Narrative:

The problem arose from nowhere. If there was a genesis to this, it was concern for runway incursion safety and for ramp courtesy relating to the use of breakaway thrust. As I started taxiing from the ramp with a sick newborn baby and medical crew aboard, I noticed that there was a relatively high amount of thrust required to get moving. (I now realize that this was probably due to the upslope which is not visually apparent at this airport). In addition to having a parallel taxiway, the ramp at this airport directly intersects the runway. In 2 previous departures from this airport, I used the direct access to the runway and back-taxied for my takeoff. On this occasion, I felt that I had not conducted sufficient visual, nor radio monitoring of the traffic situation, so I decided to use the parallel taxiway to get to the beginning of the runway. As I approached the beginning of the parallel taxiway (heading wbound and uphill), I began to evaluate the width of the taxiway. Was it big enough for the airplane? I reasoned correctly that the taxiway was wide enough, but once I got on it, I realized that the wingtip clearance was not sufficient to avoid hitting the t-hangars. I passed the first 2 t-hangars only by offsetting the left main gear into the grass. I reasoned that since I was in the grass anyway, I might as well cut across the grass onto the runway. Since I had momentum going already, it seemed that adding power and heading (left) to the runway would be the best course of action. It almost worked. I made it to the runway, but as soon as the left main reached the pavement, the right main dug into the mud. We got stuck. In an effort to extricate myself from being stuck (with a critical patient on board), I allowed a gentleman to jack the airplane. (To the best I could tell, they were aviation jacks. They used the proper jacking point on the airplane. It did not appear to violate any safety concerns.) it took 2 attempts to jack the airplane and place wooden planks beneath the stuck right gear before I was able to taxi off of it, and onto the runway. Apparently, jacking an airplane is a 'maintenance' function. (Of course, fear and embarrassment played a role in my desire to have the airplane moved quickly, as did the knowledge that there was a sick baby on board who needed to get to the hospital.) the main contributing factor was, oddly enough, my concern for safety. I wanted to delay my taxi onto the runway in order to have an opportunity to listen and scan for traffic. (This is an uncontrolled airport.) the use of the parallel taxiway would allow me that opportunity. The second factor was that the ramp was adjacent to a commuter airline terminal. If I had taken the option to do a 360 degree turn to look for traffic, I would have exposed the ramp and the terminal to quite a bit of noise and wind blast. I wanted to be a 'good neighbor.' there were 2 ominous 'perception' factors. One was the upslope of the airport, which was not apparent, except in retrospect. It was the reason why so much power (and wind blast) was required to get moving. The second was the position and size of the t-hangars. They were close to the taxiway, and shorter than t-hangars that I am used to. This combination prevented me from even considering their distance from the taxiway as a factor. I want to compliment the FAA in their standardization of airport signs. I think it was a dramatic improvement over the haven't-you-been- here-before system of the past. I would like to propose that 'wingtip clearance' signs be developed for questionable areas. This would be similar to those used under bridges for tall trucks. If there had been a 'maximum wingspan -- 38 ft' sign in place, it would have sent me a clear message. (This airport is otherwise in compliance with standard airport signage.)

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE200 AIR AMBULANCE PLT GETS STUCK IN MUD AFTER LEAVING THE TXWY FOR THE RWY. SHORTCUT MANDATED BY LESS THAN DESIRABLE WINGTIP CLRNC FROM T-HANGARS ALIGNED BY TXWY AREA. NON TWR ARPT UNICOM.

Narrative: THE PROB AROSE FROM NOWHERE. IF THERE WAS A GENESIS TO THIS, IT WAS CONCERN FOR RWY INCURSION SAFETY AND FOR RAMP COURTESY RELATING TO THE USE OF BREAKAWAY THRUST. AS I STARTED TAXIING FROM THE RAMP WITH A SICK NEWBORN BABY AND MEDICAL CREW ABOARD, I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A RELATIVELY HIGH AMOUNT OF THRUST REQUIRED TO GET MOVING. (I NOW REALIZE THAT THIS WAS PROBABLY DUE TO THE UPSLOPE WHICH IS NOT VISUALLY APPARENT AT THIS ARPT). IN ADDITION TO HAVING A PARALLEL TXWY, THE RAMP AT THIS ARPT DIRECTLY INTERSECTS THE RWY. IN 2 PREVIOUS DEPS FROM THIS ARPT, I USED THE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE RWY AND BACK-TAXIED FOR MY TKOF. ON THIS OCCASION, I FELT THAT I HAD NOT CONDUCTED SUFFICIENT VISUAL, NOR RADIO MONITORING OF THE TFC SIT, SO I DECIDED TO USE THE PARALLEL TXWY TO GET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE RWY. AS I APCHED THE BEGINNING OF THE PARALLEL TXWY (HDG WBOUND AND UPHILL), I BEGAN TO EVALUATE THE WIDTH OF THE TXWY. WAS IT BIG ENOUGH FOR THE AIRPLANE? I REASONED CORRECTLY THAT THE TXWY WAS WIDE ENOUGH, BUT ONCE I GOT ON IT, I REALIZED THAT THE WINGTIP CLRNC WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO AVOID HITTING THE T-HANGARS. I PASSED THE FIRST 2 T-HANGARS ONLY BY OFFSETTING THE L MAIN GEAR INTO THE GRASS. I REASONED THAT SINCE I WAS IN THE GRASS ANYWAY, I MIGHT AS WELL CUT ACROSS THE GRASS ONTO THE RWY. SINCE I HAD MOMENTUM GOING ALREADY, IT SEEMED THAT ADDING PWR AND HDG (L) TO THE RWY WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. IT ALMOST WORKED. I MADE IT TO THE RWY, BUT AS SOON AS THE L MAIN REACHED THE PAVEMENT, THE R MAIN DUG INTO THE MUD. WE GOT STUCK. IN AN EFFORT TO EXTRICATE MYSELF FROM BEING STUCK (WITH A CRITICAL PATIENT ON BOARD), I ALLOWED A GENTLEMAN TO JACK THE AIRPLANE. (TO THE BEST I COULD TELL, THEY WERE AVIATION JACKS. THEY USED THE PROPER JACKING POINT ON THE AIRPLANE. IT DID NOT APPEAR TO VIOLATE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS.) IT TOOK 2 ATTEMPTS TO JACK THE AIRPLANE AND PLACE WOODEN PLANKS BENEATH THE STUCK R GEAR BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO TAXI OFF OF IT, AND ONTO THE RWY. APPARENTLY, JACKING AN AIRPLANE IS A 'MAINT' FUNCTION. (OF COURSE, FEAR AND EMBARRASSMENT PLAYED A ROLE IN MY DESIRE TO HAVE THE AIRPLANE MOVED QUICKLY, AS DID THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS A SICK BABY ON BOARD WHO NEEDED TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL.) THE MAIN CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS, ODDLY ENOUGH, MY CONCERN FOR SAFETY. I WANTED TO DELAY MY TAXI ONTO THE RWY IN ORDER TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN AND SCAN FOR TFC. (THIS IS AN UNCTLED ARPT.) THE USE OF THE PARALLEL TXWY WOULD ALLOW ME THAT OPPORTUNITY. THE SECOND FACTOR WAS THAT THE RAMP WAS ADJACENT TO A COMMUTER AIRLINE TERMINAL. IF I HAD TAKEN THE OPTION TO DO A 360 DEG TURN TO LOOK FOR TFC, I WOULD HAVE EXPOSED THE RAMP AND THE TERMINAL TO QUITE A BIT OF NOISE AND WIND BLAST. I WANTED TO BE A 'GOOD NEIGHBOR.' THERE WERE 2 OMINOUS 'PERCEPTION' FACTORS. ONE WAS THE UPSLOPE OF THE ARPT, WHICH WAS NOT APPARENT, EXCEPT IN RETROSPECT. IT WAS THE REASON WHY SO MUCH PWR (AND WIND BLAST) WAS REQUIRED TO GET MOVING. THE SECOND WAS THE POS AND SIZE OF THE T-HANGARS. THEY WERE CLOSE TO THE TXWY, AND SHORTER THAN T-HANGARS THAT I AM USED TO. THIS COMBINATION PREVENTED ME FROM EVEN CONSIDERING THEIR DISTANCE FROM THE TXWY AS A FACTOR. I WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE FAA IN THEIR STANDARDIZATION OF ARPT SIGNS. I THINK IT WAS A DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT OVER THE HAVEN'T-YOU-BEEN- HERE-BEFORE SYS OF THE PAST. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT 'WINGTIP CLRNC' SIGNS BE DEVELOPED FOR QUESTIONABLE AREAS. THIS WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THOSE USED UNDER BRIDGES FOR TALL TRUCKS. IF THERE HAD BEEN A 'MAX WINGSPAN -- 38 FT' SIGN IN PLACE, IT WOULD HAVE SENT ME A CLR MESSAGE. (THIS ARPT IS OTHERWISE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD ARPT SIGNAGE.)

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.