Stickandrudderman wrote:
ATC should not presume anything on the part of either pilot and should CONTROL traffic so that safety is ensured
We don’t know everything here. It’s a tower after all, they could very well see him land and decelerate, and most probably did. Then they wondered why he suddenly appeared on the crossing to 25 when he knew to F-16s were coming. He was cleared to land, and that’s what he did. Then he continued taxi on the runway instead of taking the first taxiway. Even with no crossing runway, this is rather “unusual” behavior. It looks like he actually believes he got the entire runway to himself, even though he did land.
The error of the tower was they didn’t pay enough attention to him. In all fairness, the only reason they should pay attention (after they saw him land), was to look for weird behavior. A miss by the tower, yes, but from there to say he prevented a collision is a long step. It was him that caused the potential danger in the first place, and the tower failed to notice it and correct it, which they should.
I think he’s right to feel aggrieved, wrong to use his aggrievement to pamper his own ego.
ATC should not presume anything on the part of either pilot and should CONTROL traffic so that safety is ensured.
It cannot be disputed that there was the POTENTIAL for collision here and that potential was facilitated by the controller.
Should’ve, would’ve, could’ve has no place at a controlled airfield.
Cttime wrote:
I have to say though I don’t understand why anyone would be downplaying the controllers much greater mistake here….Not giving him a LAHSO clearance
I think they did a mistake not issuing a LAHSO but maybe they found those jets easier to plan/move around rather than asking the guy to vacate the runway? or they were planning to issue Go-Around or TAHSO (take-off and hold short) to F16s 
?
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.
What a boring video. Not sure why he even bothered posting it. Certainly doesn’t make him look good.
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.
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?
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.
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? :-)
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.
