Look back at post #1. The situation is a back-taxing aircraft that has the choice of exiting on a taxiway that does not connect to his parking location to allow the landing aircraft to land or continuing past that available taxiway which will result in the other aircraft going-around.
What's silly is that if you take the AIM to mean what Larry in TN is, you'd have to exit every closed taxiway, and every other taxiway you come upon along the way, even if there is nobody else in the area.
Not what you rationalize. The landed plane has only to continue to the next exit (or runway end) straight ahead, no need for "maneuvering", if maneuverability is really a consideration, which it isn't. Making the runway available for someone else ASAP is the obvious intent of the AIM. You don't know for sure who or what might be right behind you or for what reason unless you are at a controlled field where the tower takes on the responsibility for you. You can at best make a guess, which isn't good enough.
Welcome to the argument!
The runway exit wasn't closed, the taxiway that connected that runway exit to the ramp on which he parks was closed.
Then why does the regulation say that aircraft on Final have the right-of-way over aircraft on the surface. You're saying that aircraft on the surface have the right-of-way over aircraft on Final.
It says no such thing. A closed taxiway is not an available taxiway. The OP said that there was an available taxiway, onto which he did temporarily exit, it just didn't connect to where he parks his airplane because of construction.
My understanding was the taxiway he exited on did not connect to anything. It was closed. He stated there was barely enough room to make a 180 to re-enter the runway. At least that’s what I thought I read. Perhaps the OP can clarify
Doesn’t change how silly it would be to pull off and do a 180 if there’s nobody around. And then pull off at taxiway B, because it’s the next “first available” taxiway, do another 180, and so on for every taxiway along the runway to your destination.
See the airport diagram earlier in the thread. The taxiway was open between A and B. He temporarily exited at B. (His ultimate destination was near C.)
No, he isn't. Per the reg he's saying the "aircraft attempting to make way" has right-of-way which is correct. Aircraft on the surface, such as those about to take the runway for departure, must yield to the approaching aircraft. The approaching aircraft must yield to the aircraft attempting to make way. You're still trying to apply an expedience or best practices constraint per the AIM, to negate the "attempt to make way" exception for approaching aircraft's right-of-way by converting that aircraft's status to "surface" if they don't meet your personal criteria. Per the reg only, no such limitation exists.
Correct and he was forced to do so by the approaching aircraft. It's clear you really dislike that "attempt to make way" exception, but it's there for good reason.
The dispute is whether "attempting to make way" means using the first available exit. (I don't have an opinion on that.)
I’ll take your word for it.
Makes sense to me. I just don't know what the FAA would say.
Nope, I checked here: Make way for someone - Idioms by The Free Dictionary
Minority in terms of what? Hours logged, airports landed at, years flown, licenses and ratings earned or people present?
Excellent, yet another resource reinforcing the absence of any time constraints.
This is why it's best to only fly out of airports without full-length taxiways. No one tells you to get off the runway while landing because there's nowhere to get off to!
I didn't mean to refer to just myself, rather the weight of the entire minority of which I'm merely one.
Oh you have time alright, up until the plane on final reaches you.Excellent, yet another resource reinforcing the absence of any time constraints.
The regulation as written is quite clear which one of these is correct. That was all the OP was asking.
This is incorrect and inconsistent with the regulation as written, which is specific to aircraft that has just landed and is attempting to make way. That aircraft is not "surface" traffic until it has exited the runway. Your OSH scenario is at a towered airport and there was no inconsistency there either.
And since we're just talking specifically what the regulation states, and not what I would do as a matter of practicality, it's clear that I still have the right-of-way and the plane on final must yield. Which means a whole lot of nothing in the heat of the moment, so I hope both make wise decisions.
It absolutely needs to identify the aircraft on final has right-of-way over surface traffic so that those about to enter the runway must yield. However you still need to give the plane that just landed an opportunity to identify, process, and decide on a safe exit from the runway. That's covered by the exception to the landing aircraft's right-of-way. As written it works quite well and makes sense. The alternate interpretation with implicit / unwritten requirements is nonsense.
Ok, I'll bite as well.
Agree with all that you wrote, but also consider that not all aircraft at untowered fields have a radio and some that have a radio may choose not to use it. See and avoid dominates and radio is complementary.
This is PoA, without molehills there wouldn't be mountains.
