Taking the Reverse Highspeed

Status
Not open for further replies.
alfadog said:
SIC is on the tape giving his tacit consent to what is going on by asking for the reverse.
Click to expand...

Not if he told the PIC to get moving. He still has to follow PICs instructions and make the call as was indicated and he can do no more than relay ATCs instructions and use verbal force without getting into a physical altercation in the cockpit which would be an even greater violation.

There's still a deep problem with this story.
 
Henning said:
There's still a deep problem with this story.
Click to expand...

I do not claim to have the experience of some here but I do not see any problem.

Clear violation by PIC + attitude of PIC + SOP of regulators = SIC collateral damage.
 
alfadog said:
I do not claim to have the experience of some here but I do not see any problem.

Clear violation by PIC + attitude of PIC + SOP of regulators = SIC collateral damage.
Click to expand...


I don't accept the supposition of collateral damage. The SIC would get violated because they failed their duty I can understand, but there is a limit to what can be held as 'their duty' in a situation like this. If the SIC passes on the commands, that is basically all they can do outside of wresting away the controls which may not be possible.
 
Henning said:
I don't accept the supposition of collateral damage. The SIC would get violated because they failed their duty I can understand, but there is a limit to what can be held as 'their duty' in a situation like this. If the SIC passes on the commands, that is basically all they can do outside of wresting away the controls which may not be possible.
Click to expand...

Guess I have different view of regulators; one in which collateral damage is not so far-fetched.
 
alfadog said:
Guess I have different view of regulators; one in which collateral damage is not so far-fetched.
Click to expand...


I've been on the carpet a few times and have first hand experience with it in action. I just don't see it playing out with the SIC taking a rip without another piece of missing information. The regulators follow the law to the letter, "Collateral Damage" isn't in the rules.
 
Henning said:
I've been on the carpet a few times and have first hand experience with it in action. I just don't see it playing out with the SIC taking a rip without another piece of missing information. The regulators follow the law to the letter, "Collateral Damage" isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I deal with state and Federal regulators for a living and there is a certain amount of leeway or give-and-take. No, there is no law that says "collateral damage" but there is usually something you can be hung with if you are in front of them and they want to hang you with something. Then you can appeal it if you want to waste the time and money. I can totally see the SIC getting a slap on the wrist.
 
Henning said:
Hmmm, I'd be interested in seeing how they establish without some overt act on the SICs part.
Click to expand...
An overt act is not necessary -- failure to act can still be a failure to fulfill one's responsibilities.

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?
Click to expand...
Be as forceful as possible verbally -- get it on the tape that you did everything anyone could reasonably expect.

This story still has more holes than Dillingers Ford.
Click to expand...
Dillinger was on foot.
 
Henning said:
I don't accept the supposition of collateral damage. The SIC would get violated because they failed their duty I can understand, but there is a limit to what can be held as 'their duty' in a situation like this. If the SIC passes on the commands, that is basically all they can do outside of wresting away the controls which may not be possible.
Click to expand...
No way to know without listening to the CVR, which I'm pretty sure the investigating Inspector did.
 
Everskyward said:
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?
Click to expand...

Captain said:
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:
Click to expand...
So are you saying your answer to my question is "yes"? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
 
Everskyward said:
So are you saying your answer to my question is "yes"? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Click to expand...

At the risk of doing exactly that, I believe that is what he has been saying all along.
 
Everskyward said:
So are you saying your answer to my question is "yes"? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Click to expand...


Personally, I'd get permission. The AIM reference states 'at a towered airport a pilot SHOULD...'. So I'd guess it wouldn't turn into a phone call or violation absent the 'expedite' instruction. But it may and personally it's worth a simple radio call to get permission. If I can't do that then I just mosey on down to the forward high speed or 90 degree turn off.

Please God don't let me get baited into another symantics fight. I only answered because it seemed a sincere question...
 
Captain said:
Personally, I'd get permission.
Click to expand...
OK

Captain said:
The AIM reference states 'at a towered airport a pilot SHOULD...'.
Click to expand...
You should finish that quote with what it actually says.

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.
Click to expand...
Note that the first bolded statement says "on the runway" and the second bolded statement tells you when the aircraft is considered "clear of the runway". Note that it does not say, "when you cross the hold short lines".

Do whatever you want yourself but it's not good to come on here trying to create yet another OWT and scaring people into thinking they will get in trouble if they do this.
 
OWT that HAS been used to violate pilots. Unless gearbox is my sock puppet account and I'm at home with multiple computers and multiple IPs all set up so I can pull one over on a pilot forum. That's reasonable...not.
 
Ron Levy said:
No way to know without listening to the CVR, which I'm pretty sure the investigating Inspector did.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the Inspector cannot have access to a CVR in an enforcement issue.

FAA 2150.3B Compliance and Enforcement

Chapter 4. Investigation of Violations

10. Evidence.

d. Evidence that Cannot be Used in an Enforcement Action.

(1) Cockpit voice recorder. The use of a cockpit voice recorder record as evidence in
any civil penalty or certificate action is prohibited by 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.359 and 135.151.

The Inspector however may acquire the taped communication between ATC and the aircraft in question.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
OWT that HAS been used to violate pilots.
Click to expand...
That is not in evidence. Even what Gearbox himself posted doesn't bear that out. They stopped on the runway, ironically to ask permission to use the reverse. Maybe if they had used it without stopping it would have caused less of a problem.

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.
Click to expand...
 
" " 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." "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe I am wrong.. but... You cannot switch to ground freq till you are clear of the runway.. as in past the white runway edge line. :dunno: Correct??
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
OWT that HAS been used to violate pilots. Unless gearbox is my sock puppet account and I'm at home with multiple computers and multiple IPs all set up so I can pull one over on a pilot forum. That's reasonable...not.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't! That's the problem, you connected an AIM statement to something it does not apply to.
 
Yeah, well, then so did the FAA and my entire company. I really am out. This is getting silly.
 
What company do you fly for? That way I know not to fly with them.
 
Captain said:
Yeah, well, then so did the FAA and my entire company. I really am out. This is getting silly.
Click to expand...

What's silly is that you keep ignoring the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing, in gearbox's story indicates that they were violated for using a reverse highspeed without obtaining a specific clearance to do so. What his story does indicate is that 1) they directly contradicted ATC's order to expedite by slowing to a "crawl or stop" on the runway while trying to obtain approval for a course of action other than that which ATC had already directed them to follow, and 2) they directly contradicted ATC's order to use the "yankee" highspeed by using the reverse highspeed instead. Their fate was sealed once the PIC sprung an attitude with ATC on the phone. There is nothing in the regs or in the AIM (which, again, is not even regulatory) requiring pilots to obtain a specific clearance to use a reverse highspeed. As best as I can tell, you're at odds with every pilot, FAA inspector, and ATC controller who's participated in this thread on this point. That's why people are getting short tempered with you.
 
N801BH said:
" " 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." "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe I am wrong.. but... You cannot switch to ground freq till you are clear of the runway.. as in past the white runway edge line. :dunno: Correct??
Click to expand...
You cannot switch to ground UNTIL you are told to do so. Unless told otherwise you are to land and get the airplane past the hold-short line. Then you must wait for instruction. One cannot technically switch to ground until tower has told them to do so. This is one of the most common issues I see in flight reviews and checkouts.
 
This has been very entertaining.

My interpretation is that they were told to expedite off the runway. At Dulles, with the high speeds co-located in both directions, they could have gotten off quicker by not taking the reverse and probably slowed even more than necessary while waiting on "permission". Had the high speed for the direction they were travelling been 2000 ft. down the runway, and the pilot got on the brakes, then made the turn on the reverse highspeed quickly, the tower would have said "thanks for the help".

Not only would there have been no violation, we wouldn't be up to page 9 of this thread and all missing 5 hours of our lives that we'll never get back.

Bottom line, do what you can to make the controller happy. Be a jerk and make extra work for them, and then be a bigger jerk by mouthing off, you are probably going to get 30 to 90 days to think about it.
 
Henning said:
I don't accept the supposition of collateral damage. The SIC would get violated because they failed their duty I can understand, but there is a limit to what can be held as 'their duty' in a situation like this. If the SIC passes on the commands, that is basically all they can do outside of wresting away the controls which may not be possible.
Click to expand...

His duty was to tell the captain to move his arse off the runway, how hard is that to understand? When the FO keyed up (as another poster also mentioned) to request the reverse (being in limbo near the turnoff) the FO became responsible as well.
 
N801BH said:
" " 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." "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe I am wrong.. but... You cannot switch to ground freq till you are clear of the runway.. as in past the white runway edge line. :dunno: Correct??
Click to expand...

You switch to ground control when told to do so by the tower.
 
roncachamp said:
You switch to ground control when told to do so by the tower.
Click to expand...

You are correct... In the 1000+ landing I have at KJAC they always say " contact ground on 124.55 just as I cross that white line... :yesnod::yesnod:.
They are GOOD and I try to keep it that way.
 
Two points already raised in this thread, but that bear repeating.

1) The AIM is not regulatory. Thus I'm not sure how the suspension could have possibly come from the AIM...let alone that particular part of the AIM.
2) The part that Captain keeps trumpeting uses the word "should" not "shall" making it a non-binding word that is part of a non-regulatory document.

It has already been made pretty clear that it wasn't the reverse high speed turn that caused the suspension. Those two bullets should support that point.
 
Even when you've arbitrarily reversed direction on the runway and are back-taxiing to reach the taxiway you want to use?

roncachamp said:
You switch to ground control when told to do so by the tower.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Even when you've arbitrarily reversed direction on the runway and are back-taxiing to reach the taxiway you want to use?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that action will likely elicit additional instructions from the tower.
 
My plan is to be quiet as a mouse and hope they don't notice. Then deny, deny, deny.

roncachamp said:
Yes, and that action will likely elicit additional instructions from the tower.
Click to expand...
 
Not stupid. Trolling skills are extensive and apparent, adept at pushing all the buttons. Knows how to vary mode as dictated by circumstances. Blows in as expert, flouts credentials, deflect posts of others who prove he's wrong. When challenged, becomes the victim "you people are mean" continues to display basic lack of understanding or simply lives in constant denial, or both. Use of the AMF button is the only solution that works.

roncachamp said:
They are not mutually exclusive, he could be both.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Not stupid. Trolling skills are extensive and apparent, adept at pushing all the buttons. Knows how to vary mode as dictated by circumstances. Blows in as expert, flouts credentials, deflect posts of others who prove he's wrong. When challenged, becomes the victim "you people are mean" continues to display basic lack of understanding or simply lives in constant denial, or both. Use of the AMF button is the only solution that works.
Click to expand...


http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_62.php

Sad, the Flame Warrior Roster used to be hosted much better.:(
 
jesse said:
You cannot switch to ground UNTIL you are told to do so. Unless told otherwise you are to land and get the airplane past the hold-short line. Then you must wait for instruction. One cannot technically switch to ground until tower has told them to do so. This is one of the most common issues I see in flight reviews and checkouts.
Click to expand...

I was taught that you should change to ground once clear of the hold short line, just like you would change from Ground to Tower without a handoff when holding short for takeoff.

I just looked it up in the AIM and indeed you're right, I should wait for tower instructions before switching. Thanks!

In practice most of the time I get either "Taxi to parking, this frequency" or "Taxi to parking, monitor ground" as soon as I'm clear.
 
Often times I'll get "switch to my freq .7 when clear of the runway"; that's when the "crossing the hold short line" rule applies.
 
Only once did it happen but I sat on the taxiway for a little bit before asking for a handover.

Got a "whoops" reply from tower and a taxi instruction from him.
 
Henning said:
Often times I'll get "switch to my freq .7 when clear of the runway"; that's when the "crossing the hold short line" rule applies.
Click to expand...

"Switch to my freq .7" indicates tower and ground control are being worked by the same controller. Why have aircraft switch at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top