Narrative:

Typical early morning local control session. Traffic volume/complexity had not elevated enough to require opening the local control 2 position. Runways 35L/right were in use. Runways 9L/right were cold/inactive. I was working parallel runways 35L/right combined. Just prior to the runway 35L incursion; I had approximately 3 aircraft on frequency. Aircraft X was IFR departing runway 35R eastbound; aircraft Y in right-traffic runway 35R; and aircraft Z holding short runway 35L awaiting departure for left-traffic runway 35L. Aircraft a was approaching a 12-13 mile-final for 35L. Aircraft Z called ready and I issued instructions to make left traffic runway 35L; scanned my final and runway 35L full-length; noticing a C172 in the run-up position on bravo taxiway east of alpha taxiway. Alpha taxiway parallels runway 35L and must be crossed on bravo to reach runway 35L at bravo intersection. Anticipating aircraft Z could make a tight pattern and arrive in front of aircraft a; I informed aircraft Z of aircraft a's position and gave him the choice to either turn an early crosswind or expect an extension on the upwind and cleared him (aircraft Z) for takeoff. Aircraft Z replied in favor of the early crosswind and crossed the hold-short line for runway 35L with his takeoff clearance and started his departure roll.I then turned to the east and scanned runway 35R for aircraft X departing and cleared aircraft Y for the option on runway 35R. As I was turning back to runway 35L to check my spacing/sequence between aircraft Z and aircraft a; I noticed my flm working ground control reacting surprised facing runway 35L and broadcasting on his frequency to aircraft B. When I turned back west I had expected aircraft Z to be having troubles during rotation; but soon realized he had rotated near runway 35L at A4 intersection (typical for students in this aircraft) and was climbing to a good altitude prior to turning his crosswind. I then saw another aircraft B taxiing southbound on runway 35L between the 35L at bravo intersection and runway 35L at A3 intersection. Knowing that aircraft Z was in a critical phase of flight and nose up; I did not issue traffic on runway 35L as to not surprise the student and create another issue. The amount of time I had once I had rescanned aircraft Z's position and saw the conflicting aircraft (aircraft B) on runway 35L was approximately 1-2 seconds. Aircraft Z overflew aircraft B with around 200-300 feet of vertical separation. I then extended aircraft Z's upwind waiting for aircraft B to clear runway 35L. Aircraft a checked on and I told him to continue.aircraft B then exited runway 35L and was confused with ground controls instructions; so I waited to make sure he had turned into parking and then issued aircraft a's landing clearance. When aircraft Z was in the upwind in stable flight I asked him if he was aware of aircraft B on runway 35L; and he was not. To me; this meant that he had already rotated and was climbing before aircraft C incurred runway 35L. At this time normal operations continued.this incursion is a tough one to prevent. Aircraft must hold short of every runway and be issued a clearance to cross whether the surface is active or not. This creates good and safe repetition for them. [Student] solo aircraft require a more active scan when working ground control. Perhaps an additional requirement in our LOA for [solo] students to report when their run-up is complete; so that their next turn is monitored much more closely could help prevent this pilot deviation. At the same time; these solo students have taxied to the same runways at least a dozen times before their first solo; and at that time the instructor joins us in the tower cab to assist. They have to be trusted enough to understand their instructions in order to not overload the control positions.as cpc's; we work closely with [the local flight school]; and their solo students on a regular bases. We understand the physical and emotional workload solo students go through here on a daily bases; as many of us went through the same training here in grand forks. Our sup/flm's do not see or work near as many [solo] aircraft nor are they proficient at moderate levels. This traffic was slow and not complex for ground control. Low currency hours does not help these situations. Perhaps flm's should not be working any traffic unless all positions are split and the controller in charge is an flm as well. This would help place the responsibility for the flm's working traffic on the flm's. With this said; I cannot guarantee that I would have caught this deviation in time to correct it; but my response would have been far more direct and time appropriate. As cpc's we know to give near full attention to all [solo] students when able; especially during slow traffic. They take priority.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A GFK Controller reports of a runway incursion during a moderately busy session involving a student pilot.

Narrative: Typical early morning Local control session. Traffic volume/complexity had not elevated enough to require opening the Local control 2 position. Runways 35L/R were in use. Runways 9L/R were cold/inactive. I was working parallel runways 35L/R combined. Just prior to the runway 35L incursion; I had approximately 3 aircraft on frequency. Aircraft X was IFR departing runway 35R eastbound; Aircraft Y in right-traffic runway 35R; and Aircraft Z holding short runway 35L awaiting departure for left-traffic runway 35L. Aircraft A was approaching a 12-13 mile-final for 35L. Aircraft Z called ready and I issued instructions to make left traffic runway 35L; scanned my final and runway 35L full-length; noticing a C172 in the run-up position on Bravo taxiway east of Alpha taxiway. Alpha taxiway parallels runway 35L and must be crossed on Bravo to reach runway 35L at Bravo intersection. Anticipating Aircraft Z could make a tight pattern and arrive in front of Aircraft A; I informed Aircraft Z of Aircraft A's position and gave him the choice to either turn an early crosswind or expect an extension on the upwind and cleared him (Aircraft Z) for takeoff. Aircraft Z replied in favor of the early crosswind and crossed the hold-short line for runway 35L with his takeoff clearance and started his departure roll.I then turned to the east and scanned runway 35R for Aircraft X departing and cleared Aircraft Y for the option on runway 35R. As I was turning back to runway 35L to check my spacing/sequence between Aircraft Z and Aircraft A; I noticed my FLM working Ground Control reacting surprised facing runway 35L and broadcasting on his frequency to Aircraft B. When I turned back west I had expected Aircraft Z to be having troubles during rotation; but soon realized he had rotated near runway 35L at A4 intersection (typical for students in this aircraft) and was climbing to a good altitude prior to turning his crosswind. I then saw another Aircraft B taxiing southbound on runway 35L between the 35L at Bravo intersection and runway 35L at A3 intersection. Knowing that Aircraft Z was in a critical phase of flight and nose up; I did not issue traffic on runway 35L as to not surprise the student and create another issue. The amount of time I had once I had rescanned Aircraft Z's position and saw the conflicting aircraft (Aircraft B) on runway 35L was approximately 1-2 seconds. Aircraft Z overflew Aircraft B with around 200-300 feet of vertical separation. I then extended Aircraft Z's upwind waiting for Aircraft B to clear runway 35L. Aircraft A checked on and I told him to continue.Aircraft B then exited runway 35L and was confused with ground controls instructions; so I waited to make sure he had turned into parking and then issued Aircraft A's landing clearance. When Aircraft Z was in the upwind in stable flight I asked him if he was aware of Aircraft B on runway 35L; and he was not. To me; this meant that he had already rotated and was climbing before Aircraft C incurred runway 35L. At this time normal operations continued.This incursion is a tough one to prevent. Aircraft must hold short of every runway and be issued a clearance to cross whether the surface is active or not. This creates good and safe repetition for them. [Student] Solo aircraft require a more active scan when working Ground Control. Perhaps an additional requirement in our LOA for [solo] students to report when their run-up is complete; so that their next turn is monitored much more closely could help prevent this pilot deviation. At the same time; these solo students have taxied to the same runways at least a dozen times before their first solo; and at that time the instructor joins us in the Tower Cab to assist. They have to be trusted enough to understand their instructions in order to not overload the control positions.As CPC's; we work closely with [the local flight school]; and their solo students on a regular bases. We understand the physical and emotional workload solo students go through here on a daily bases; as many of us went through the same training here in Grand Forks. Our Sup/FLM's do not see or work near as many [solo] aircraft nor are they proficient at moderate levels. This traffic was slow and not complex for Ground Control. Low currency hours does not help these situations. Perhaps FLM's should not be working any traffic unless all positions are split and the CIC is an FLM as well. This would help place the responsibility for the FLM's working traffic on the FLM's. With this said; I cannot guarantee that I would have caught this deviation in time to correct it; but my response would have been far more direct and time appropriate. As CPC's we know to give near full attention to all [solo] students when able; especially during slow traffic. They take priority.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.