Narrative:

Our aircraft call sign was air carrier X. Our flight was from roc to pit with an arrival time of XX38. We landed on runway 28R. We were taxiing on taxiway B eastbound between txwys B4 and B3 when we noticed a beech 1900 commuter clearing runway 28R on a reverse high speed taxiway (B3). The beech stopped between the runway white solid side line and taxiway B3 yellow runway hold lines. We notice a DC9 rolling for takeoff on runway 28R. We gave way on taxiway B so the commuter could clear the runway and announced to ATC ground that 'the commuter had not cleared the runway and we were giving way.' ground acknowledged that he knew the beech was on taxiway B3, but stated he was clear of runway 28R. I stated on the air that 'the beech is not clear of runway 28R' (I was an airplane width away). I talked to the ground supervisor once I was at the gate by land line and was not satisfied with his comments. He said 6 controllers considered the beech clear of runway 28R. He also stated to me that ATC considered an aircraft clear of an active runway once the tail of the aircraft clears the white line along the side of the runway. He also threatened me with an ATC violation for giving way to the beechcraft and stated I was told to continue taxiing. I told him I have been flying 29 yrs and never heard this about the white line. I questioned him about the yellow lines which designate the runway safety area/obstruction free zone. I told him that I and every other aviator considered that the yellow lines must be crossed before an aircraft is considered clear of the runway. He continued to disagree with me. We have a potential accident waiting to happen if a larger (heavy) type aircraft at night and limited visibility should be in the same position as the DC9 which rotated where the beech was located not more than 75 ft away on the runway side line. Supplemental information from acn 378434: while there was adequate clearance between the 2 aircraft, had the DC9 instead been a widebody transport aircraft with a wide wing span hanging over the sides of the runway, a clearance problem could have existed. He claimed that we had caused the conflict because we had stopped our taxi when the beech was clearing on taxiway B3 and heading for us on taxiway B. He implied that the beech would have been safely across the hold short line prior to the DC9 rotation had we not stopped. I found this explanation ludicrous and without merit as we only stopped when it appeared that a conflict was developing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATCT LCL CTLR CLRED A DC9 FOR TKOF ON RWY 28R AFTER A BE02 CLRED THE RWY ON A REVERSE HIGH SPD TXWY. AN ACR CAPT TAXIING HIS ACFT ON TXWY B DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE BE02 WAS LEGALLY CLR OF THE RWY WHEN THE DC9 TOOK OFF AND STATED SO ON THE AIR. LATER DISCUSSION WITH ATC SUPVR DID NOT SATISFY THE ACR CAPT.

Narrative: OUR ACFT CALL SIGN WAS ACR X. OUR FLT WAS FROM ROC TO PIT WITH AN ARR TIME OF XX38. WE LANDED ON RWY 28R. WE WERE TAXIING ON TXWY B EBOUND BTWN TXWYS B4 AND B3 WHEN WE NOTICED A BEECH 1900 COMMUTER CLRING RWY 28R ON A REVERSE HIGH SPD TXWY (B3). THE BEECH STOPPED BTWN THE RWY WHITE SOLID SIDE LINE AND TXWY B3 YELLOW RWY HOLD LINES. WE NOTICE A DC9 ROLLING FOR TKOF ON RWY 28R. WE GAVE WAY ON TXWY B SO THE COMMUTER COULD CLR THE RWY AND ANNOUNCED TO ATC GND THAT 'THE COMMUTER HAD NOT CLRED THE RWY AND WE WERE GIVING WAY.' GND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE KNEW THE BEECH WAS ON TXWY B3, BUT STATED HE WAS CLR OF RWY 28R. I STATED ON THE AIR THAT 'THE BEECH IS NOT CLR OF RWY 28R' (I WAS AN AIRPLANE WIDTH AWAY). I TALKED TO THE GND SUPVR ONCE I WAS AT THE GATE BY LAND LINE AND WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH HIS COMMENTS. HE SAID 6 CTLRS CONSIDERED THE BEECH CLR OF RWY 28R. HE ALSO STATED TO ME THAT ATC CONSIDERED AN ACFT CLR OF AN ACTIVE RWY ONCE THE TAIL OF THE ACFT CLRS THE WHITE LINE ALONG THE SIDE OF THE RWY. HE ALSO THREATENED ME WITH AN ATC VIOLATION FOR GIVING WAY TO THE BEECHCRAFT AND STATED I WAS TOLD TO CONTINUE TAXIING. I TOLD HIM I HAVE BEEN FLYING 29 YRS AND NEVER HEARD THIS ABOUT THE WHITE LINE. I QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT THE YELLOW LINES WHICH DESIGNATE THE RWY SAFETY AREA/OBSTRUCTION FREE ZONE. I TOLD HIM THAT I AND EVERY OTHER AVIATOR CONSIDERED THAT THE YELLOW LINES MUST BE CROSSED BEFORE AN ACFT IS CONSIDERED CLR OF THE RWY. HE CONTINUED TO DISAGREE WITH ME. WE HAVE A POTENTIAL ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN IF A LARGER (HVY) TYPE ACFT AT NIGHT AND LIMITED VISIBILITY SHOULD BE IN THE SAME POS AS THE DC9 WHICH ROTATED WHERE THE BEECH WAS LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 75 FT AWAY ON THE RWY SIDE LINE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 378434: WHILE THERE WAS ADEQUATE CLRNC BTWN THE 2 ACFT, HAD THE DC9 INSTEAD BEEN A WDB ACFT WITH A WIDE WING SPAN HANGING OVER THE SIDES OF THE RWY, A CLRNC PROB COULD HAVE EXISTED. HE CLAIMED THAT WE HAD CAUSED THE CONFLICT BECAUSE WE HAD STOPPED OUR TAXI WHEN THE BEECH WAS CLRING ON TXWY B3 AND HEADING FOR US ON TXWY B. HE IMPLIED THAT THE BEECH WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFELY ACROSS THE HOLD SHORT LINE PRIOR TO THE DC9 ROTATION HAD WE NOT STOPPED. I FOUND THIS EXPLANATION LUDICROUS AND WITHOUT MERIT AS WE ONLY STOPPED WHEN IT APPEARED THAT A CONFLICT WAS DEVELOPING.

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.