Narrative:

I was cleared to land on runway 27 at tpa. When I was about 1/2 mi from the end of the runway, on final, 2 aircraft were told to hold short of this runway--1 at approach end and 1 near the mid point. Both pilots acknowledged the tower's instructions, but not adequately, as it turned out. While in the flare for landing, at about 20' above the ground, I saw small aircraft taxiing onto the runway to my left. There was not enough time to accelerate, so I altered heading to the right enough to provide about 10' of sep. The small aircraft pilot told the tower that he thought they said to go into position and hold, which they did not. The small aircraft was painted a light brown or tan, which is like camouflage this time of year around brown tipped grass. No strobes were evident, nor required. The tower has difficulty seeing that distant section of the runway. The pilot did not clear final approach sufficiently prior to pulling out onto the runway. Visibility air traffic area that time was many miles. I suggest that in situations where collision would be imminent if controller instructions are not correctly followed, or are subject to misinterp, the use of 'roger,' or any other pilot reply not including specific verification, is inadequate. The brief use of minimal key words such as 'hold short,' 'cleared for takeoff, ' 'position and hold,' 'cleared for/to (whatever),' etc, should be minimal usage with all controllers since it only takes a crowd of 2 aircraft to cause a disaster.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX GA-SMT STARTING LNDG FLARE AND GA-SMA TAKING THE RWY WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: I WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 27 AT TPA. WHEN I WAS ABOUT 1/2 MI FROM THE END OF THE RWY, ON FINAL, 2 ACFT WERE TOLD TO HOLD SHORT OF THIS RWY--1 AT APCH END AND 1 NEAR THE MID POINT. BOTH PLTS ACKNOWLEDGED THE TWR'S INSTRUCTIONS, BUT NOT ADEQUATELY, AS IT TURNED OUT. WHILE IN THE FLARE FOR LNDG, AT ABOUT 20' ABOVE THE GND, I SAW SMA TAXIING ONTO THE RWY TO MY LEFT. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO ACCELERATE, SO I ALTERED HDG TO THE RIGHT ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ABOUT 10' OF SEP. THE SMA PLT TOLD THE TWR THAT HE THOUGHT THEY SAID TO GO INTO POS AND HOLD, WHICH THEY DID NOT. THE SMA WAS PAINTED A LIGHT BROWN OR TAN, WHICH IS LIKE CAMOUFLAGE THIS TIME OF YEAR AROUND BROWN TIPPED GRASS. NO STROBES WERE EVIDENT, NOR REQUIRED. THE TWR HAS DIFFICULTY SEEING THAT DISTANT SECTION OF THE RWY. THE PLT DID NOT CLR FINAL APCH SUFFICIENTLY PRIOR TO PULLING OUT ONTO THE RWY. VISIBILITY ATA THAT TIME WAS MANY MILES. I SUGGEST THAT IN SITUATIONS WHERE COLLISION WOULD BE IMMINENT IF CTLR INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT CORRECTLY FOLLOWED, OR ARE SUBJECT TO MISINTERP, THE USE OF 'ROGER,' OR ANY OTHER PLT REPLY NOT INCLUDING SPECIFIC VERIFICATION, IS INADEQUATE. THE BRIEF USE OF MINIMAL KEY WORDS SUCH AS 'HOLD SHORT,' 'CLRED FOR TKOF, ' 'POS AND HOLD,' 'CLRED FOR/TO (WHATEVER),' ETC, SHOULD BE MINIMAL USAGE WITH ALL CTLRS SINCE IT ONLY TAKES A CROWD OF 2 ACFT TO CAUSE A DISASTER.

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.