"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I'm based at Paine. It does have its quiet moments, but I wouldn't want
to
sit on the runway for any extended period of time, not as a general rule.
You don't say what kind of airplane you were in, or what the nature of the
flight was. I assume that since you say you backtracked on the runway,
the
airplane must've been pretty small. I personally would not have accepted
the offer to backtrack on the runway, not at Paine. Your experience is a
good example of a scenario that may or may not be entirely safe.

(That said, I'm a bit surprised you needed to backtrack on the runway
anyway. Assuming you landed on the long runway, there should have been
plenty of room for a stop-and-go. If you landed on one of the shorter
ones,
the taxiway exits are close enough together that it's hardly a more
significant effort to taxi back on an actual taxiway. There's no
operational reason that justifies the reduction in safety to backtaxi on
any
runway at Paine).

It was a Seneca II. A collision would have required:

a) that a landing aircraft failed to obtain a clearance to land, and
b) that we failed to see a landing aircraft while backtracking, and
c) that the controller failed to see a landing aircraft, and
d) that the landing aircraft failed to see us, and
e) that we tried to occupy the same part of a 9000 x 150 ft runway at the
same time.

It seemed like a good bet.

The bottom line IMHO is that as the pilot, it's hard to know for sure
whether current circumstances allow one to safely remain on the runway for
extended periods of time, and controllers are falliable. Aviation safety
is
predicated on the idea that one makes every effort to avoid potentially
serious situations, even if those situations rarely result in a problem.

Given the uncertainties in estimating risks, I usually hesitate to argue
relative safety. But I have to say that if you think it's safer to give up
3000 ft of a 9000 ft runway in a light twin than to backtrack on a runway
with the controller's authorization, you either have negligible faith in the
abilities of ATC or remarkable faith in the workmanship of TCM.

In any case, I would certainly never say that one should never wait on the
runway, but one ought to only do so when one has VERY good information
with
respect to what aircraft are actually in the area, a reasonable idea of
how
long the wait will be, and a good escape plan in case the wait goes longer
than expected. And one should do it only when there's a really good
reason
for doing so (i.e. some benefit that justifies the risk).

Furthermore (and more relevant to your original comment) I can *easily*
see
why there's such a strong aversion to this sort of thing. It's rarely an
operational necessity, and when it is, it should still only be undertaken
with the same (presumably high degree of) caution used in other areas of
flight. The aversion is quite understandable IMHO.

Isn't the next logical step to outlaw position-and-hold? Why would you ever
occupy the runway without a clearance to take off?

Julian Scarfe