Narrative:

Landing was normal and turnoff was planned for (high speed) turnoff taxiway 25. As the captain slowed to taxi speed, he elected to turn to taxiway 29 -- it appeared to be equally expeditious in clearing the runway and would reduce taxi distance and time. During this time, 1 aircraft was cleared into position and hold, with another on 6 mi final. 1/2 way through the turn, the first officer directed the captain to use runway 25 and not runway 29. At that moment, tower directed us not to taxi on runway 29. When told -- 'unable' we were too far into the turn -- tower held air carrier X in place for about 30 seconds. Our tail obstructed the runway, takeoff clearance for the position and hold jet was canceled. The one on final went around. After the wait, tower cleared us to taxi to parking via runway 29 and told us to contact ground. Ground advised us that we had caused a 40 second delay in sequencing, a go around, and that they were filing a safety report. We were admonished not to use any taxiway but a high speed in the future. Compulsory runway leaving procedures are not annotated, mentioned, etc, on commercial airport diagram 20-9, but rather -- for runway 10 -- on diagram 20-9C. This annotation would bring these procedures to anyone looking at the overall airport diagram, rather than the specific runway page. Had the time spent holding in place (blocking the runway) been used instead for taxiing, it's my feeling we would not have delayed the sequenced traffic and impacted the traffic flow.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF AN MD11 CARGO ACFT USED AN UNAUTH TXWY WHEN TAXIING FROM THE RWY AFTER LNDG AT CDG, FO, ARPT RESULTING IN TWR CANCELING TKOF CLRNC FOR 1 ACFT AND SENDING ANOTHER ACFT ON FINAL AROUND.

Narrative: LNDG WAS NORMAL AND TURNOFF WAS PLANNED FOR (HIGH SPD) TURNOFF TXWY 25. AS THE CAPT SLOWED TO TAXI SPD, HE ELECTED TO TURN TO TXWY 29 -- IT APPEARED TO BE EQUALLY EXPEDITIOUS IN CLRING THE RWY AND WOULD REDUCE TAXI DISTANCE AND TIME. DURING THIS TIME, 1 ACFT WAS CLRED INTO POS AND HOLD, WITH ANOTHER ON 6 MI FINAL. 1/2 WAY THROUGH THE TURN, THE FO DIRECTED THE CAPT TO USE RWY 25 AND NOT RWY 29. AT THAT MOMENT, TWR DIRECTED US NOT TO TAXI ON RWY 29. WHEN TOLD -- 'UNABLE' WE WERE TOO FAR INTO THE TURN -- TWR HELD ACR X IN PLACE FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS. OUR TAIL OBSTRUCTED THE RWY, TKOF CLRNC FOR THE POS AND HOLD JET WAS CANCELED. THE ONE ON FINAL WENT AROUND. AFTER THE WAIT, TWR CLRED US TO TAXI TO PARKING VIA RWY 29 AND TOLD US TO CONTACT GND. GND ADVISED US THAT WE HAD CAUSED A 40 SECOND DELAY IN SEQUENCING, A GAR, AND THAT THEY WERE FILING A SAFETY RPT. WE WERE ADMONISHED NOT TO USE ANY TXWY BUT A HIGH SPD IN THE FUTURE. COMPULSORY RWY LEAVING PROCS ARE NOT ANNOTATED, MENTIONED, ETC, ON COMMERCIAL ARPT DIAGRAM 20-9, BUT RATHER -- FOR RWY 10 -- ON DIAGRAM 20-9C. THIS ANNOTATION WOULD BRING THESE PROCS TO ANYONE LOOKING AT THE OVERALL ARPT DIAGRAM, RATHER THAN THE SPECIFIC RWY PAGE. HAD THE TIME SPENT HOLDING IN PLACE (BLOCKING THE RWY) BEEN USED INSTEAD FOR TAXIING, IT'S MY FEELING WE WOULD NOT HAVE DELAYED THE SEQUENCED TFC AND IMPACTED THE TFC FLOW.

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.