vacating runway / right of way
 

Hello guys!

Does anyone know where to find a solution for this?

e.g. parallel taxiway and runway. An aircraft vacating the runway after landing and another aircraft on the taxiway.
Everyone I was asking, said the landing (vacating) traffic has the right of way and the other one (on the taxiway) has to stop.
Assuming there was no further clearance from ATC.

Has anyone a clue where to find that paragraph? PANS-OPS/RAC, national law, ...

Thx, Kind Regards,
Patrick

I would have thought it would make sense to get the aircraft vacating the runway priority, so as to get him off the runway pronto. However, if the aircraft on the taxiway has a good head of steam built up, and runway occupancy is not an immediate problem, let that one go first.

UK Rules of the Air Regulations 199

Statutory Instrument 1991 No. 2437
The Rules of the Air Regulations 199

Right of way on the ground
37.—(1) This rule shall apply to:


(b) when the two flying machines are on converging courses, the one which has the other on its right shall give way to the other and shall avoid crossing ahead of the other unless passing well clear of it;

You shouldn't really be taxying anywhere without a clearance!

:ok:no taxi without any clearance.

The convention certainly is that aircraft leaving the active runway after landing are considered to have right of way.

In UK, Rules of the Air Regulations (see Section 2 of CAP393) states the following:
These comments are correct in principle, but are not really relevant to the question. I think you are both misunderstanding the point that da42flyer was trying to make, which was to ask what is the legal (default) position, unless otherwise cleared by an ATC unit.

In any event, neither comment is fully correct, as they both assume there is an ATC unit at the airfield. The legal position still exists - and indeed is even more important - at an airfield where there is either only an Air/Ground service or no ATS unit at all.


JD
:)

All well and good, but I've had it put to me that vacating the runway is taxying, not landing! At least AMS publishes the 'rules'.

@ Jumbo Driver: Thx, thats it.

Of course you have to follow ATC clearance.:)

This will bring on the next question or definition of "landing".
When is the landing finished and landing traffic will be taxxing/rolling traffic?
I would say the changeover should be after leaving the runway safety strip so vacating traffic is landing traffic and has the right of way until completly left the safety strip.

To take your example there, I would say the one on the parallel taxiway has the right of way.
The landing aircraft has been given a landing clearance, which lets him be on the runway.
The guy taxiing on the parallel taxiway has a clearance to be on that taxiway.
If the landing traffic wants to go on to the taxiway, he should obtain a taxiclearance from ATC.
If there are high speed exit taxiways at the airport you are refering to, I can go as far as to say that the landing traffic can land and vacate onto one of the high speed exit taxiways, but not taxi further than that, and to hold short of the parallel taxiway (which should be just after crossing the holding point on that taxiway.)

I don't think you are going to be able to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s on this one, da42flyer. Certainly an aircraft vacating a runway or landing area is conventionally accorded priority over an aircraft taxying nearby, whether the law specifically says this or not.

You might like to look at the Rules of the Air (Section 2 of CAP393), Rule 58 (Markings for paved runways and taxiways). Para (2) states that, with regard to the hold line prior to entering the runway area,

(2)... no part of a flying machine or vehicle shall project in the direction of the runway without permission from the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome during the notified hours of watch of that unit.

Para (3) also states:

(3) Outside the notified hours of watch of that unit or where there is no air traffic control unit at the aerodrome the markings referred to in paragraph (2) signify the position closest to the runway beyond which no part of a flying machine or vehicle shall project in the direction of the runway when the flying machine or vehicle is required by virtue of rule 42(3) to give way to aircraft which are taking off from or landing on that runway.

Both of these paragraphs could be said to further your suggestion that, until a landing aircraft has fully crossed and is clear of this line, the landing is not complete. In other words, it can be argued that the aircraft is, up to that point, "landing" rather than "taxying".

However, in the absence of a definition of "landing", I rather think this is the nearest you are going to get ...


JD
:)

Ok, thanks very much for your inputs.:ok:

However, it seems there will be an official investigation now. It isn't 100% clear and there where a few incidents recently in Vienna with conflicting traffic and resulting go arounds due to blocked safety strip.

And once again, of course you have to listen to ATC, but sometimes the radio frq is busy or ATC is talking/looking at something other. And of course ATC should also know what we are doing in the cockpit. On this special case ATC didn't know that we are stopping because it was an unclear situation.
We had our clearance to taxi to the gate without any number 1 nor something else. Another traffic was vacating the runway after landing on our right side and they where not on the ground frq because they where told to hold short and give way to us on the twaxiway by the tower controller. Therefer we didn't know what they are doing and ground ATC was busy on another aircraft. Therefore we both stopped and the result was the go around of the next arrival.
At first they were blaming us for stopping, but it was an unclear situation and after explaning they understood our point of view.

Therefore it should be 100% clear what to do in such situations for pilots and ATC.:)

IIRC there is a definition of in flight from when the aircraft first moves under power with the intention of taking off, until it first comes to a stop after landing... so therefore I would guess that the aircraft was still "landing" until it came to a stop after vacating the runway... T

You know the 'official' stop where we all clean up the aircraft... unless you are the odd one :} who cleans up during the taxi... I guess that in reality it is once you are clear of the runway boundary you are then taxing...

Da42,

you had received a clearance to taxi but you didn`t follow it and it appears that you didn`t question it either and just came to a hault. Why would the vacating aircraft be on ground frequency? If it was instructed to hold short of the taxiway to give way to you it was still on the runway and should still be with Twr.
I think OMRK has it spot on, you make a plan, follow it through but if someone doesn`t follow their instructions then its plan B time.

Seem to recall that at LHR it was stated in the special procedures section of the approach plates that vacating aircraft had priority.

- in the absence of published instructions or R/T clearance, DA42 quite rightly gave way to the traffic with right of way. It was the ground controller's fault in not informing DA that he had precedence.

Is this not very simple? UNLESS there is a published order of priority or one notified by R/T, clearance to land clears an aircraft ONLY to use the landing surface designated. It does not clear it to taxy at will around the airport. Once that a/c has crossed the line it is no longer on the landing surface and is now on a taxyway, and requires clearance to proceed. In the absence of such it should ideally halt but certainly give way IAW rules of the air(ground) and commonsense.

Yes, it is very simple. Da42 was on the taxiway with a clearance all the way to his gate, so why stop?

Surely he did the right thing by stopping?

There is a potential for a collision as DA42 does not know the intent/clearence for the other a/c.

Without that info and being unable to query due to a busy frequency he must take the "safe" option until sure it's safe to proceed.

He has a doubt as to the safety in continuing.

I'm used to hearing the clearence for the taxying a/c including a phrase such as "the vacating traffic will give way to you".

Quite right 42 - TR would insist that because he had a green traffic light at the junction he would just carry on across the junction and ram the drunk crossing on the red; on the airport, plough on regardless despite a/c failing to stop at crossings "because I have a clearance".

As I said "In the absence of such it should ideally halt but certainly give way IAW rules of the air(ground) and commonsense."

I totally concur with BOAC.

da42flyer may well have had a taxy clearance to the gate. However, with another aircraft potentially converging from one side following a landing roll-out, almost certainly on another frequency (TWR) from me (GND), I would have stopped as well - and I believe any professional airman worth his salt would/should have done the same. It could be argued that ATC should have anticipated this possible confusion and clarified which aircraft was to give way - but it seems that two different frequencies were involved and this was definitely the fail-safe option. Certainly no blame should attach to either pilot for the ensuing go-around.

By comparison, I feel that Tower Ranger's attitude (above) is an accident waiting for somewhere to happen.


JD
:)

Methinks TR would have his/her eyes opened at a Spanish airport with vacating Spanish traffic:)