Lets say you have a seaplane....

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,431
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
If you took off from say, Sarasota, FL, flew directly towards the ADIZ, and landed in the Ocean, then taxied across the ADIZ and took off again...would you have violated any laws in the FAA's eyes?
 
more likely you land in the Cheasapeak and taxi up the susquehanna through the east side of the SFRA ( no longer the ADIZ) Then take off on the northern side. Thats the only place I think you could do it. Although both the Rappahannock and Potomac flow through the SFRA they get to shallow to get a float plane through from the east to the west sides.I think the SFRA refers to flight so my guess would be nope. But I'd sure as heck make sure.
 
AdamZ said:
more likely you land in the Cheasapeak and taxi up the susquehanna through the east side of the SFRA ( no longer the ADIZ) Then take off on the northern side. Thats the only place I think you could do it. Although both the Rappahannock and Potomac flow through the SFRA they get to shallow to get a float plane through from the east to the west sides.I think the SFRA refers to flight so my guess would be nope. But I'd sure as heck make sure.
Click to expand...

I meant the other ADIZ - the one that surrounds the Continental US.

Also - you have a good plan too :)
 
AdamZ said:
more likely you land in the Cheasapeak and taxi up the susquehanna through the east side of the SFRA ( no longer the ADIZ) Then take off on the northern side. Thats the only place I think you could do it. Although both the Rappahannock and Potomac flow through the SFRA they get to shallow to get a float plane through from the east to the west sides.I think the SFRA refers to flight so my guess would be nope. But I'd sure as heck make sure.
Click to expand...
That is all not anywhere near Sarasota, FL.

Nick is speaking of the real ADIZ that goes around the US. Not the manufactured SFR aka ADIZ around DC.
 
SkyHog said:
If you took off from say, Sarasota, FL, flew directly towards the ADIZ, and landed in the Ocean, then taxied across the ADIZ and took off again...would you have violated any laws in the FAA's eyes?
Click to expand...
Was the purpose of the taxi for flight? If so, then yes you violated the regs.
 
Richard said:
Was the purpose of the taxi for flight? If so, then yes you violated the regs.
Click to expand...

Can you show me a reference on that? I'm not disputing it, I'm just trying to satisfy my curiosity, and can't find any reference that handles this.

Unless you're speaking to the fact that taxi for the purpose of flight is flight time...if so that is an interesting take.
 
I've often wondered about something similar. I live on the water just about 3 miles inside what is now the Washington DC SFRA. If I pushed off my dock in a sea plane and step taxi'd (wink, wink) out of the SFRA and then popped up just outside would I be of serious risk for an interception? Same thing in reverse coming home - just splash in outside the SFRA and step taxi back in to the dock?

I mean, seriously. There are a lot of boats blasting up and down the bay faster than a little Challenger on floats can fly. No electrical system on a Challenger = no transponder. I should know this because I'm ASES/L but I think when you're a seaplane in the water you're considered a maritime vessel and subject to all those laws but I think you're also subject to anything the FAA cares about as well.
 
SkyHog said:
I meant the other ADIZ - the one that surrounds the Continental US.

Also - you have a good plan too :)
Click to expand...


LOL ya see how I think. never thought too much about the continental ADIZ. The SFRA/ADIZ is always in my mind.
 
SkyHog said:
If you took off from say, Sarasota, FL, flew directly towards the ADIZ, and landed in the Ocean, then taxied across the ADIZ and took off again...would you have violated any laws in the FAA's eyes?
Click to expand...

There is no doubt a law against trying to evade a law. No matter what you do, there is always a way for the law to get you if that is what they want to do. Our laws and regulations are a maze of catch 22s.

It is probably best to cross our borders the way our government wants you to do it. It would more than likely be a lot cheaper than trying to prove you were right in a courtroom.

John
 
Last edited:
Being too lazy to look it up, I'd bet the applicable regs say "operate", not "fly".
 
steingar said:
They can suspend your certificate for taxiing under the influence. Its been done.
Click to expand...

IIRC it was because they were intending to depart, not just because they were taxiing, unless you are thinking of another case.
 
EdFred said:
IIRC it was because they were intending to depart, not just because they were taxiing, unless you are thinking of another case.
Click to expand...

There was a case of a pilot that parked his TBM or maybe it was a Pilatus and then went out for some drinks. He decided to come back to the airport and move it to another parking place and ran it in a ditch. Busted, even though he had no intention of flying. I don't have the exact dates or airport but someone on here will probably chime in with it before I could look it up anyway.
 
One must always follow the '8 hours bottle to throttle' rule. That is why if I drink I always have a person who has not had any alcohol in charge of the throttle ;)

But the bottom line on why the person taxiing under the influence was busted was that they were acting as a required crew member and 91.17 makes no differentiating on a required crew member taxiing an aircraft or flying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top