Aircraft holding on Rapid Exit Taxiway
 

File on this as soon as you can. From your description this could be a very relevant safety issue. Nobody will get on your back, and you may save a life. Use CHIRP if you need an alternative reporting method....and think about a night scenario/poor vis/small aircraft against background lights etc.
Rgds.

ASR already filed. :ok:

Didnt get a chance to speak to the controller, wanted to get an ATC perspective on the event. However from your response you seem just as shocked as we were.

I think ATC should have told the pilot which exit to use. It's not only aeroplanes which may be on an RET. During runway inspections, the vehicle doing the checking might leave the runway and hold on an RET until cleared back to continue the inspection. Good practice for ATC to specify an exit in such circumstances...

As already mentioned, it's not good practice but there are times when it may be the best or only solution to a problem of moving traffic around an airport. There's no universal rule to my knowledge that says it mustn't happen but I would expect the controller to issue information or an instruction to ensure that no aircraft vacates on the RET in question.

It was pretty poor of ATC to have put or allowed an aircraft to get to that position in the first place and then not to tell you about it. We have RETs and even the runway checker vehicles know not to block them against the flow of traffic.

Where I work entry at an RET is never permitted ... a/c or vehicles.

OK ATC made a mistake and it isn't best practice.However there might not be another suitable area to put a Cessna,especiallly when that traffic may delay departures.Then pilots moan about that.
I can think of an Airport (PD) that would grind to a halt,if ATC couldn't use exits to hold at well down the runway.This a combination of old WW2 layout,little investment in taxiways,and the airport operator leasing out areas which makes taxiing to these areas a one way system.
ATC would be trying to tell the pilot who is obviously braking hard for the first taxiway,take the 2nd.I have seen a controller get moaned at for doing this at a ''critical time''.Also ATC have told pilots take the second exit,and then they take the first.Then they are head-to head with a 10 ton helicopter.
Mind you the airport didn't have Rapid Exit Taxiways,despite ATC requesting one over 30 years ago.:hmm:

Ok maybe the ATCO could have kept the pilot in the picture but why do you assume the RET will be available? Surely you don't turn off until told to.

- are you REALLY an ATCO?

BOAC, I was thinking the same, I couldn't think of a polite way of saying it, but I am glad you were so blunt ;-) :ok:


A pumps, don't know what the procedure is over there, but you can use "land after" vacating, putting it at the pilots discretion to land or make missed approach, this could have happened as it was daylight hours?

BOAC
 

See you May 7th?

BOAC - Thanks for your input :hmm:

How do you know what is happening around the airfield, maybe on a different frequency? Oh forgot you must be the only pilot around.

As TAD mentioned there could be a hundred and one reasons why the RET needed to be used.

Stay in the pub! If you really are an ATCO, you might let us know which airfield you might turn up to work at so we can be braced for the "Take the xxx exit" call.:ugh:

NEVER in 43 years of aviation has an ATCO TOLD me when to turn off the runway, and I hope none ever do. Many times I have been advised of availability. I guess I must be the only pilot you know who likes to do his own braking on landing. Gawd 'elp us.

BOAC take a moment to do a little research on these forums and my past can be worked out quite easily. Your argument really has gravitas when you immediately play the poster and not the post itself. Frankly what do I know after only 20 years, I'll go back to work and leave you to your rocking chair.

Not wanting to pour fuel on the fire, but a quote from Rules of the Air 2007;

Seem to remember this is one of the first things you learn as a PPL. You land, you exit ASAP.

BOAC: regretfully there is a tendency amongst less experienced controllers to say 'vacate next right/left' to a landing aircraft, and equally regretfully their OJTI's don't correct them. I always said 'vacate next CONVENIENT left/right'.
As soon as they get their first tyre burst due to a pilot braking harshly to make the next turnoff, they change their tune, but I really think it's the training colleges' fault for not teaching them the vagaries of the system to begin with.

- merely returning your serve. It is not your 'past' that concerns me - it is our future.

chevvron - thank you - that is my understanding of the correct way too.

As a fairly new valid controller I can say that at the college for NATS does not teach us to use the phrase "take next right/left" and I haven't used it at my unit once either.
If I need an aircraft to miss a link (for traffic purposes) or make a speedy exit (minimum time on runway, not specifying and exit) I will let them know before landing clearance, not in the middle of breaking but hey that's just me.

<<NEVER in 43 years of aviation has an ATCO TOLD me when to turn off the runway, and I hope none ever do.>

Guess you never operated into a busy airport, BOAC! During my meagre 20+ years in the tower at Heathrow I frequently specified precisely where I wanted an aircraft to leave the runway. With parallel taxiways adjacent to the runways it was often necessary to avoid bangs.

I don't know what the College teaches nowadays but when I was brung up, the guy in the tower was responsble for separating traffic and providing a good service to aircraft. If that involved specifying where aircraft should leave a runway then that's what he should do... and he should have enough training to ensure that he knows a bit about aircraft performance.

Good to hear that Will ,but where does it come from then? And why don't the LCEs/OJTI's 'jump' on it?

At the college I went to we certainly were.

'(c/s) vacate right/left at...'

This was standard phraseology for any inbound traffic after landing.

Fly through
 

Dont know where your 20 years experience has been accrued but it can't have been at a busy airfield. BOAC keep taking the RET we want you off that runway PDQ.:rolleyes:

- guess I'll have to take your word for that. Probably more accurate to say that fortunately I apparently did not have the pleasure of being 'controlled' by you when I did. For your (parochial) knowledge, some 'busy' (yes, there is more than one) airports actually publish a range of preferred exits based on type.

Going back to post#1, that was just crap controlling, and, HD - re post#4, it should be "I think ATC should have told the pilot which exit NOT to use." Think about it.

As an ATCO having had recent experience of high intensity runway operations, and, I believe, having exchanged many transmissions with BOAC, I agree with him that the decision of where to vacate should always be left to the pilot. If I "instruct" and it all goes horribly wrong, we're all going to get covered in the brown stuff!

At such airfields, the airfield operator, pilots and ATC, usually work together to establish procedures to achieve minimum runway occupancy without compromising safety. These procedures are then widely circulated to all users thereby achieving high rates of compliance. If I know that on a particular day any of the available exits are not available, I will aim to advise the pilot before landing. To specify where to vacate is therefore left to the only person able to know all the factors affecting a rapidly decelerating aircraft - and it isn't me!

Looking out from my glass tower, from the thorough training I receive, I can usually assess where an aircraft is likely to vacate from the observed deceleration rate, so I don't need to ask or specify where to vacate. If I recognise the voice, even more information is instantly available to me as to the likely operation of that aircraft, without having to instruct, or ask any questions.

So on this one HD, I have to disagree with you. Sorry!

BOAC,
I think the term Crap Controlling is a bit unfair.It was a mistake for whatever reason and could have been a trainee.
I'm sure that you have had a few bouncers,positive arrivals or made some mistakes in 43 years.Also I bet the Tower controller has never said Mr BOAC that was a crap landing:D...Even though they were probably tempted.:rolleyes:

Now guys!
 

I go away from this site for a day and my friends/acquaintances are battling it out!

Having got my 'early go' from LHR in 2000 I erased work from my little brain box, apart from nostalgia of course. I think it was common to nominate the exit point especially on 09L for T4/Cargo traffic ie 'exit at Block 17' and also a switched on Arrivals controller would have spotted embarrassing (for the Ground controller) conflicts on the adjacent taxiway etc.

In the military world the 2-winged master race especially single-seat, sorry BOAC you can bop me at the party,did not like being told to do anything by ATC. Mind you Air France were just the same; they had squatter's rights on the runway at LHR.

Back to my Horlicks! (Beer really)

chevvron, no idea where it comes from.
I saw it once during my training whilst still on watching the OJTI and no R/T and it went wrong, trying to help the ground man out, but left until last minute as it was turning off. Needless to say I don't use it now!!
As 161R says, if we say vacate at abc, and it goes into the grass there is only one person at fault!!

Never use the word next try "vacate first right and contact ground when vacated" as next means not this one but the next! Seen it done and it got very messy. I will only say vacate first when the aircraft is slow enough to be obvious but some airlines like to take the most convienient for them, not the one that will allow the most efficient use of the runway.
As for whose fault it is if it goes wrong, then I'm afraid that as always it will be the bloke in the pointy end, as they can say no it's not safe.
Sorry, I'm sure that many will disagree, but HIRO requires maximum control.

However, back to the first point, it's poor technique and the controller should have told the pilot that certain exits are not available. But it could be a trainee or indeed a 'brain fart' which I believe we all have and as you get older they happen more frequently.
Anyway good night all. Be safe (or lucky).

- in which case the supervisor failed, no? I'll stick with 'crap' I think. To fail to take action to prevent a ground collision with an aircraft you have placed there is a major up-cock in my book. One assumes the controller/trainee/whatever has been advised of the shortcoming, so case is really closed. It was lucky that the pilots were on the ball.

Brian - we never minded being told what to do by ATC and frequently were - it was just that they used to get it right - that's the difference.

161r - indeed, as you say, and I don't think I was ever 'told' where to vacate at LGW in all the years. Asked 'if able' many times (and normally made the first).

Nor in fact have I ever been 'told' at LHR, and if I had been and was too fast, I would have ignored it. So there.

Got to agree with HD on this one.

ATC are, inter alia, responsible for preventing collisions between aircraft and vehicles etc on the ground. How do they comply with this requirement if they allow aircraft to vacate where ever they wish and are able? Do they keep all the parallel taxiway clear of aircraft and vehicles just in case the pilot has a particular personal preference to vacate at a particular exit? Moreover at many airfields there are taxiways which are not suitable (wide enough or strong enough etc) for certain types of aircraft; again the ATCO must issue instructions. Agreed custom and practice may mean that certain types (of aircraft!) will generally vacate at the same points but that does not alter the fact that the controller is required to control. If the ATCO and pilot each happen to get what they want....well that keeps everybody happy!
However, it is not a free for all......BOAC!

Surely the ATCO makes a judgement based on experience and what he/she observes out of the window. If there is no potential ground conflict the ATCO may perhaps allow the pilot to fill their boots or offer 'first convenient right'. If there is a misjudgement by the ATCO and he/she instructs an aircraft to vacate at an unacceptable point (presumably due to speed), then the pilot has, as always, the opportunity to state that the particular clearance is not acceptable....whereupon the ATCO is required think of a plan B.

I also understand that this is why it is called a 'control' service as opposed to a FIS or air ground service. At airfields providing such services, most of the decisions are made entirely by the pilot.

Helen - have you ever operated into AMS?

BOAC...no doubt people will continue to find exceptions which they feel prove their point. It is the nature of debate! ICAO Doc 4444 and CAA CAP493 offer pretty conclusive evidence!

As I mentioned, it is a CONTROL service that being the only way in which ATCOs can discharge their responsibilities. It is absurd to give the ATCO responsibility but no control!

Yes or no would have been more use!

BOAC,
Having worked at an airfield that has to use the first exit to depart traffic from,then you are instructed which taxiway to vacate on quite clearly.This is after you have slowed to taxi speed obviously.
It doesn't stop pilots from trying to turn into the blocked taxiway(crap driving,failure to prevent a collision,ignoring ATC instruction:confused:).
As far as the incident goes then the OJTI maybe didn't have sufficient time to try and stop the aircraft turning,or didn't see the aircraft try to turn on the RET.Perhaps they simply forgot the Cessna was there,as it's small and may not have been on their frequency.I'll stick with mistake.
I'm with HD as that's the way I've had to control for a long time due to airfield layout,and I haven't had a Golden Towbar award yet.:)

- Hmm - you are not helping your fellows.

So much for working as a team?

BOAC, if you fly into the airport where I currently work, I will tell you where you should plan to vacate as it will be easier for your taxiing back to stand.

Of course you can use any exit you wish, but it may end up being more work for the ground controller and an additional ten minutes for you to get to stand.

As in the original posters query, there may be a valid reason why a controller will tell you to vacate at a specific exit, (such as a cessna blocking an exit you likely to use) its not guesswork, there is a reason why.

If the controller doesnt say anything, then by all means, choose any exit you wish.

BOAC....we must both have listened to too many politicians recently....I note your failure to answer my questions!!!

However, been to AMS many times.

I don't think 'throw a dyce' is letting ATC colleagues down, merely admitting that ATCOs are human and fallible!!

- probably because you didn't ask me any! If you have been to AMS "many times" you will know how runway exits/taxiway interface works at a busy airport.

ASD - I have no issues with being told where to PLAN to vacate or being asked if I can (provided this is given in reasonable time - at the latest by 2 miles) and I can cope with being told where NOT to vacate as well. The issue is with the typical HD 'authoritarian' "I think ATC should have told the pilot which exit to use." - wrong idea. Advise, yes, ask, yes, 'block' an exit, yes, but 'tell' no. Let's just assume it was a mistake in wording? - try reading the OP again?

It seems as if some in ATC need to learn that while I'm sure all pilots will do their best to accommodate suitably given requests they should not expect it to be guaranteed.

To save this thread from an excruciating 'yes I did' and 'no I don't' death over many pages, it was pretty well all wrapped up by post #3. ASR submitted, FTC (hopefully) praised by company for saving a 'nasty', controller (hopefully) retrained. ENDEX.

Sorry my wording was out there, I just meant the fact that there could be a cessna blocking a RET like as in the OP.