Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by rbridges, Apr 25, 2021.
Somewhere in the thread, leaving the paved surface was mentioned.
Back taxiing to exit is making way. Are you being purposely dense?
show me the regulation that explicitly prohibits a back taxi or STFU and quit making your own **** up.
DPE asks this:
If you blow a tire on roll out are those idiots going to say you are in violation as well because you aren't getting off as soon as they think you should?
You're misrepresenting the scenario. He did take the alternate taxiway, but only because he was forced to do so by the landing aircraft, which is an explicit violation.
Agree, it says nothing about entering the grass and such specifics are unnecessary. The reg clearly specifies being forced to leave the runway surface. Whether you take an alternate taxiway exit, roll into the grass, etc. is irrelevant. Landing aircraft are prohibited from forcing you to leave the runway surface. The exception you're referring to in fact prohibits exactly what the landing aircraft did, not what the aircraft attempting to make way did. Note also there are no qualifications on the expedience or method of the attempt to vacate.
No one is attempting to tell YOU what YOU can or should do with your aircraft. If a controller or another pilot told you to do something which violates or compromises your ops procedures, your response should be "unable." The fact that you're flying a Lear and need the entire length has no relevance to a Cub landing on brick one of a 5000 foot runway with a Cirrus doing a taxiing 180 on the same runway at the opposite end.
You're still attempting to make way, you're just not being very successful The reg says nothing about the method used in the attempt, whether it's a fast taxi to the end, taking the next exit after you missed your preferred, back taxi to your preferred, or via tow truck. The method is irrelevant, it need only be an attempt to make way and there is no restriction on the time to do so.
There is a matter of courtesy of course
What was that AC that came out about a year ago? The one that was going to clear up all the problems at uncontrolled airports. Did it talk about getting off the runway?
6 pages and I'm still not sure how edfred and larry in TN actually feel about this topic. Could you two be more clear with your opinions?
And what if there is a molehill on the taxi way? Who has right away, the back taxi-er, the landing aircraft, jet guy in bend, or the mole?
No reason to be rude. I haven't called you any names.
If you bypass an available runway exit, even if it's not the one that you'd prefer to take, and it results in another airplane having to go-around then you haven't complied with the right-of-way requirements under 91.113.
Since the OP was able to clear the runway before the landing traffic arrived, he was required to do so regardless of what the CFI did or didn't say.
Unwarranted extrapolation, ad hominem, and appeal to authority fallacies.
Is it a boy mole or a girl mole?
And you still haven't provided a reference for your opinion. That's all it is... your opinion. Not regulation it's not even guidance you're just making stuff up and adding extra wording to the regulation that isn't there. yet you keep making it as a statement of fact I'm still waiting for your reference that says Back Taxi is not allowed.
basically what you are saying is ANY taxiway I pass puts me in violation of 113. But you have yet to provide anything to back that up. You keep quoting 113 but what you are saying DOES NOT EXIST.
And don't give me the appeal to Authority. You're using your position as an airline pilot to make us believe everything you say is regulation but you have yet to actually show the documentation.
Provide. The. Regulation. Without. Your. Added. Opinion.
Well that’s not quite the context in which my post was meant, but you can be certain we will behave and adhere to our policy.
You're adding an expedience requirement that does not exist. If the landing aircraft needs to go around, then that's precisely what they need to do and why we are trained to do it. If I leave the runway surface earlier than I intended, as a matter of courtesy, then I'm just being a nice guy and the landing traffic is happy they don't have to go around as a result of their poor planning. If the landing aircraft says "get off the runway now, I'm landing", as in this exact OP scenario, then the landing aircraft is in violation for forcing me off the runway.
As soon as you're able to move past this notion of implied expediency, you'll notice that the reg says nothing whatsoever about HOW you attempt to make way or how QUICKLY you do so. You're reading text that does not exist (whether it's a matter of courtesy is not the current topic, only what the reg says and requires).
I have. 91.113. The aircraft on Final has the right-of-way over aircraft taxing on the surface. That means that the aircraft on the runway has to yield the right-of-way if he is able to do so. That's what right-of-way means.
I've additionally posted the guidance from the AIM, though that's been quite a few posts ago by now, which indicates that the pilot should exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway (4-3-20. a.).
I have never said that a back-taxi is not allowed. I have said that the airplane that has landed must yield the right-of-way to the aircraft on Final per 91.113. 91.113 does not give back-taxing aircraft the right-of-way over aircraft on Final.
No. I'm saying that failing to yield the right-of-way puts you in violation of 91.113. If you can't yield, then you can't yield and there's no violation. If you have the ability to yield, as did the OP, then you must yield.
I have not based any of my arguments on my profession, ratings, or experience. I haven't even mentioned them. My arguments have all been referenced to the regulations and AIM.
The reg explicitly does NOT say that. You're distorting the one exception to landing traffic's right-of-way so that it isn't an exception at all. Based on your interpretation, that exception could be deleted. Thankfully that exception exists, and I don't need to risk my own safety rushing to get out of your way. As long as I'm attempting to make way, I have the right-of-way, as explicitly specified in the reg, and you MUST go around. If you force me to leave the runway surface, then YOU violated the reg. I'm glad that exception exists, are you sure you aren't?
That's fine, and personally I believe it is good guidance, however you're merging this AIM guidance with the FAR regulation. This is your own alteration, thus beware that it puts you at risk of a violation. Read my post here, what you describe is the second sentence example.
Click to see Post #192
The inserted text simply does not exist, no matter how much you will it so. It's clear we can't make you unsee something that isn't there, so I bid you safe journeys.
I believe that you believe that, but the reg is quite clear and it says nothing whatsoever about the urgency of an aircraft "attempting to make way" to do so. It simply doesn't. In fact it deliberately prohibits the approaching aircraft from creating that specific scenario. Thankfully it does, too, because it would be a nightmare if we had to do that.
You cannot misquote a regulation, or add extraneous language to it and then claim that as your reference. You completely ignore the the exception in the regulation. Where is this regulation that says you have to almost immediately disappear from the runway? Should != must. And first available does not mean the first one. Now I see why you misunderstand the regulation. You're confusing the definition of words, and ignoring the exception.
I didn't say that rushing was required? The FAA's wording is "without delay". If you are bypassing available runway exists while back-taxiing then you aren't exiting the runway without delay.
From the Flight Information Publication Policy section of the AIM (Pre-chapter 1):
This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities required by other publications.
Regulations don't go into multiple examples or discussion about how they are to be applied. That's why the FAA publishes guidance in the AIM, ACs, and other publications.
I never said urgency was required. Taking an available runway exit is not urgency. The regulation does not require urgency.
The regulation says that aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface. If an airplane that is back-taxiing can bypass available runway turnoffs, resulting in another aircraft going-around, then what does that regulation mean? Your interpretation gives the right-of-way to the back-taxiing aircraft.
It seems to me that this thread makes it obvious that there's room for interpretation in applying the phrase "attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach" to specific situations. That's one reason why I try to avoid insisting on right-of-way. (This applies to pattern right-of-way too.)
If for some strange reason @Larry in TN is correct in his interpretation I have a **** load of reports to submit for the times I rolled past an available taxiway.
Hell, half the time at Meacham I didn't touch the brakes before taxiway B1 because I knew I'd be rolling to C. If asked to expedite I'd go B1 or B2, but that was a rarity.
So... I may lose my certificate (or license?) since I am noncompliant with first available exit so regularly.
Fortunately (for me) there is no such regulation. I can live to fly another day.
When is a landing concluded? I submit, the landing phase is over when the aircraft has left the landing surface. He owns the runway until he exits the runway. He is the landing aircraft and is lower than the aircraft on final and he has right of way. When he exits the runway he becomes a ground vehicle and has to give way to aircraft landing. I don't have to expedite anything if it would make me feel rushed or miss a checklist item. I wait until I'm off the runway to accomplish the AFTER LANDING Checklist because until then, I'm still in the landing phase, That's how I interpret the regulations and guidance in the AIM.
If the OP is back taxiing all the way down the runway to taxiway C where he wants to go so he can get to his hangar, instead of exiting the runway at taxiway B temporarily for the approaching plane, is he really attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach or is he just trying to get where he wants to go first without regard to the approaching plane? If it is the second, then I would say that he is not attempting to make way for the aircraft on final approach. In that case would he not be in violation of 91.113? If this went to court, I would guess the question would arise about the intent of the pilot on the runway. If his intent was truly to make way for an aircraft on final approach, he could easily get out of the incoming planes way by exiting at taxiway B temporarily. I mean he had already come to a stop and turned around. He was in taxi mode. The without delay is really a moot point, based on his intent. Regardless, I still think the CFI was a d***. His N number probably should have ended in Delta Hotel.
Ok fine, I'll bite for one more
When you claim that bypassing available exits is a FAR violation for failure to yield to approaching traffic, you are indeed stating that urgency / rushing is required. To take it further, you're forcing that aircraft to take potentially useless exits that don't connect to their destination, therefore you are in fact forcing that aircraft to leave the runway surface. You just violated the FAR regulation.
No argument there, and in this example the guidance to exit at the first opportunity is, IMHO, good advice. However, it's in the AIM and is not part of the FAR. The fundamental disagreement here is your insistence that the two shall be merged. That's your prerogative, but it's incorrect and it does put you (and potentially others) at risk.
I am SO glad to hear you say that
We were so close!! Regrettably you left out the one and only exception to what you described. I agree with everything you said right up until that omission. The landing traffic's one and only right-of-way exception is that it CANNOT force an aircraft that is "attempting to make way" to leave the runway surface. No if's, ands, or buts. Like it or not, as you stated there is no requirement for urgency while making way and if that aircraft passes up opportunities that might be considered rude, or bad form, but it is their right to do so. If that messes up your approach then you need to go around. If you force the issue instead, as in this scenario, that is a violation.
And I'll say it again, thank goodness that exception exists because the alternative is seriously disturbing.
FWIW this specific OP scenario could not be a more perfect example of an approaching aircraft forcing another aircraft off the runway. We're just going to need to agree to disagree on this. Meanwhile I'll hope instead that we're simply misunderstanding each other and you're just mixing good practice with regulation. Take care.
Darn it. My copy of the FARs must be faulty because they don't include the words "without delay" or "first available".
Or are you adding meaning? The question isn't what is nice, it's what is required.
Regardless, if someone is still on the runway after landing, you're not going to land on top of them. At least I hope you aren't.
Well he's certainly not attempting to depart, so what would you call it? You might call it rude, but yes he is still attempting to make way and there is no restriction on how he does it or how quickly that happens.
Noble intent won't even get you out of a traffic ticket. He was not attempting to depart, he was attempting to make way for the approaching traffic by exiting at the only exit that accesses his hangar (thereby avoiding further risk and delay with a second unnecessary visit to the runway to yet again attempt to make way). No matter how many steps he takes to get to his required exit, every effort is an attempt to make way. Thankfully the reg specifically gives you the authority to make that decision for yourself and exit when and where you feel it is safest to do so. First opportunity is recommended, but you get to decide if that's the safest choice. Also thankfully we're taught to go around when our approach planning goes south, no matter the reason.
Totally agree with the last part, and regret that a student was exposed to that. Everyone can learn though, so hopefully that CFI will make corrections going forward. Cooler heads prevailed this day.
Is that really what you think I'm saying? Read what Piper180 had to say. He said the same thing as me but in a different way.
My comments are all in the context of the original post. A situation where there was an available taxiway that the landed airplane could, and did, use to clear the runway for the landing aircraft. That is how it is supposed to work.
There is no reg which says you have to clear at the first available taxiway. There is a reg which says that an airplane on the surface must yield the right-of-way to a landing aircraft. Do you see the difference in the two situations? (Rolling past exits on landing roll with no traffic conflict and unnecessarily remaining on the runway forcing a go-around)
Once an airplane has slowed to the point that a 180 can be made and a back-taxi has begun, I would say that the landing phase has ended and the taxiing phase has started.
If you taxi past available exits, and that results in a go-around, you were not attempting to make way. You were ignoring the traffic on Final and forcing him into a go-around. That is not yielding the right-of-way.
Gee, I thought this would settle it about 195 posts ago:
I think "runway surface" means the pavement or maintained surface. I've seen pilots try to get off the runway into the grass to accommodate an aircraft on final only to get stuck in the mud half on and half off the runway, thus closing the airport.
I also think we always should assume the plane on final NEEDS to land. Or may meet an untimely fate if necessary to go around. Therefore, I side with Larry from TN. The OP should have beat feet it off the runway onto a taxiway ASAP and the plane on final should have asked him nicely if there was any doubt about it.
I was with you until this point, as that's one heck of an assumption. If you're going down that path then the CFI made yet another mistake by failing to declare an emergency.
Also be careful not to mix "surface traffic" with aircraft that has just landed and is "attempting to make way". I see that is also tripping some folks. The reg deliberately mentions the two because they are distinctly different cases and need to be addressed separately. One is off the runway and about to enter, and the other just landed on the runway and is attempting to exit whenever and wherever they feel safest to do so.
Could've needed a bathroom, just sayin'..
This debate is very good and all, but what I'm hoping to learn is why is the OP's runway 4,999 feet long? I mean, who took that last foot?
What if there were crossing runways, and the first plane landed on runway 4 and was back taxing on it because there was no taxiway for runway 4 and he was coming up to runway 13 at an uncontrolled airport while there was a plane trying to landing on runway 13. The first plane was on his way to the hangar and he did not want to delay his taxi, so he just went ahead and pulled out onto runway 13, forcing the incoming plane to go around. Is this legal? I mean, he did it because he didn't want any undue delay in his taxi, just like he didn't want any undue delay in his taxi in this threads scenario. In both cases, he could have easily chosen to give the incoming plane the right of way, but he decided that he didn't want to wait anywhere along his taxi route. Just like the first scenario, the incoming plane had the right of way, but the plane that had landed was not done taxiing, and he didn't want to pull over, giving the right of way to the landing plane. Talk amongst yourselves. discuss....
Larry's attempted point is refuted by the simple fact that the term "shall [action] as soon as practicable" is used 3 times in part 91, and none of those occurrences are in 91.113. If the FAA were to intent to take Larry's position, they would have incorporated that term. Since they haven't you are not required to use the taxiway of Larry's choosing, but of YOUR choosing.
But the rule does allow the pilot on final approach to force the other plane off the runway if it isn't making way for it to land, i.e., moving out of its way. If the taxiing plane chooses to be in the way, the one on final CAN force it off (which he did). IMO.
The rule says shall NOT force an aircraft off the runway...
Can you provide an example of this? I ask because surely you’re not referring to the OP scenario where he was making a beeline for the only exit of any use to him in an attempt to make way. He just wasn’t doing it to the satisfaction of the approaching CFI who likely realized he failed to leave enough room.
He can, as this CFI did, but it’s still a violation.
It's logical that if the back-taxiing airplane isn't trying to "make way", i.e., letting the other plane pass/land, then the plane with the right of way isn't illegal if it "forces" the back-taxiing airplane off the runway. Only if the back-taxiing plane is trying to move out of the way is it illegal to "force". The OP wasn't trying to move out of the way, he was trying to get to his hangar, so he got forced.
Once again I’ll point out that there is no requirement for expediency or method, only an attempt to make way. He was heading directly for an exit in an attempt to vacate the runway, so what is that if not an attempt to make way? You’re determined to merge AIM guidance with FAR requirement and treating the conglomeration as regulatory. This is false.
the mole is a non-binary republican imigrant of catholic faith from a broken home with a trust fund who suffers from affluenza. Can the mole log his time on the taxi way as PIC?
Reminds me of the story about the contractors that paved the runways at KNLC quite a few years ago. Duals were supposed to be ~13k' x 200'. But then the company only paved them 199' wide in actuality and pocketed the difference in savings without actually telling anyone they were not 200' wide. Then they ended up in federal pound me in the *** prison. Of course you can save a lot of money in that case, probably not so much in the other dimension
What the OP did is fine. I would have done the same given an arrogant CFI not willing or caring to teach his/her student a bit about go arounds while collecting some extra $$$
If that exit had been blocked due to construction my reply would have been unable... you need to go around. If it truly was an emergency then declare and we can let the insurance companies work out any damage to my aircraft if I’m forced into an unsafe situation.
so, do you pull off on the first taxiway every time you land, even if it’s a dead end, or is in the wrong side of the field from where you are going?
most people wouldn’t consider a closed taxiway “available”