Adlerdriver

In your first post, you gave me the impression that you expected ATC to adhere to the sterile cockpit FAR. That's why I said it wouldn't apply. ATC is not restricted by 121.542. I think at times, they could be better about when they choose to communicate with us, for sure. When and how we choose to respond is always up to us. They may have other guidance that applies, but it's not specifically 121.542.

Sterile cockpit restricts us to required duties for safe operation of the aircraft and prohibits non-essential conversations within the cockpit and between cabin crew and the cockpit. Here's a link if you're interested:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.542

Responding to parking location requests, taxi instructions, etc. are part of our required duties and are not restricted by the sterile cockpit rule. There isn't any difference between taxi, takeoff or landing roll or operations below 10,000'(except cruise). All those phases of operation are restricted equally by sterile cockpit. So, if you truly felt that parking communication wasn't allowed by sterile cockpit on landing roll, then you couldn't answer after you cleared the runway taxiing or at any point on approach below 10,000'.
You made a wise choice to prioritize your immediate duties during landing role over communication. However, if you had decided to answer while still completing your required tasks, you wouldn't have been in violation of sterile cockpit.

rickair7777

You're allowed to talk to ATC below 10,000, after you aviate and navigate.

JohnBurke

He's flying a business jet under Part 91.

121.542 does not apply to him, either.

Adlerdriver

Yes John, I understand that. Since many 91 operators choose to apply this rule as a good practice (as the OP indicated with his post), I didn’t feel it was necessary to split hairs.

RI830

Just remain silent and then quip back later with “I was on the landline, unable your request....but Southwest, cleared direct destination”

JohnBurke

The same policy applies under Part 135. You chose Part 121 because you fly Part 121 and it's a familiar regulation...but entirely irrelevant to a Part 91 operator.

Numerous operators, including many government agencies, use sterile cockpit rules in one form or another, which are also irrelevant. If irrelevant to ATC, equally irrelevant to the PIC or SIC.

While sterile cockpit is a good practice and policy, unrelated regulations regarding the practice are not relevant.

Adlerdriver

Again, I understand. Not once did I suggest the OP was restricted by these regulations. But we are having a discussion about them (one that you seem to want to interrupt with trivialities). He asked about sterile cockpit, but didn't appear completely familiar with it. The only place it is officially codified that I'm aware of is 121.542 and 135.100 and those are commonly referred to by "sterile cockpit". They basically say the same thing, so picking one over the other is a coin toss. So, I offered him a link to put us on the same page for the sake of the discussion. This concept and the regulations that resulted from it began in 121 operations. If a 91 operator chooses to follow it as well as refer to it as "sterile cockpit" just as 121 operators do, then the regulation that spawned such procedures is completely relevant to a discussion about those procedures.

Are you really this legalistic or do you have some other agenda?

JohnBurke

I have no agenda.

Neither 135 nor 121 "spawned" the concept of the sterile cockpit, though it's codified in those parts for pilots bound by those regulations, operating under those regulations.

The air traffic controller operates under the ATC handbook JO7110.65W. The original poster is likely not intimately familiar with that guidance, any more than the controller is familiar with the regulation under which the original poster is operating...nor would the controller know which regulatory guidance the original poster is using.

What it really comes down to is flying the airplane first, talking later; if one is busy landing, irrelevant regulations remain irrelevant, as do irrelevant handbooks and controller guidance. What is relevant is focusing on the landing, with or without regulatory constrictions, and then handling communications.

Even in operations which involve a sterile cockpit (eg, 121, 135, etc), the restriction is against unnecessary conversation. It's quite possible that the conversation is germain to the safety of flight and a reply is warranted. Perhaps the controller has something important to say, or perhaps the controller is verifying what should have been verified previously; is the pilot intending to take the high speed to the right, or left? The controller may be asking as he's working traffic that might impinge on one of those exits.

There is no requirement, sterile cockpit (or absence) to reply immediately. One may elect to slow to speed when the reversers are stowing, or when nose steering is resumed, prior to making the call. Whether one makes the call at that point, or prior, or after, does not prevent nor change sterile cockpit operations. It's a judgment call on the part of the pilot responding as to when he can safely make the reply.

ATC's purpose is separation of traffic (prevent collisions) and expediting traffic flow; cockpit priorities include those functions, but on a more immediate level, maintaining control, regardless of the regulation under which the flight is operating.

Some of the agencies with whom I work have very strict guidelines regarding sterile cockpit, but if you were to refer to them to 121, they'd have no clue what you're talking about. 121 is irrelevant.

Adlerdriver

Noted.....

HIFLYR

This!!! IF it was important to their plan for me to exit in a certain taxiway they should have asked earlier during the approach.