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.