Legalities of high speed taxi w. exported aircraft?

ISaidRightTurns said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's called reading. Left to right. Top to bottom. Group words together to form sentences. Take Tylenol for any headaches. Midol for any cramps.
 
Some of the people need Metamucil, less coffee and a nap.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
You don't need a license to taxi an airplane, if that is what you are getting at.
Click to expand...

No, but you can have your license jerked if you do have a license, taxi a plane with no intent to fly, and screw up.

RotorAndWing said:
(Still waiting for a "Chief Counsel" interpretation to be thrown in.....)
Click to expand...

Well, wait no more! :)

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2003/February/1/Pilot-Counsel-(2).aspx

(Doesn't address whether it's legal to taxi a de-registered aircraft but rather how a pilot can be sanctioned by the FAA/NTSB for taxiing even when there is no intent to fly)
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
If the buyer cared, he/she can get a local shop to preserve the engines and move the airplane every week to help week to keep the tires round. Then any losses are on the shop.
Click to expand...

This is the best way to go.

Hey, taxi accidents do happen. The swift in my picture was just totaled last week by the local shop on the field. Fortunately they are well-insured. Not sure exactly what happened but a mechanic was working on a mixture problem (it wouldn't cut off when pulled out), hit an airport tug with the wing, then slammed the brakes and nosed it over. :eek:
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
It's called reading. Left to right. Top to bottom. Group words together to form sentences. Take Tylenol for any headaches. Midol for any cramps.
Click to expand...

Except for 91.13!

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
Except for 91.13!

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Click to expand...

So taxiing in and of itself is careless and reckless. Got it.

In your world, does 4 + chicken = purple?
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
Only on the Internet can someone argue a specifically quoted section is not applicable.

I'm going back to looking out my 10th floor window on independence Ave.
Click to expand...

That explains the talking out of your ass.
 
timwinters said:
No, but you can have your license jerked if you do have a license, taxi a plane with no intent to fly, and screw up.



Well, wait no more! :)

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2003/February/1/Pilot-Counsel-(2).aspx

(Doesn't address whether it's legal to taxi a de-registered aircraft but rather how a pilot can be sanctioned by the FAA/NTSB for taxiing even when there is no intent to fly)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that is drifting so far off course from the original question as to be almost irrelevant.

Bottom line is that there is no requirement for a pilot certificate to taxi an airplane. There is no requirement for an N number (or foreign equivalent) to taxi an airplane. There is no requirement for current annual inspections to taxi an airplane. Whether or not insurance is required is debatable.

The word "Operate" has been shown not to be an issue in taxiing airplanes.

Now, as to the post that started this thread, I think it has been established that the OP is no longer owner of the airplane and is better off leaving the airplane alone. There is more down side than up side in what he is doing.
 
JHW said:
I don't know of a single one. Maybe there is one but that is certainly not common
Click to expand...

Just got back from trip north. Got a tie down ,for the summer,have to show proof of insurance to sign contract.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
Only on the Internet can someone argue a specifically quoted section is not applicable.

I'm going back to looking out my 10th floor window on independence Ave.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to tell us that we should accept your interpretation as the official one? Does the FAA maintain that a pilot's license and current aircraft registration is required to taxi an airplane?
 
frfly172 said:
Just got back from trip north. Got a tie down ,for the summer,have to show proof of insurance to sign contract.
Click to expand...

Let me guess....Massachusetts. Not exactly typical. Don't you need prop locks and a bunch of other worthless crap there too.

No insurance required at the airport I manage, nor at the one where I have a hangar.
 
Lindberg said:
Does the FAA maintain that a pilot's license and current aircraft registration is required to taxi an airplane?
Click to expand...

The question is better put this way: is taxing an aircraft an operation? I maintain it is.

So let's turn the question a bit with a conuse. I'm on the maintenance ramp at an airport where class B goes to the surface and want to taxi to the terminal on the other side of the airport. The tower is open and everything is normal ops. I think we can all agree I need a clearance to taxi. So what's the FAR that governs that? Is it 91.131? Because that says operate.

While we have our FAR books open to this section, why does 91.126 and 91.127 say "...on or in the vicinity" when the other classes don't? Well, let's look:

§91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

On airport. What do we do on airports? We taxi. Which is an....operation.
 
Maintain all you want. You already pointed out 14CFR1.1, and after realizing you screwed the pooch on that one, you're now dancing like an epileptic at a techno rave.

And no, you don't need a clearance to taxi.
 
I have a picture of the Russian owner saying ( if this fellow with such a big heart screws up, hits a taxi light, someone walks into a prop, etc.)" oh that's ok we will overlook that." Any airport I had a hangar over 45 years,wanted proof of insurance covering things just like this. Airport calamitys usually occur on the ground! If he called his lawyer, the answer must be......" It's not yours! Leave it alone!"
 
EdFred said:
And no, you don't need a clearance to taxi.
Click to expand...

There you have it folks. The idiocy and stubbornness in the face of incorrectness that will kill general aviation.

You don't need a clearance to taxi at a class B airport. Amazing.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
There you have it folks. The idiocy and stubbornness in the face of incorrectness that will kill general aviation.

You don't need a clearance to taxi at a class B airport. Amazing.
Click to expand...

You don't. Think about it for a bit. No, that would actually be asking too much of you. You don't need to talk to anyone to taxi all over the non movement areas.

Move from one end of the ramp to the other, all day long. No need to talk to CD or ground, or tower.

Give up. Really. You're wrong, and only making yourself look more foolish.
 
Last edited:
You don't need a pilot's certificate to taxi an aircraft across active runways either.
 
EdFred said:
You don't. Think about it for a bit. No, that would actually be asking too much of you. You don't need to talk to anyone to taxi all over the non movement areas.
Click to expand...

Christ on the cross.

Does a foreign aircraft need to have a special authorization to operate? Yes.
Is taxing an operation? Yes.

Who said anything about a movement area? Now you're just posting to get the last word, so you can have it after this. But FFS, ask yourself at what cost. You're not hurting me. You're just creating grey area where there is none for the sake of it on a message board.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
I direct you to post #96. Is taxing an operation? Be it airplane, helo airtaxi, airport vehicle, whatever.
Click to expand...


Obviously you have never worked at an FBO. Maintenance is driving aircraft from Cessna 150s to Boeing 737s across active runways every day all over the United States. Hell even line guys who don't hold an airmen certificate pull them across active runways.

Aircraft need not be airworthy or whole.
 
Last edited:
Well I want to thank all of you for attending this seminar. Next question please, and don't forget, next time dr. Irwin Corey will here to answer your most scintillating questions.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
Christ on the cross.

Does a foreign aircraft need to have a special authorization to operate? Yes.
Is taxing an operation? ONLY IF TAXIING FOR THE PURPOSE OF AIR NAVIGATION.

Who said anything about a movement area? Now you're just posting to get the last word, so you can have it after this. But FFS, ask yourself at what cost. You're not hurting me. You're just creating grey area where there is none for the sake of it on a message board.
Click to expand...

You already quoted 14CFR1.1 that defines an operation as "...for the purpose of air navigation."

You are the one making up your own definitions because you were shown to be wrong.
 
Glad you clarified that Ed. I was about to mention the movement areas of a controlled field. At my home drome taxiing in one without permission will get you a visit.
 
Norman said:
Glad you clarified that Ed. I was about to mention the movement areas of a controlled field. At my home drome taxiing in one without permission will get you a visit.
Click to expand...

Every time I am at a B/C/D I always complete my run up somewhere on the ramp. Start up, taxi to somewhere I won't blow debris all over the other planes, and do what I gotta do. I don't even click the transmit button to CD/Ground until I'm done with my run up.
 
bnt83 said:
More important, what insurance coverage do you have? I say walk away if its not yours anymore.
Click to expand...

stratobee said:
I can not in good conscience just let her sit and have the engines corrode up. That's not how I am as a seller. I take pride in being someone who has the best interest for all involved at heart. Plus I care for the old bird - she gave me a lot of joy and was a good plane. I even changed a fuel pump after it was sold because I didn't want the new owner to depart with a marginal one. Remember, this plane is about to fly to Siberia and I want it to make it there safe for all involved.

So, about those regs?
Click to expand...

What they said! With all respect you are no longer seller you are a former owner of the plane.
 
I'm thinking it's time to give it a rest lol!!
image_zpse374d6ed.jpg
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, but that is drifting so far off course from the original question as to be almost irrelevant.
Click to expand...

True, my only point being that, even though you don't need a pilot's license to taxi...if you have one...and screw the pooch...then it can cost you your license.

This even though you never intended to fly, only taxi.

I think it's stoopid...but that's the way it is.
 
timwinters said:
True, my only point being that, even though you don't need a pilot's license to taxi...if you have one...and screw the pooch...then it can cost you your license.

This even though you never intended to fly, only taxi.

I think it's stoopid...but that's the way it is.
Click to expand...
If you are a pilot and drive your car into someone's airplane are you going to lose your license? Which one? :D

I think the OP got the answer he or she was looking for. I'm sure after multiple posts the OP gets the idea about insurance and can make up his or her own mind about that.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
The question is better put this way: is taxing an aircraft an operation? I maintain it is.
Click to expand...

You can do what you feel is right and we will do what we feel is right. If a flight isn't involved, it isn't an operation as far as FAR 1 is concerned.

Kind of like the definition of cross country. Several of those, several of operate.

Yes the word is used, but it is used under a different definition.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I have a picture of the Russian owner saying ( if this fellow with such a big heart screws up, hits a taxi light, someone walks into a prop, etc.)" oh that's ok we will overlook that." Any airport I had a hangar over 45 years,wanted proof of insurance covering things just like this. Airport calamitys usually occur on the ground! If he called his lawyer, the answer must be......" It's not yours! Leave it alone!"
Click to expand...

And that is an airport thing, NOT an FAA thing.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
Is taxing an operation? Yes.
Click to expand...

Not if there is no intention of flight. FAR 1 definition of "Operate".

You're just creating grey area where there is none for the sake of it on a message board.
Click to expand...

Actually, whether or not you want to accept it, you are doing that. Ed is more correct than you are.
 
frfly172 said:
Just got back from trip north. Got a tie down ,for the summer,have to show proof of insurance to sign contract.
Click to expand...
but did you have to show proof of insurance to taxi on a taxiway or take off on the runway ?
 
stratobee said:
I can not in good conscience just let her sit and have the engines corrode up.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest that you contact the Hemlock Society and get their guidebook.

The fact is that, if you sold the plane, got the money and transferred the documents, rolling it one inch out of the parking place is GRAND THEFT unless you can prove that the legal owner has authorized you to do so.

In addition, if you use the old N-number, you're violating the FAA regs by giving false identification. Add the international component, and you could be also dealing with the Border Patrol, TSA, Customs, DEA and who knows who else.

Now let's consider the sanctions against Russians, and for all you know this plane is covered by THOSE.

If it were me, my conscience would have been satisfied way back in this progression.

If you feel this strongly about it, contact the new owner, offer to exercise the plane for him, and get him to send you a letter authorizing you to do so (including the current registration info).
 
Greg Bockelman said:
And that is an airport thing, NOT an FAA thing.
Click to expand...

It's a common sense thing. Hi speed taxi he said. Why didn't he just consult a decent lawyer. If he had, he would never have posted. Without the new owners permission , he has no right to be touching the airplane much less a " high speed taxi". It's elementary Watson. Like many, this post is making one smell something akin to 3 day old fish left in sun.
 
Last edited:
Somewhere the op said he had the owners permission. Permission from the owners is not an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top