. Taxing? Taxing is definitely operating.
Click to expand...

I've read 91.715 and stand by my original statement.
 
I think this thread needs a bullet. To the head.
 
There are different issues. Legal(who the F knows) is it good for the engines(who the F knows) is there a risk of unpleasant life complications(yes)
 
EdFred said:
I've read 91.715 and stand by my original statement.
Click to expand...

Well, you are misinterpreting what you're reading.

91.203:
§ 91.203 Civil aircraft: Certifications required.
(a) Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the following:
(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airworthiness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the applicable operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing that portion of the operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c), or an authorization under § 91.611) must have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. However, the airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an assigned special identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, may only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district office.

He doesn't have that, the aircraft is unregistered. So it kicks over to 91.715:

§91.715 Special flight authorizations for foreign civil aircraft.
(a) Foreign civil aircraft may be operated without airworthiness certificates required under §91.203 if a special flight authorization for that operation is issued under this section...

I doubt he has that special authorization as he is not owner and isn't even sure if it's foreign registered. Hence it's not a legal operation. What's an operation?

§1.1 General definitions.
Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

Nothing in there about flight or intent to fly. I can't make it any clearer than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top