Narrative:

Arriving mry, on short final, heard on tower frequency instructions for taxi given to aircraft #2. Aircraft #2 instructed to taxi on parallel taxiway to the actives (runways 28L/right). I will assume tower controling both ground and tower as I did not hear a reply to the taxi instructions. During rollout, I pointed out to the PIC in our plane, aircraft #2 taxiing on the parallel taxiway. I also pointed out that there was little space between the hold short bars and the taxiway. Also, I heard another jet call a 5 mi final. At this point, in my opinion, was the safety issue. There was no instruction by tower to us or aircraft #2 to resolve the foreseeable conflict of us (aircraft #1) exiting the runway and blocking and/or colliding with aircraft #2 taxiing on the parallel taxiway. As we slowed and approached the connecting taxiway that connects the actives with the parallel taxiway, the PIC and I already decided to hold inside (ie, still on the active) the hold bars, to give clearance for aircraft #2 to pass. As we turned, tower instructed us (aircraft #1) to exit on that taxiway. Too bad aircraft #2 didn't hear nor could possibly have known or expected us to remain on the active instead of exiting onto the parallel taxiway. Therefore, aircraft #2, as a precaution, made a hard stop short of the intersecting taxiway. And, we both stared at each other. Tower then told us to taxi behind, and slowly aircraft #2 began to taxi again. The taxi conflict should never have occurred. Without instruction, tower allowed the conflict to continue, rather than preemptively resolving the situation. For example, tell aircraft #2 to hold short of the intersecting taxiway or tell aircraft #1 to exit behind aircraft #2.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SR22 SAFETY PLT RPTS A LACK OF ATC INSTRUCTION AFTER LNDG AT MRY WHICH INITIATED A POTENTIAL TAXI CONFLICT WITH A TAXIING ACFT.

Narrative: ARRIVING MRY, ON SHORT FINAL, HEARD ON TWR FREQ INSTRUCTIONS FOR TAXI GIVEN TO ACFT #2. ACFT #2 INSTRUCTED TO TAXI ON PARALLEL TXWY TO THE ACTIVES (RWYS 28L/R). I WILL ASSUME TWR CTLING BOTH GND AND TWR AS I DID NOT HEAR A REPLY TO THE TAXI INSTRUCTIONS. DURING ROLLOUT, I POINTED OUT TO THE PIC IN OUR PLANE, ACFT #2 TAXIING ON THE PARALLEL TXWY. I ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS LITTLE SPACE BTWN THE HOLD SHORT BARS AND THE TXWY. ALSO, I HEARD ANOTHER JET CALL A 5 MI FINAL. AT THIS POINT, IN MY OPINION, WAS THE SAFETY ISSUE. THERE WAS NO INSTRUCTION BY TWR TO US OR ACFT #2 TO RESOLVE THE FORESEEABLE CONFLICT OF US (ACFT #1) EXITING THE RWY AND BLOCKING AND/OR COLLIDING WITH ACFT #2 TAXIING ON THE PARALLEL TXWY. AS WE SLOWED AND APCHED THE CONNECTING TXWY THAT CONNECTS THE ACTIVES WITH THE PARALLEL TXWY, THE PIC AND I ALREADY DECIDED TO HOLD INSIDE (IE, STILL ON THE ACTIVE) THE HOLD BARS, TO GIVE CLRNC FOR ACFT #2 TO PASS. AS WE TURNED, TWR INSTRUCTED US (ACFT #1) TO EXIT ON THAT TXWY. TOO BAD ACFT #2 DIDN'T HEAR NOR COULD POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN OR EXPECTED US TO REMAIN ON THE ACTIVE INSTEAD OF EXITING ONTO THE PARALLEL TXWY. THEREFORE, ACFT #2, AS A PRECAUTION, MADE A HARD STOP SHORT OF THE INTERSECTING TXWY. AND, WE BOTH STARED AT EACH OTHER. TWR THEN TOLD US TO TAXI BEHIND, AND SLOWLY ACFT #2 BEGAN TO TAXI AGAIN. THE TAXI CONFLICT SHOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED. WITHOUT INSTRUCTION, TWR ALLOWED THE CONFLICT TO CONTINUE, RATHER THAN PREEMPTIVELY RESOLVING THE SIT. FOR EXAMPLE, TELL ACFT #2 TO HOLD SHORT OF THE INTERSECTING TXWY OR TELL ACFT #1 TO EXIT BEHIND ACFT #2.

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.