Legalities of high speed taxi w. exported aircraft?

Wow, this thread...:mad2:

I have not only owners permission to do so, he has explicitly asked me to keep the engines running and do high speed taxis. So all this talk about theft, CBP rules, TSA rules being broken, CIA etc - are not relevant.

I agree with previous poster - let's put a bullet to the head of this thread. I've been taught a good lesson. And it's not what the FAR's say, it's to think twice before you ask a question on PoA again. :eek:;)
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you read this post many pages ago? I don't think anyone here knows the whole content of stratobee's agreement with the new owner. I can see why that was stratobee's last post in this thread.

Edit: Oops I spoke too soon.

stratobee said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
SoloEqs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Help me understand this. The OP is exercising the plane for the purpose of maintaining the engines(right or wrong on the efficacy of such). So, we are absent actus reus(an actual theft activity) unless or until the OP takes it somewhere where the owner can't find it. Next, we look at the mens rea(guilty mind), as his intent. Did the OP actually steal, or try to steal the property? Did he intend to steal the property? Hmmmmmm

As for 'proof' that is not for the defendant in the US court system, it's for the prosecution. AFAIK, the prosecution needs both actus and mens rea for a conviction, neither of which they have here. That appears to be - three strikes.

<edit: sorry, I was typing when the OP drove a stake through the heart. I will cease and desist! :D >
 
Last edited:
Caaaamon! Is the new owners permission in writing?
Or simply verbal. If it's verbal it's wishing in one hand, s$$$ing in the other and seeing which fills up first. ( refer to well done horse cartoon.)
 
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...

That insurance isn't required to use the airfield. It is required to become a leaseholder for a tiedown space. Big difference.
 
Is the high speed taxi at LOP? :goofy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top