Interesting RJ and Independence Air Commentary by Mike Boyd - Again...

[j41driver]

Once you pass a taxiway, you need an ATC clearance to execute a reverse or 180 on the runway. If she just said "Cleared to land 1L" then you are not authorized to use the reverse. She doesn't have to specify "don't use the reverse high speed..." But I know who you mean she is a bitch!!!

We do it every day at CVG and nobody says a word about it. Any ATC folks have the reference that says we need a special clearance to exit at a reverse high speed taxi way??

 

[rubberducky]

We do it every day at CVG and nobody says a word about it. Any ATC folks have the reference that says we need a special clearance to exit at a reverse high speed taxi way??

Just cause you do it every day doesn't mean that its correct. See above for reference or AIM 4-3-20.

 

[rptrain]

You make my point for me. Anyway I asked IAD Tower this exact question about the reverse issue. They told me that "if you turn past 90 degrees on the runway to clear that is considered reversing course and therefore you need permission". I KNOW IAD Tower can't be wrong....riiigghtt

Poppycock. Another case of IAD controllers being completely out of touch with reality. I can prove geometrically that an aircraft did not "reverse course on the runway" by exiting on a high-speed. The AIM is not regulatory anyway, so it's not like they can violate you by using this paragraph. Unless you purposefully disregard an instructon from them NOT to use the reverse, they can cry to you about it but the argument has no teeth.

link to a discussion about this issue (note: conclusion is that unless SPECIFICALLY prohibited, via published or verbal instructions, it's not an unauthorized maneuver)
http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/msgs/9929.html

sorry to obsess so much, but IAD pisses me off.

 

[rubberducky]

Poppycock. Another case of IAD controllers being completely out of touch with reality. I can prove geometrically that an aircraft did not "reverse course on the runway" by exiting on a high-speed. The AIM is not regulatory anyway, so it's not like they can violate you by using this paragraph. Unless you purposefully disregard an instructon from them NOT to use the reverse, they can cry to you about it but the argument has no teeth.

link to a discussion about this issue (note: conclusion is that unless SPECIFICALLY prohibited, via published or verbal instructions, it's not an unauthorized maneuver)
http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/msgs/9929.html

sorry to obsess so much, but IAD pisses me off.

First off, I agree that IAD sucks. And I also agree that the AIM is not regulatory. But let’s look at this realistically. Lets say you make the reverse without IAD specifically saying you can (whether it’s required or not), and something happens to your aircraft. Any number of things in this scenario could cause an accident or incident (i.e., another plane on the parallel runs into you for example). Do you really think that the FAA wouldn't violate you for failure to comply with an ATC clearance? It’s happened before. They would simply find a part that this could fall under. Reckless operation comes to mind

 

[rptrain]

First off, I agree that IAD sucks. And I also agree that the AIM is not regulatory. But let’s look at this realistically. Lets say you make the reverse without IAD specifically saying you can (whether it’s required or not), and something happens to your aircraft. Any number of things in this scenario could cause an accident or incident (i.e., another plane on the parallel runs into you for example). Do you really think that the FAA wouldn't violate you for failure to comply with an ATC clearance? It’s happened before. They would simply find a part that this could fall under. Reckless operation comes to mind

You're really grasping at straws now. "Any number of things" could go wrong if you take the reverse highspeed??? YGTBSM. Dude, if you can't make a 135 degree turn without breaking something or hurting someone, you have no business piloting any airplane whatsoever. Don't expand the scope of the discussion just to rationalize it. I didn't say "blindly come whipping around the reverse highspeed without any regard for what might be in your way." That's quite obviously reckless, just as ignoring an ATC instruction would be. Yet there's no reasonable way to argue that the basic maneuver of exiting on a reverse highspeed, in and of itself, in the absence of a specific prohibition, is unauthorized.

Also, I have little use for "it's happened before" as a reason not to do something (unless you can cite a specific example of someone being violated for this reason). The example you give is conflicting: first, I never advocated ignoring any sort of ATC clearance. Further, I wouldn't taxi the airplane in such a manner as to intentionally put it into the path of another aircraft. Finally, the AIM does say that the local controller shall issue instructions so as to prevent any potential conflicts. I get so tired of the "if something goes wrong" excuse. If something does go wrong, you're screwed anyway. So you drove the airplane into the jetbridge; better hope they don't find out you exited on the reverse highspeed.

Who started this "something-completely-unreleated-could-happen-so-i'm-not-going-to [use reduced thrust / depart from an intersection / land an RJ on a 6,000ft runway / fly an approach without an electronic glideslope / etc.] mentality? Flying airplanes is inherently unsafe. The only thing within your control is to manage the risk. If you're not confident in your ability to exit the runway safely on a reverse highspeed, then don't. But that doesn't mean that I can't.

i am looking at it realistically.