Originally Posted by
Lucy Lastic
I think that example is a bit odd
Staying with my odd example (and reenforced by Genghis's example)
I believe if you carefully look at the ANO and consider the following two cases
My adventurer licencesed as above (A&P, PPL SE) doing a high speed taxi on the runway with an engine failure at 70% VMC and loosing control.
Case 1 - the individual had a maintenance order to do a acceleration deceleration check (i.e. he had no intention of flight)
Case 2 - the individual had filed a flightplan (i.e. had a clear intention of flight)
Case 1 is totally legal, insured (by the maintenance company's insurance)
Case 2 is totally illegal, not insured.
The only difference is the intent to fly or not. This is why the regulation is written as such.