I just think he want to impress that bored passenger around 
Airborne_Again wrote:
The parallel taxiway was also the taxiway for departures from the runway. If he simply took the first exit he could have blocked the taxiway for a departure
He probably should have vacated at his most convenient taxiway of his choice and waited for his taxi instruction?
I had the impression ATC don’t like to give taxi instructions or how to vacate the runway, except for a speed exit probably?
When I cross roads on a red light I know that legally I have priority over vehicles but I do have doubts when a 20T truck is makes plenty of use of his 30mph speed, distance and breaking limits
Airborne_Again wrote:
That would depend on the situation.
Not in the US. The rule is clear.
And in your diagram, you appear to be able to exit the runway without blocking the parallel taxiway. You cross the hold short line and wait until given a taxi clearance.
Dimme wrote:
You don’t clear a plane to land on a runway while the intersecting one is in use
You can hear the tower say one F-16 was on 3 miles final on 25 when he landed. It landed when he reached the intersection a minute or two later. Rather odd he didn’t anticipate it. Too pre-occupied being irritated maybe? He called the tower three times before they answered.
He had clearance to land, no instruction to go around was given, no restriction to land short was given, and he was specifically told that there is no conficting traffic. He had every right to use the full length of the runway, yet F16s were crossing an active runway!
He anticipated it very well and held short.
Seem to me that the controller was a little pre-occupied with the Jet traffic.
This whole thing is a little 50/50.
In the UK they would probably deny an ATZ entry until the jets were done, but the controller in my opinion gave him the respect and credit, that as a capable Pilot, he could happily use judgement and integrate, using rwy 35.
I’d have been pleased with that, and I’d like to think my airmanship would have had me off at the 1st exit to clear for anyone behind me.
If I’d not make it, definitely the next.
I’d then position for an appropriate taxi instruction request, where I detail, where I’d like to go.
Not sure I’d ruffle ATC by posting the video in that ‘tone’.
Wonder how long his next departure clearance will take when they see this? :-)
JasonC wrote:
And in your diagram, you appear to be able to exit the runway without blocking the parallel taxiway. You cross the hold short line and wait until given a taxi clearance.
How can you exit the runway at “B” without blocking departures taxying southwards on “A” as the only way to enter the runway is also at “B”!? Note that the apparent continuation of “A” south of “B” is not a taxiway — no taxi line on the chart.
GA_Pete wrote:
the controller in my opinion gave him the respect and credit, that as a capable Pilot, he could happily use judgement and integrate, using rwy 35.
It was a controlled airport! It’s not up to the pilot to “use judgement and integrate” unless (s)he has been told to maintain own separation or something similar. There is no doubt I would have filed a MOR if this has happened to me. What if (as Dimme has already pointed out) the pilot had to go around?
You miss the point AA. Everyone here is of the opinion that the tower could and should pay more attention to him. But, this is the reason he should act more like an “airman” and less like a jerk.
Besides, these are F-16s, perfectly able to maneuver if he should do a go-around. They are not scheduled 747s tunnelling in, and neither is a small Cessna.
What a boring video. Not sure why he even bothered posting it. Certainly doesn’t make him look good.
From the bible *cough I mean Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) it says:
So the pilot should have exited at the first available. It seems like he was familiar with the airport and was expecting/hoping for “continue down to A (or B), taxi to …” as he even increases power while approaching D taxiway. This definitely doesn’t go along with the AIMs requirements and I agree this is bad airmanship.
I have to say though I don’t understand why anyone would be downplaying the controllers much greater mistake here. Think about if he had gone around or if he was carrying too much speed and landed long or just chose to land long (which he had every right to do). He could have chosen to land right on the point where 34 and 25 intersect if he so chose (with only 1000 ft remaining) and had been legal. Not giving him a LAHSO clearance or directing him to make a 360 so the f16 had did it’s touch and go could have ended in disaster.
