Narrative:

After landing runway 26 at yvr, the captain elected to turn off the runway onto intersecting runway 12/30. Tower was also using this runway, and had cleared a commuter turboprop to land. Tower pointed out our conflict and advised us we needed specific clearance to be on runway 30/12. We quickly cleared onto a taxiway, and the commuter continued his approach to landing. No discussion of the captain's intent to use the intersecting runway prior to his turn. Discussed it afterward, and I expressed concern we were probably in the wrong. The turnoff was made rather quickly before anyone else had a real opportunity to voice an opinion. Supplemental information from acn 267570: so obtained ATIS inbound, but neglected to inform the captain that intersecting runway operations were in progress: landing on runway 26 and also on intersecting runway 12. After landing, deceleration did not have us slow enough to take the intended exit off of runway 26. Instead of taxiing 3000 ft more to the end of the runway, the captain chose to exit onto runway 30, which was the wrong choice! The tower operator immediately requested that we clear runway 30, as he had traffic inbound to that runway. Captain erred by not following ATC section 4-12, paragraph 4.4.4, which states '...no aircraft should exit a runway onto another runway unless instructed or authority/authorized to do so by ATC.' had the so advised the captain that intersecting runway operations were in progress, it would have keyed the captain to not make the mistake that he did.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RWY INCURSION. UNAUTH RWY ENTRY.

Narrative: AFTER LNDG RWY 26 AT YVR, THE CAPT ELECTED TO TURN OFF THE RWY ONTO INTERSECTING RWY 12/30. TWR WAS ALSO USING THIS RWY, AND HAD CLRED A COMMUTER TURBOPROP TO LAND. TWR POINTED OUT OUR CONFLICT AND ADVISED US WE NEEDED SPECIFIC CLRNC TO BE ON RWY 30/12. WE QUICKLY CLRED ONTO A TXWY, AND THE COMMUTER CONTINUED HIS APCH TO LNDG. NO DISCUSSION OF THE CAPT'S INTENT TO USE THE INTERSECTING RWY PRIOR TO HIS TURN. DISCUSSED IT AFTERWARD, AND I EXPRESSED CONCERN WE WERE PROBABLY IN THE WRONG. THE TURNOFF WAS MADE RATHER QUICKLY BEFORE ANYONE ELSE HAD A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE AN OPINION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 267570: SO OBTAINED ATIS INBOUND, BUT NEGLECTED TO INFORM THE CAPT THAT INTERSECTING RWY OPS WERE IN PROGRESS: LNDG ON RWY 26 AND ALSO ON INTERSECTING RWY 12. AFTER LNDG, DECELERATION DID NOT HAVE US SLOW ENOUGH TO TAKE THE INTENDED EXIT OFF OF RWY 26. INSTEAD OF TAXIING 3000 FT MORE TO THE END OF THE RWY, THE CAPT CHOSE TO EXIT ONTO RWY 30, WHICH WAS THE WRONG CHOICE! THE TWR OPERATOR IMMEDIATELY REQUESTED THAT WE CLR RWY 30, AS HE HAD TFC INBOUND TO THAT RWY. CAPT ERRED BY NOT FOLLOWING ATC SECTION 4-12, PARAGRAPH 4.4.4, WHICH STATES '...NO ACFT SHOULD EXIT A RWY ONTO ANOTHER RWY UNLESS INSTRUCTED OR AUTH TO DO SO BY ATC.' HAD THE SO ADVISED THE CAPT THAT INTERSECTING RWY OPS WERE IN PROGRESS, IT WOULD HAVE KEYED THE CAPT TO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE THAT HE DID.

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.