Runway turnoff

[keenpilot]

If nothing heard from ATC after touchdown, do one turn off at own discression, or keep rolling on the runway until getting the ATC call?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Turn off at your discretion but if there is traffic close behind, make it fairly quick.

[Talkdownman]

In the UK this part of Rule 14 applies:

(4)Subject to paragraph (5) a flying machine shall move clear of the landing area as soon as it is possible to do so after landing.
(5)Paragraph…...(4) shall not apply if the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider.

ie. if nothing heard: vacate a.s.a.p, which is what ATC will be expecting.

There's nothing to prevent you asking ATC before landing if you may roll to a particular exit. There's also nothing to prevent ATC asking you to roll to a particular exit.

[DaveReidUK]

And as well as in the Rules of the Air, the Heathrow AIP contains several references to the need to minimise runway occupancy time on both departure or arrival.

For example:

Pilots are reminded that rapid exit from the landing runway enables ATC to apply minimum spacing on final approach that will achieve maximum runway utilisation and will minimise the occurrence of 'go-arounds'

[hvogt]

While (apparently) there is no provision with SARP or PANS status which explicitly prescribes runway vacation without further instruction, there is 7.10.3 of PANS-ATM, which says:

When necessary or desirable in order to expedite traffic, a landing aircraft may be requested to: [...] c) vacate the runway at a specified exit taxiway

In my opinion, it follows from this that, when such a "request" is not made, landing aircraft are permitted and expected to vacate the runway at the first suitable taxiway, i.e. one which has not been "specified" by the aerodrome control tower.

Apart from SARPS and PANS, there is also Appendix B to the Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions (Doc 9870), where it says in 6.3.12:

After landing, the runway should be vacated as soon as possible, but not by turning onto another runway, unless specifically instructed to do so. When the aircraft has vacated the active runway, the pilot should be prepared to stop to resolve any questions about the ATC clearance or about the aircraft position.

Needless to say, the Technical Manuals do not constitute SARPS or PANS, nevertheless they are published to facilitate the implementation of the former.

[supraspinatus]

Can't remember where I read it, but I think pilots are not allowed to take a turnoff if the angle of the taxiway is more than 90 degrees to the runway or if the intersection is another runway.

[eastern wiseguy]

At Belfast the turn onto runway 35 from a 25 landing is the norm.

[chevvron]

I always used to say 'vacate next convenient left/right'. I always felt if you designate a turnoff, it might cause the pilot to brake too sharply and burst a tyre. If any turnoff was not available, I would advise the pilot before landing.

[mad_jock]

That's the sensible way of doing it Chevvron.

I have had the argument after being told exit via .....

Then not managing it due to line training an new FO and then phone the tower. Couldn't be bother arguing about it to be honest and just said file and let the authorities sort it out. After 4 more phone calls all with the same reply the SATCO gave up and never heard anything from the authorities.

When we start getting a discount for only using the first quarter of the runway I will start slamming the brakes on. Until then I will use what I need to safely. If they have fired a heavy up our backside its their problem not ours.

If anything happens and we go off road, blow a tyre, or anything else that goes on my record for the rest of my flying career its me that has to live with it.

Land, slow to sensible speed then take the next exit is my policy then stop after clear of the runway until instructed to move unless told to vacate further up the runway. You can say expedite as much as you like I am always going as fast as is safe until I am clear, its really not going to make me speed up. In fact I really don't know any pilot that would speed up anyway. As a FO the most common phrase when asked to expedite to clear the runway by the skipper was ":mad: em". And every command course I have seen and given has instructions to Captains to ignore ATC pressure to taxi faster than they feel safe.

[On the beach]

If you get into the habit of vacating at the first available exit, then you won't have any trouble flying into busy airports. Part of the route to becoming a "Professional Pilot".

At busy airports the difference is noticeable between those that have and those that haven't acquired the skill of "vacating at the first available". The lesser professional pilots end up being the limiting factor in "runway capacity" and are the main cause of "holding". A fact that most airlines seem to oblivious to.

[mad_jock]

If you take the first availabe in short field type aircraft you will get screamed at because you will be in the middle of the out bound q and will have a hellva job getting through the outbound taxing aircraft.

Only time i have seen it done from sitting the q to depart they ended up putting the aircraft back on the runway and sending them up to the first high speed turn off. It was a right mess with ops vehicles everywhere as they couldn`t get a triple past them at the exit hold.

And some would say that ensuring the safety of your aircraft is being a professional pilot. And standing on the brakes and not being able to depart again inside your allocated turn around time due hot brakes will get you a trip to the CP without coffee

[obwan]

Most busy airfields will probably have a R.E.T. usually strategically placed and I would guess if you aim for that after landing I can't imagine anybody becoming upset. If you miss it and have to go on to the next one then so be it.:D

[RAC/OPS]

Take any exit you like, but FFS if you miss the rapid don't dawdle down at less than taxying speed to the next exit!

[Minesthechevy]

Agree with RAC/OPS.

If you miss the RET, expect an instruction like 'Expedite next right/left, landing traffic is looking up your a*%$ and I want to go home tonight without filling in paperwork.'

NB Maybe the phraseology has changed a bit since my day, but YKWIM....:hmm:

[Talkdownman]

JO: "There's an aircraft remarkably close behind you…"

[Minesthechevy]

<like> Just what we came to expect from the Unflappable One :ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Happy days.....

[Brian 48nav]

JO: "There's an aircraft remarkably close behind you…"


Better than having JO remarkably close behind you http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

[West Coast]

Thanks mad jock, in complete agreement. 29 minute turns out of PHX in summer, my concern is not putting the brake temps up to ludicrous temp to get off at the first available.

Quite frankly, if a sensible exiting plan by the guy ahead of me causes me another trip around the pattern, so be it, a cost of doing business.

[chevvron]

In the UK, providing certain conditions are met eg daylight, good vis etc, there is no need for ATC to 'instruct' a pilot to take the next turnoff as the following aircraft can be told 'land after'. Having said that, I know of several ex-colleagues who always tried to avoid using 'land after'.
Many years ago, in a Brymon Herald landing at Heathrow one night, there was a Trident following us. After we touched down, he was given 'continue approach'; then he reported 'over the lights'; 'continue approach' said the controller, then just as we turned off 'I'm on the deck'; 'cleared to land' said the controller!!
NB: This occurred well before the days of present procedures allowing landing clearance prior to runway vacation by the preceding aircraft.

[Brian 48nav]

I agree in principle with your remarks, but having spoken to loads of my ex-Herc' mates who became civvie pilots,(and often flew into LHR ), about this problem there was one thing they were not aware of, and that was movement rates at airfields like LHR are decided not by ATC but by a Scheduling Committee.


This committee, if it still exists and no doubt Gonzo can tell us, consists of the operators, the owners of the airfield with a small input from ATC. They work out the movement rate and the poor old ATCO in the seat is the one who is under pressure to achieve the rate.


So, instead of 'telling' the ATCO to **** off, have a go at your own ops' department instead.

[Occams Razor]

In the UK, providing certain conditions are met eg daylight, good vis etc, there is no need for ATC to 'instruct' a pilot to take the next turnoff as the following aircraft can be told 'land after'. Having said that, I know of several ex-colleagues who always tried to avoid using 'land after'.
A very useful tool, I use it whenever conditions allow. Other colleagues seem reluctant to use it. However, it doesn't really help if you're pushing a gap!

Just a thought, who is culpable if an ATCO says "vacate at XX" and the aircraft leaves the paved surface? Obviously the three-striped bloke with the stick is responsible for the aircraft, but "...we were only following orders sir..."?

[mad_jock]

and that was movement rates at airfields like LHR are decided not by ATC but by a Scheduling Committee.

I don't give a :mad: what the Scheduling committee think is possible.

I don't tell the ATCO to :mad: off I just fly the plane safely and ignore unsafe requests.

And speaking to ops won't change anything. You get given your slots and that's the end of it. If you don't want them someone else will take them.

We had a route which we arrived at the same time as 6 long haul heavys. Quite rightly ATC would bunch them together so they could use less airspace due vortex separation. So that gave us 10mins at least delay. So the flight was always late onto stand. The pilots said move the departure forward by 10 mins and it will be sorted. Months went by of emails about pax complaints missing there connections due to being late. Then eventually the season change came and we moved the departure time forward and got in ahead of the heavys. Then the complaints started streaming in about the flight leaving to early. Because this meant some public transport option wasn't available. So they moved the time to +10 original and the complaints started again that the route wasn't fit for purpose because they couldn't make the connections.

So you can't win, so best just to stay safe and develop thick skin and pretend that your trying to make the impossible work. ATC will blame the pilots and the pilots will blame ATC and the world will continue to turn hopefully with everyone staying on the runway with an occasional go-around.

Even if pilots/ATCO's all did go into that grey area of just on the limits some tosser would just decide that everything is working so we can fit an extra couple more in.

Even after months and months of a cunning plan not working the bean counters and marketing people will just turn deaf ears to the poor sods that have to try and implement there ideas.


who is culpable if an ATCO says "vacate at XX" and the aircraft leaves the paved surface?

The Captain, its always the Captains responsibility to ensure the safety of the aircraft.

[West Coast]

If it is some committee calling the shots, then it's a business decision. The occasional go around/missed because I or the guy ahead of me doesn't want to super heat the brakes is a factor of that business decision.

[Brian 48nav]

Sorry Pal, I implied that you would swear at the ATCO on the RT - what I should have said was ' thinking **** him/her.


Maybe West Coast is right re committees - - - I've broken my self-imposed rule of not commenting on current technical matters, being long retired,and only posting on nostalgia/happy memories stuff.


Having had my ear bent on countless times by pilot mates, I thought I'd point out it is not always the ATCO's fault that there may be tight spacing.


Back to my rocking chair!

[mad_jock]

Nah its not like that to be honest.

More like "yeh yeh what ever, say it for the tape"

You have to watch the RET's as well in winter its not unknown for you to be heading towards one at a rate of knots to get "rapid exit braking action poor, contact ground xxx.yyy" thank the lord for beta on the fans.

That did cause some swearing along the lines of "you could have told us that when you cleared us to land you bitch" didn't fall for it again mind.