Taking the Reverse Highspeed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain said:
Actually, it was the exact issue.

ATC clearance: "expedite off the runway"

Pilot action: reverse course by taking the reverse high speed turn off.
Click to expand...
Making that big turn to go on Y4 is going to take a lot more time than taking Y5 on that runway. You have to slow down a lot more, and the turn takes longer. That's almost certainly the issue here, not the turn itself. Absent that "expedite off the runway," there would be no case.

It's right there in the AIM that Cap'n Ron posted and I highlighted. Taking a reverse high speed is not an FAR. Not following an ATC clearance without declaring an emergency (or having an emergency) is.
Click to expand...
While the last part is true, it has nothing to do with "reversing course" -- it has everything to do with doing something that clobbers the runway a lot longer after being told to "expedite off the runway," which is the part you didn't mention until now.
 
ok, that's enough. This is my third and last post here. People like you sir, are why I have gotten away from forums. Goodbye.
 
Gearbox said:
Howdy. New here. I wasn't going to join this forum, but I have been asked to post.

I was the FO for the event in question. This all happened about 3 year ago, so the letter is out of my file, but this all still rankles me. I will try to relate the events as best I can.

We were landing at IAD 19C, packed tight behind an airbus, and in front of some 121 turboprop. The PIC was flying, and briefed that we would go long to avoid the airbus's wake. On rollout, the tower told us to expedite off the runway, using the yankee highspeed. The PIC, wanting to get to Landmark, coasted up into the highspeed junction, and slowed to a crawl, or a stop, depending on who is right, me or the FAA. At the same time, he directed me to ask for the reverse.

As soon as I switched to ground, I was told in this sad voice, "get off the runway." I looked over the captain's shoulder and saw a turboprop going around. I told the captain that we had to get across the hold line, which is way up the highspeed. He again directed me to ask for the reverse, which I did. I was told again, "get off the runway." The PIC proceeded up the reverse, I copied down the phone number, and we taxied into Landmark. The pic called the tower, and proceeded to scream at them in no uncertain terms for packing the turboprop tight behind us. When he hung up, I begged him to eat a little crow, but when he called them back, he did the same thing.

Four months later, I was told I was not assertive enough, and given my two year letter. What fun. Maybe I should have tasered him.

I wish this was fiction. Unfortunately, it is not.

Gearbox
Click to expand...

Still unclear. Y3, Y5, Y7 ?

If you were told a specific taxiway then
AIM said:
4-3-20. Exiting the Runway After Landing

The following procedures must be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.

a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots must not exit the landing runway onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.

b. Taxi clear of the runway unless otherwise directed by ATC. An aircraft is considered clear of the runway when all parts of the aircraft are past the runway edge and there are no restrictions to its continued movement beyond the runway holding position markings. In the absence of ATC instructions, the pilot is expected to taxi clear of the landing runway by taxiing beyond the runway holding position markings associated with the landing runway, even if that requires the aircraft to protrude into or cross another taxiway or ramp area. Once all parts of the aircraft have crossed the runway holding position markings, the pilot must hold unless further instructions have been issued by ATC.

NOTE-
1. The tower will issue the pilot instructions which will permit the aircraft to enter another taxiway, runway, or ramp area when required.

2. Guidance contained in subparagraphs a and b above is considered an integral part of the landing clearance and satisfies the requirement of 14 CFR Section 91.129.

c. Immediately change to ground control frequency when advised by the tower and obtain a taxi clearance.

NOTE-
1. The tower will issue instructions required to resolve any potential conflictions with other ground traffic prior to advising the pilot to contact ground control.

2. A clearance from ATC to taxi to the ramp authorizes the aircraft to cross all runways and taxiway intersections. Pilots not familiar with the taxi route should request specific taxi instructions from ATC.
Click to expand...
then you need to use that specific taxiway obviously.
 
Captain said:
You're right. Maybe I should have instead said, "Everyone here knows that it's technically not correct to get off a runway at an intersecting runway or a reverse high speed exit without tower approval, right?"
Click to expand...
Except that nobody but you seems to "know" the highlighted part, which is not written in the AIM section I posted, but rather is your own personal interpretation of that section unsupported by any published FAA guidance or the experience of any of the other professionals here.
 
Captain said:
I'd say your take on what happened is different than mine. Since you refuse to stop with name calling and also don't seem to want to put me on your ignore lise I'll do it for you.

Fly safe,
Captain



(say, how do you ignore someone here? I can't seem to find 'the button'.)
Click to expand...

The easiest way is to log out, and leave.
 
Captain said:
I'd say your take on what happened is different than mine.
Click to expand...

Right, yours requires delusional leaps of logic. If you can't figure out which rule applies to what, you don't belong in the left seat of an airliner.
 
Last edited:
Gearbox said:
Howdy. New here. I wasn't going to join this forum, but I have been asked to post.

I was the FO for the event in question. This all happened about 3 year ago, so the letter is out of my file, but this all still rankles me. I will try to relate the events as best I can.

We were landing at IAD 19C, packed tight behind an airbus, and in front of some 121 turboprop. The PIC was flying, and briefed that we would go long to avoid the airbus's wake. On rollout, the tower told us to expedite off the runway, using the yankee highspeed. The PIC, wanting to get to Landmark, coasted up into the highspeed junction, and slowed to a crawl, or a stop, depending on who is right, me or the FAA. At the same time, he directed me to ask for the reverse.

As soon as I switched to ground, I was told in this sad voice, "get off the runway." I looked over the captain's shoulder and saw a turboprop going around. I told the captain that we had to get across the hold line, which is way up the highspeed. He again directed me to ask for the reverse, which I did. I was told again, "get off the runway." The PIC proceeded up the reverse, I copied down the phone number, and we taxied into Landmark. The pic called the tower, and proceeded to scream at them in no uncertain terms for packing the turboprop tight behind us. When he hung up, I begged him to eat a little crow, but when he called them back, he did the same thing.

Four months later, I was told I was not assertive enough, and given my two year letter. What fun. Maybe I should have tasered him.

I wish this was fiction. Unfortunately, it is not.

Gearbox
Click to expand...

I am just a lowly PPL but it seems pretty obvious to me that if the PIC was told by tower to EXPEDITE using a HIGH-SPEED turn-off, for him to slow and ask for the reverse is pretty screwed up. But what do I know. :dunno:
 
I'm sorry Gearbox booked out of here -- I don't think anyone said anything derogatory to him, and I think it's clear he understands why his PIC got hammered even if Captain doesn't. And unless the CVR tape remembers things differently than Gearbox, I'm sorry the FAA hit Gearbox as hard as they did, as it sounds like he did everything short of mutiny to try to get his PIC to take Y5 rather than Y4.
 
alfadog said:
I am just a lowly PPL but it seems pretty obvious to me that if the PIC was told by tower to EXPEDITE using a HIGH-SPEED turn-off, for him to slow and ask for the reverse is pretty screwed up. But what do I know. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Apparently, more than that PIC. ;)

And the case law agrees with you, too. There is language from the NTSB to the effect that an ATC clearance or instruction must be obeyed promptly -- it is not just an opening bid in a negotiation. You can discuss it while you do it, and perhaps obtain relief, but you don't delay doing it in order to discuss it unless an emergency would result (e.g., a heading that would send you into a thunderstorm).
 
Last edited:
I just looked at another forum and they covered this topic in 2 pages. I like their take on this whole thing, that its restriction is most likely "Airport Specific" And I liked this post as a good reason for some aircraft.

"At San Antonio 757 and larger wingspan aircraft cannot take the reverse due to the painting of the centerline. The way it was explained to me If you followed the line your mains would end up in the dirt so before making this a permanent restriction there was a notam stating judgemental oversteering required at blah blah... "

You guys really have to lighten up... I get the "Show Me" attitude, but my God 100 posts and 7 pages? Personally, I'm just one of those little guys that has to fly the plane to the next taxiway (when told to expedite). So if I used a reverse high speed, to get the hell out of the way, there would probably be an applause in the tower. :D
 
FlySince9 said:
I just looked at another forum and they covered this topic in 2 pages. I like their take on this whole thing, that its restriction is most likely "Airport Specific" And I liked this post as a good reason for some aircraft.

"At San Antonio 757 and larger wingspan aircraft cannot take the reverse due to the painting of the centerline. The way it was explained to me If you followed the line your mains would end up in the dirt so before making this a permanent restriction there was a notam stating judgemental oversteering required at blah blah... "
Click to expand...
...and in the case under discussion (KIAD), there's no such restriction in the NOTAMs, A/FD, or any other publication I can find.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm sorry Gearbox booked out of here -- I don't think anyone said anything derogatory to him, and I think it's clear he understands why his PIC got hammered even if Captain doesn't. And unless the CVR tape remembers things differently than Gearbox, I'm sorry the FAA hit Gearbox as hard as they did, as it sounds like he did everything short of mutiny to try to get his PIC to take Y5 rather than Y4.
Click to expand...

I just got off the phone with GearBox. He agrees with me that if you take the phone call out of the issue (probably would never been elevated if his Captain had just eaten crow) that the reason for the violation and letter was taking the reverse when tower had told him to "expedite off the runway". (Also, my CP, DO, the entire training dept, and our POI agree with me too. Heck, even the incident Captain agrees...remember in Gearboxes recount the CA had him try to get permission for the reverse and then took, "GET OFF THE RUNWAY" as that permission?)

Slowing didn't help but that's the point why the reverse needs permission...you have to slow to make the hard turn and that isn't expediting.

Funny how I'm miss reading this when I'm the one who has spoke at length with the then FO of this incident over beers over years yet everyone here who's read 3 posts by GearBox really knows why what happened happened.

Forums...I gotta quit. btw, does this forum even HAVE an ignore feature? I seriously can't find it.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
...and in the case under discussion (KIAD), there's no such restriction in the NOTAMs, A/FD, or any other publication I can find.
Click to expand...

Doen't have to be notam'd to be airport specific, does it? IE; how the controllers at that airport interpret the REGS.
 
Ron Levy said:
Apparently, more than that PIC. ;)

And the case law agrees with you, too. There is language from the NTSB to the effect that an ATC clearance or instruction must be obeyed promptly -- it is not just an opening bid in a negotiation. You can discuss it while you do it, and perhaps obtain relief, but you don't delay doing it in order to discuss it unless an emergency would result (e.g., a heading that would send you into a thunderstorm).
Click to expand...

Exactly. PIC basically ignored what tower told him to do and did what he pleased. That is certainly cause for the phone call and his attitude bought him the violation.
 
Captain said:
Forums...I gotta quit. btw, does this forum even HAVE an ignore feature? I seriously can't find it.
Click to expand...

Top right, labeled "Log Out".

He agrees with me that if you take the phone call out of the issue (probably would never been elevated if his Captain had just eaten crow) that the reason for the violation and letter was taking the reverse when tower had told him to "expedite off the runway".
Click to expand...

Right, but you can leave the "reverse" out of it as it applies to the AIM entry you keep referring to. The violation was for willfully disobeying ATCs instructions and sitting there blocking the runway. Had he not done that, there would have been no violation.

You keep trying to connect the violation to the AIM saying that you can't reverse course on the runway and this has absolutely nothing to do with that. You tried to use this incident to support your position on that but it now clearly does not.

Troll or stupid, take your pick.
 
Last edited:
Gearbox said:
We were landing at IAD 19C, packed tight behind an airbus, and in front of some 121 turboprop. The PIC was flying, and briefed that we would go long to avoid the airbus's wake. On rollout, the tower told us to expedite off the runway, using the yankee highspeed. The PIC, wanting to get to Landmark, coasted up into the highspeed junction, and slowed to a crawl, or a stop, depending on who is right, me or the FAA. At the same time, he directed me to ask for the reverse.
Click to expand...

What was the actual instruction? "Turn left on Yankee highspeed" seems unlikely. Asking "for the reverse" after being told to expedite off the runway is a wasted transmission. Slowing to a crawl on the runway after being told to expedite off of it is a violation of an ATC instruction.
 
Captain said:
I just got off the phone with GearBox. He agrees with me that if you take the phone call out of the issue (probably would never been elevated if his Captain had just eaten crow) that the reason for the violation and letter was taking the reverse when tower had told him to "expedite off the runway". (Also, my CP, DO, the entire training dept, and our POI agree with me too. Heck, even the incident Captain agrees...remember in Gearboxes recount the CA had him try to get permission for the reverse and then took, "GET OFF THE RUNWAY" as that permission?)
Click to expand...
But in the absence of the "expedite" instruction are you saying that the Captain still needed permission to use the reverse high-speed?

Say someone lands at an airport with no traffic close behind them and no instruction to expedite. Would you still say that they need specific permission to use the reverse high-speed?
 
Captain said:
I just got off the phone with GearBox. He agrees with me that if you take the phone call out of the issue (probably would never been elevated if his Captain had just eaten crow) that the reason for the violation and letter was taking the reverse when tower had told him to "expedite off the runway".
Click to expand...
I think that's more or less true, but still not supportive of your original thesis. The reason for the violation was slowing so much (or even stopping) on the runway after being told to expedite that the next plane had to be sent around. If after slowing/stopping they'd taken Y5 rather than Y4, they'd still have been cooked for failing to expedite. The problem with Y4 in this case is that taking Y4 instead of Y5 required them to disobey the instruction to expedite, not that it involved a turn of over 90 degrees. If they'd been able to make that turn onto Y4 without slowing down and cleared the runway just as fast as if they'd taken Y5, nobody would have cared.
 
I am still confused on why and how Gearbox got shafted when it was not his leg..:confused::confused::confused:
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm sorry Gearbox booked out of here -- I don't think anyone said anything derogatory to him, and I think it's clear he understands why his PIC got hammered even if Captain doesn't. And unless the CVR tape remembers things differently than Gearbox, I'm sorry the FAA hit Gearbox as hard as they did, as it sounds like he did everything short of mutiny to try to get his PIC to take Y5 rather than Y4.
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't, "Gearbox" and "Captain" could be the same troll.
 
Captain said:
Funny how I'm miss reading this when I'm the one who has spoke at length with the then FO of this incident over beers over years yet everyone here who's read 3 posts by GearBox really knows why what happened happened.
Click to expand...

All due respect but how is this complicated? PIC was told to expedite and acted in direct contradiction to that ATC direction. Your friend aided him by making the radio calls when the FAA would rather he said "no, get the airplane off the runway!"

I deal with state and Federal regulators for a living. My experience is, once they are involved, you are going to take some sort of a hit, what is negotiable is how big a hit. The FO would have liked a pass but that is not how regulators think; that is not how they are paid to think.
 
Well, I could point out that myself, cap'n ron, and gearbox all posted within a minute of each other. If you look at context of the posts too it's clear each poster was responding to a separate issue.

posts 160, 161, and 162.

I'd welcome an IP check if that's a possibility.
 
alfadog said:
Carnack said:
Talk to yourself much?
Click to expand...


Only when I am off my medication...:yesnod::idea:

I am just trying to add some comedy to this dog and pony show to put a smile on peoples faces..... Life is toooooooo short to get bent out of shape on a simple thread....:yesnod::yesnod::yesnod:

And don't make me get carnac to back me up on that either.:nonod::nonod:
Click to expand...
 
Captain said:
Well, I could point out that myself, cap'n ron, and gearbox all posted within a minute of each other. If you look at context of the posts too it's clear each poster was responding to a separate issue.

posts 160, 161, and 162.

I'd welcome an IP check if that's a possibility.
Click to expand...

cap'n ron we know you're not, as for timing, most people have multiple devices online at the same time so that doesn't serve as evidence, therefore neither does the IP.
 
N801BH said:
I am still confused on why and how Gearbox got shafted when it was not his leg..:confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...
Because the FAA considers the SIC in SIC-required operations like Part 121 to have a responsibility to do what s/he can to keep the PIC from doing things wrong. When the PIC violates a rule, they will look to see if the SIC did everything reasonably possible to prevent it, and if not, punish the SIC for failing in that responsibility. This has been well and repeatedly adjudicated before the NTSB.
 
Thanks Ron... It just seems this whole thing played out so fast, the PIC screwed the pooch and the SIC didn't really have a good hand to play to repair the issue.... I am guessing the radio call on SIC's part sealed his fate..
 
Ron Levy said:
Because the FAA considers the SIC in SIC-required operations like Part 121 to have a responsibility to do what s/he can to keep the PIC from doing things wrong. When the PIC violates a rule, they will look to see if the SIC did everything reasonably possible to prevent it, and if not, punish the SIC for failing in that responsibility. This has been well and repeatedly adjudicated before the NTSB.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, I'd be interested in seeing how they establish without some overt act on the SICs part. In this situation if the captain is sitting there with his feet on the brakes and hand on the tiller, WTF is an SIC supposed to do?

This story still has more holes than Dillingers Ford.
 
Henning said:
Hmmm, I'd be interested in seeing how they establish without some overt act on the SICs part. In this situation if the captain is sitting there with his feet on the brakes and hand on the tiller, WTF is an SIC supposed to do?

This story still has more holes than Dillingers Ford.
Click to expand...

SIC is on the tape giving his tacit consent to what is going on by asking for the reverse.
 
Henning said:
cap'n ron we know you're not, as for timing, most people have multiple devices online at the same time so that doesn't serve as evidence, therefore neither does the IP.
Click to expand...

This thread has played out. No minds are going to change from this point on. I'll leave everyone with this, "don't exit a runway on another runway OR a reverse high speed without specific permission." If you think that advice is worth the price you paid for it then do whatever you want.

:mad2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top