Narrative:

We received taxi instructions to proceed to runway 31 via taxiway east to the outer O. I taxied straight out and made a slight left jog to east. I expected to cross the inner taxiway parallel prior to reaching the outer. I saw a sign 'O' on my right and another with a diagonal arrow and an 'O' a few ft farther away. I interpreted the first 'O' as meaning that the outer was upcoming and the farther 'O' with the diagonal arrow as designating the actual taxiway. These signs were to my right as I did not observe a marking for the outer on taxiway east itself. I later found out that I had taxied past the outer and was about to turn on the high speed F when ground told me to stop. I saw an aircraft on runway 22 executing a go around or missed approach. It was not until this time that I realized that I had proceeded too far on east. I had thought that what was actually the high speed taxiway F was part of the diagonal jog that the outer takes in the 90 degree portion of runways 4/22 and 13/31. My copilot had just started to question the signage at the incident intersection as we were passing what later turned out to actually be the outer. I should have stopped, in retrospect, due to the confusion apparent but was sure that I had correctly interpreted the taxiway markings. I always taxi with my commercial airport diagram page as well as any company supplied pages out in view until I reach the runway. It will be noted that the commercial chart 10-96 cuts off the area in question prior to taxiway east and that the descriptive 'control tower' covers the outbound taxi route on 10-9. I feel that the position and close proximity of the taxiway signs in the area discussed as well as more clearly defined runway edge markings all need to be looked at in resolving this problem. The start of the inner taxiway in this area and the lack of an outer marking at the intersection with east also certainly aided in my lack of orientation at night in this area. I believe that there are too many lighted signs visible from the cockpit in such a small area. I think that in this place more is not better. Upon reviewing the occurrence with my copilot after the fact, we both did not remember seeing clear signs of the impending runway environment which I think should be considered as a factor with taxiways so close to the runway. I still do not think that I crossed into the actual runway boundary area. At no time did I consider crossing 4/22 or intend to do anything other than make the turn onto the outer taxiway on which I had been cleared by ground control. To prevent a recurrence of this problem, I believe that all the markings at congested intxns be reevaluated and that some should be made larger or removed depending on their position. Charts 10-9/9B should be modified in this area, and clrer runway no-transgress markings should be placed at all similar areas on the field. Supplemental information from acn 225918: we never actually crossed onto the runway, but we did come right up to the hold short line (we couldn't see it until our nose was on it). We did not see any signs marking either the outer or runway 4/22.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN OUT OF TOWN ACR CREW ALMOST HAD A RWY INCURSION AT LGA AT NIGHT CAUSING ANOTHER ACFT TO GAR.

Narrative: WE RECEIVED TAXI INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED TO RWY 31 VIA TAXIWAY E TO THE OUTER O. I TAXIED STRAIGHT OUT AND MADE A SLIGHT L JOG TO E. I EXPECTED TO CROSS THE INNER TAXIWAY PARALLEL PRIOR TO REACHING THE OUTER. I SAW A SIGN 'O' ON MY R AND ANOTHER WITH A DIAGONAL ARROW AND AN 'O' A FEW FT FARTHER AWAY. I INTERPRETED THE FIRST 'O' AS MEANING THAT THE OUTER WAS UPCOMING AND THE FARTHER 'O' WITH THE DIAGONAL ARROW AS DESIGNATING THE ACTUAL TAXIWAY. THESE SIGNS WERE TO MY R AS I DID NOT OBSERVE A MARKING FOR THE OUTER ON TAXIWAY E ITSELF. I LATER FOUND OUT THAT I HAD TAXIED PAST THE OUTER AND WAS ABOUT TO TURN ON THE HIGH SPD F WHEN GND TOLD ME TO STOP. I SAW AN ACFT ON RWY 22 EXECUTING A GAR OR MISSED APCH. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THIS TIME THAT I REALIZED THAT I HAD PROCEEDED TOO FAR ON E. I HAD THOUGHT THAT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY THE HIGH SPD TAXIWAY F WAS PART OF THE DIAGONAL JOG THAT THE OUTER TAKES IN THE 90 DEG PORTION OF RWYS 4/22 AND 13/31. MY COPLT HAD JUST STARTED TO QUESTION THE SIGNAGE AT THE INCIDENT INTXN AS WE WERE PASSING WHAT LATER TURNED OUT TO ACTUALLY BE THE OUTER. I SHOULD HAVE STOPPED, IN RETROSPECT, DUE TO THE CONFUSION APPARENT BUT WAS SURE THAT I HAD CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE TAXIWAY MARKINGS. I ALWAYS TAXI WITH MY COMMERCIAL ARPT DIAGRAM PAGE AS WELL AS ANY COMPANY SUPPLIED PAGES OUT IN VIEW UNTIL I REACH THE RWY. IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE COMMERCIAL CHART 10-96 CUTS OFF THE AREA IN QUESTION PRIOR TO TAXIWAY E AND THAT THE DESCRIPTIVE 'CTL TWR' COVERS THE OUTBOUND TAXI RTE ON 10-9. I FEEL THAT THE POS AND CLOSE PROX OF THE TAXIWAY SIGNS IN THE AREA DISCUSSED AS WELL AS MORE CLRLY DEFINED RWY EDGE MARKINGS ALL NEED TO BE LOOKED AT IN RESOLVING THIS PROBLEM. THE START OF THE INNER TAXIWAY IN THIS AREA AND THE LACK OF AN OUTER MARKING AT THE INTXN WITH E ALSO CERTAINLY AIDED IN MY LACK OF ORIENTATION AT NIGHT IN THIS AREA. I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY LIGHTED SIGNS VISIBLE FROM THE COCKPIT IN SUCH A SMALL AREA. I THINK THAT IN THIS PLACE MORE IS NOT BETTER. UPON REVIEWING THE OCCURRENCE WITH MY COPLT AFTER THE FACT, WE BOTH DID NOT REMEMBER SEEING CLR SIGNS OF THE IMPENDING RWY ENVIRONMENT WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A FACTOR WITH TAXIWAYS SO CLOSE TO THE RWY. I STILL DO NOT THINK THAT I CROSSED INTO THE ACTUAL RWY BOUNDARY AREA. AT NO TIME DID I CONSIDER XING 4/22 OR INTEND TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAKE THE TURN ONTO THE OUTER TAXIWAY ON WHICH I HAD BEEN CLRED BY GND CTL. TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THIS PROBLEM, I BELIEVE THAT ALL THE MARKINGS AT CONGESTED INTXNS BE REEVALUATED AND THAT SOME SHOULD BE MADE LARGER OR REMOVED DEPENDING ON THEIR POS. CHARTS 10-9/9B SHOULD BE MODIFIED IN THIS AREA, AND CLRER RWY NO-TRANSGRESS MARKINGS SHOULD BE PLACED AT ALL SIMILAR AREAS ON THE FIELD. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 225918: WE NEVER ACTUALLY CROSSED ONTO THE RWY, BUT WE DID COME RIGHT UP TO THE HOLD SHORT LINE (WE COULDN'T SEE IT UNTIL OUR NOSE WAS ON IT). WE DID NOT SEE ANY SIGNS MARKING EITHER THE OUTER OR RWY 4/22.

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.