Narrative:

We were cleared to land runway 24 with simultaneous approachs to runway 30L and 40R in progress. Runway 30L extends to but does not intersect 24 as does runway 30R. Our clearance was to land runway 24, hold short of runway 30L for arriving/departing traffic. We accepted this clearance after consulting appropriate performance charts. In fact, we were so light on our arrival weight that we had a relatively low approach bug speed. With the low speed, we were able to stop the aircraft well short of 30L. I do not recall being told by local controller to exit the runway at intersection P center field taxiway or not. In any case, we stopped well short of pappa. In fact, we turned off at the intersection of runway 24 and 30R, thinking that this was the taxiway. The controller either did not notice this or chose not to say anything to us. A heavy widebody transport was rolling out of its landing roll using the full length of the runway. It appeared to us that this aircraft was taxiing relatively fast (not realizing we were facing an oncoming widebody transport on its rollout after landing), so we held our position, our tail just clear of runway 24 and the nose not quite on runway 30R. There is 50' or so distance between the end of 40R and runway 24. There was no incident as a result of this. The problems, as I see it, is one of safety. We could not tell that we were on an active runway and not a taxiway until it was way too late. Suppose the widebody transport had to go around or couldn't stop in time for some reason. These intxns are not clearly marked for fast moving (rolling out) aircraft. And the controller was also to blame here. Tower should have seen us turning off and instructed us to continue downfield to taxiway papa. Let's make it safer to fly by starting from the ground up.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER LTT UNAUTH TXWY RWY ENTRY AFTER LNDG AT STL.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED TO LAND RWY 24 WITH SIMULTANEOUS APCHS TO RWY 30L AND 40R IN PROGRESS. RWY 30L EXTENDS TO BUT DOES NOT INTERSECT 24 AS DOES RWY 30R. OUR CLRNC WAS TO LAND RWY 24, HOLD SHORT OF RWY 30L FOR ARRIVING/DEPARTING TFC. WE ACCEPTED THIS CLRNC AFTER CONSULTING APPROPRIATE PERFORMANCE CHARTS. IN FACT, WE WERE SO LIGHT ON OUR ARR WT THAT WE HAD A RELATIVELY LOW APCH BUG SPD. WITH THE LOW SPD, WE WERE ABLE TO STOP THE ACFT WELL SHORT OF 30L. I DO NOT RECALL BEING TOLD BY LCL CTLR TO EXIT THE RWY AT INTXN P CENTER FIELD TXWY OR NOT. IN ANY CASE, WE STOPPED WELL SHORT OF PAPPA. IN FACT, WE TURNED OFF AT THE INTXN OF RWY 24 AND 30R, THINKING THAT THIS WAS THE TXWY. THE CTLR EITHER DID NOT NOTICE THIS OR CHOSE NOT TO SAY ANYTHING TO US. A HVY WDB WAS ROLLING OUT OF ITS LNDG ROLL USING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE RWY. IT APPEARED TO US THAT THIS ACFT WAS TAXIING RELATIVELY FAST (NOT REALIZING WE WERE FACING AN ONCOMING WDB ON ITS ROLLOUT AFTER LNDG), SO WE HELD OUR POS, OUR TAIL JUST CLR OF RWY 24 AND THE NOSE NOT QUITE ON RWY 30R. THERE IS 50' OR SO DISTANCE BTWN THE END OF 40R AND RWY 24. THERE WAS NO INCIDENT AS A RESULT OF THIS. THE PROBS, AS I SEE IT, IS ONE OF SAFETY. WE COULD NOT TELL THAT WE WERE ON AN ACTIVE RWY AND NOT A TXWY UNTIL IT WAS WAY TOO LATE. SUPPOSE THE WDB HAD TO GO AROUND OR COULDN'T STOP IN TIME FOR SOME REASON. THESE INTXNS ARE NOT CLEARLY MARKED FOR FAST MOVING (ROLLING OUT) ACFT. AND THE CTLR WAS ALSO TO BLAME HERE. TWR SHOULD HAVE SEEN US TURNING OFF AND INSTRUCTED US TO CONTINUE DOWNFIELD TO TXWY PAPA. LET'S MAKE IT SAFER TO FLY BY STARTING FROM THE GND UP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.