Runway turnoff
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 45
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway turnoff
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?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK this part of Rule 14 applies:
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.
(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.
(5)Paragraph…...(4) shall not apply if the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider.
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.
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:
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'
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamburg
Age: 46
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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:
Needless to say, the Technical Manuals do not constitute SARPS or PANS, nevertheless they are published to facilitate the implementation of the former.
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.
Last edited by hvogt; 30th Jan 2014 at 10:54. Reason: text formatting
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 "
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.
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 "
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: farfaraway
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: That France
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.