Narrative:

The owner/pilot was instructed to hold short of runway 34 on south ramp. He was subsequently cleared to cross runway 34 via tango (taxiway) and follow an small aircraft. The pilot observed the aircraft he was instructed to follow turning on taxiway charlie--some distance down the runway to his right. The taxiway to his immediate front was closed (bravo) and tango was a left turn, opp the aircraft he was instructed to follow. He chose to follow the aircraft, and turned right down runway 34. Both the owner and the instrument were new to this aircraft, and the instrument was preoccupied with systems checks. Hpn ground control chastised the pilot/owner and instructed him to turn off 34 onto charlie. Subsequently they requested his name and certificate #. An small aircraft was instructed to go around due to the inadvertent transgression. The owner/pilot is a newly rated pilot with approximately 60 hours. He was intimidated by the hpn tower control who are reputed to be abusive and abrasive toward all pilots. He attempted to follow his instructions to the letter. To compound the problem hpn has had txwys and runways erratically OTS for some time, leading to confusion. The instrument, myself, was concerned with the aircraft systems rather than taxiing an aircraft which although different was a little different to taxi than the owner/pilot's previous aircraft. The problem would not have occurred if the tower was more conducive to requests for clarification of, and/or requests for assistance with, instructions--instead of being so intimidating. Supplemental information from acn 102941: ground should not have told me to follow the small aircraft if it was not leaving the runway via the taxiway ground wished me to take after crossing an active runway. I should have interrogated ground about the inconsistency in the sequence of clrncs before assuming that the last clearance was correct, verbatim, particularly as it involved an active runway.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA NON ADHERENCE TO ATCT GND CTL CLRNC.

Narrative: THE OWNER/PLT WAS INSTRUCTED TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 34 ON S RAMP. HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED TO CROSS RWY 34 VIA TANGO (TXWY) AND FOLLOW AN SMA. THE PLT OBSERVED THE ACFT HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW TURNING ON TXWY CHARLIE--SOME DISTANCE DOWN THE RWY TO HIS RIGHT. THE TXWY TO HIS IMMEDIATE FRONT WAS CLOSED (BRAVO) AND TANGO WAS A LEFT TURN, OPP THE ACFT HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW. HE CHOSE TO FOLLOW THE ACFT, AND TURNED RIGHT DOWN RWY 34. BOTH THE OWNER AND THE INSTR WERE NEW TO THIS ACFT, AND THE INSTR WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH SYSTEMS CHKS. HPN GND CTL CHASTISED THE PLT/OWNER AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO TURN OFF 34 ONTO CHARLIE. SUBSEQUENTLY THEY REQUESTED HIS NAME AND CERTIFICATE #. AN SMA WAS INSTRUCTED TO GO AROUND DUE TO THE INADVERTENT TRANSGRESSION. THE OWNER/PLT IS A NEWLY RATED PLT WITH APPROX 60 HRS. HE WAS INTIMIDATED BY THE HPN TWR CTL WHO ARE REPUTED TO BE ABUSIVE AND ABRASIVE TOWARD ALL PLTS. HE ATTEMPTED TO FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE LETTER. TO COMPOUND THE PROB HPN HAS HAD TXWYS AND RWYS ERRATICALLY OTS FOR SOME TIME, LEADING TO CONFUSION. THE INSTR, MYSELF, WAS CONCERNED WITH THE ACFT SYSTEMS RATHER THAN TAXIING AN ACFT WHICH ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TO TAXI THAN THE OWNER/PLT'S PREVIOUS ACFT. THE PROB WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED IF THE TWR WAS MORE CONDUCIVE TO REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION OF, AND/OR REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE WITH, INSTRUCTIONS--INSTEAD OF BEING SO INTIMIDATING. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 102941: GND SHOULD NOT HAVE TOLD ME TO FOLLOW THE SMA IF IT WAS NOT LEAVING THE RWY VIA THE TXWY GND WISHED ME TO TAKE AFTER XING AN ACTIVE RWY. I SHOULD HAVE INTERROGATED GND ABOUT THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE SEQUENCE OF CLRNCS BEFORE ASSUMING THAT THE LAST CLRNC WAS CORRECT, VERBATIM, PARTICULARLY AS IT INVOLVED AN ACTIVE RWY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.