Narrative:

I am an ATC trainee at the aurora (arrival) control tower. I have been here about 3 months. I was training on ground control at the time of the incident. Aircraft #2 had exited the runway and I had instructed it to taxi to the ramp. Shortly after that, aircraft #1, located on the west ramp, called for taxi to the active. I taxied aircraft #1 to the active, after ascertaining that aircraft #1 and aircraft #2 would not conflict on a movement area. Shortly after that, aircraft #2 called upset. He and aircraft #1 were nose-to-nose on the west ramp. I told aircraft #2 that I was not responsible for non movement areas, and that the entire ramp area was non movement. He continued to insist that I should have told him how to avoid aircraft #1. Aircraft #1 chimed in and agreed. I feel that pilots at aurora have come to expect us to control them on the non movement areas. This is due to the fact that we have a supervisor here that insists that we control aircraft on the ramps. This has led locally based aircraft to expect control instructions on non movement areas. I feel this could lead to an unsafe situation in that 2 aircraft on non movement areas might expect us to keep them apart and as a result not exercise due caution. I feel we should stop the practice of issuing control instructions to aircraft on non movement areas and issue a letter to airmen reference enforcing the fact that pilots are responsible for the safety of the ramp areas.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT 1 HAD GND CONFLICT WITH ACFT 2 IN NON MOVEMENT AREA OF RAMP.

Narrative: I AM AN ATC TRAINEE AT THE AURORA (ARR) CTL TWR. I HAVE BEEN HERE ABOUT 3 MONTHS. I WAS TRAINING ON GND CTL AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. ACFT #2 HAD EXITED THE RWY AND I HAD INSTRUCTED IT TO TAXI TO THE RAMP. SHORTLY AFTER THAT, ACFT #1, LOCATED ON THE W RAMP, CALLED FOR TAXI TO THE ACTIVE. I TAXIED ACFT #1 TO THE ACTIVE, AFTER ASCERTAINING THAT ACFT #1 AND ACFT #2 WOULD NOT CONFLICT ON A MOVEMENT AREA. SHORTLY AFTER THAT, ACFT #2 CALLED UPSET. HE AND ACFT #1 WERE NOSE-TO-NOSE ON THE W RAMP. I TOLD ACFT #2 THAT I WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR NON MOVEMENT AREAS, AND THAT THE ENTIRE RAMP AREA WAS NON MOVEMENT. HE CONTINUED TO INSIST THAT I SHOULD HAVE TOLD HIM HOW TO AVOID ACFT #1. ACFT #1 CHIMED IN AND AGREED. I FEEL THAT PLTS AT AURORA HAVE COME TO EXPECT US TO CTL THEM ON THE NON MOVEMENT AREAS. THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A SUPVR HERE THAT INSISTS THAT WE CTL ACFT ON THE RAMPS. THIS HAS LED LOCALLY BASED ACFT TO EXPECT CTL INSTRUCTIONS ON NON MOVEMENT AREAS. I FEEL THIS COULD LEAD TO AN UNSAFE SITUATION IN THAT 2 ACFT ON NON MOVEMENT AREAS MIGHT EXPECT US TO KEEP THEM APART AND AS A RESULT NOT EXERCISE DUE CAUTION. I FEEL WE SHOULD STOP THE PRACTICE OF ISSUING CTL INSTRUCTIONS TO ACFT ON NON MOVEMENT AREAS AND ISSUE A LETTER TO AIRMEN REF ENFORCING THE FACT THAT PLTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE RAMP AREAS.

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