Narrative:

This letter concerns my inadvertent pilot deviation at cle on nov/sat/96 at around XA00 am. After an initial taxi to runway 23L in malibu, I returned to FBO due to a mechanical problem. Mr X called from the cle tower to inform me to my surprise that I had crossed runway 23L without clearance and that he was filing a pilot deviation report. As I was a transient pilot unfamiliar with the cleveland airport, I had requested ground control to provide progressive assistance in order to eliminate any potential confusion. When approaching the east end of the field, I continued to follow an air carrier jet as previously directed ending up at the end of runway 23R. At that point, I was unaware that I had crossed runway 23L. Continuing to follow the jet seemed logical although a progressive update request at this juncture was not given as mr X later told me the ground controller was busy doing something else. I suggest that cle ground should rethink their progressive taxi procedures and provide more attention to those requesting such additional assistance. Mr X told me that the east end of the airport has been an area of confusion in the past, further emphasizing the need for attention in a location with not uncommon ground control problems. I realize that my situation may have been caused by the attending ground controller being in a developmental status as the ground controller who handled me when leaving was very clear and responsive even without a request for progressive assistance. Nevertheless, any request for progressive assistance should be taken very seriously which did not appear to be the case with me. Hopefully, this letter will prompt sufficient attention to effectively assist future transient pilots unfamiliar with the cle airport. I would like to add that mr X was very polite and knowledgeable in explaining this situation. For your review I have attached copies of a letter to the cle tower and my completed NASA form which explain my side of the problem and hopefully help to more effectively assist future transient pilots at cle. As for my background, I have always strived to be a conscientious pilot conducting extensive annual recurrent training (completed in spring 96), attend frequent FAA safety meetings, have personally known the baltimore FSDO safety prevention program manager for 10 yrs, and have never had an aircraft related infraction. Also, at the time of this incident, I was making periodic visual checks for any potential landing traffic as an independent safety check. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he was close behind the jet and there is little taxi area between runway 28 and runway 23L that he was totally unaware of having crossed the runway. He was unfamiliar with the airport and that is why he requested progressive taxi instructions. His feeling is that if one requests assistance that should be a red light to a ground controller to monitor the aircraft more carefully than usual. That is why the request is made. On receiving such excellent guidance when he was finally able to depart he has a sense that the original controller may have been a developmental. His suggestion for avoidance in the future is more attention to anyone who requests progressive assistance.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA46, MALIBU, PLT REQUESTS PROGRESSIVE TAXI INSTRUCTIONS, IS TOLD TO FOLLOW A JET AND IN THE PROCESS CROSSES RWY 23L.

Narrative: THIS LETTER CONCERNS MY INADVERTENT PLTDEV AT CLE ON NOV/SAT/96 AT AROUND XA00 AM. AFTER AN INITIAL TAXI TO RWY 23L IN MALIBU, I RETURNED TO FBO DUE TO A MECHANICAL PROB. MR X CALLED FROM THE CLE TWR TO INFORM ME TO MY SURPRISE THAT I HAD CROSSED RWY 23L WITHOUT CLRNC AND THAT HE WAS FILING A PLTDEV RPT. AS I WAS A TRANSIENT PLT UNFAMILIAR WITH THE CLEVELAND ARPT, I HAD REQUESTED GND CTL TO PROVIDE PROGRESSIVE ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE ANY POTENTIAL CONFUSION. WHEN APCHING THE E END OF THE FIELD, I CONTINUED TO FOLLOW AN ACR JET AS PREVIOUSLY DIRECTED ENDING UP AT THE END OF RWY 23R. AT THAT POINT, I WAS UNAWARE THAT I HAD CROSSED RWY 23L. CONTINUING TO FOLLOW THE JET SEEMED LOGICAL ALTHOUGH A PROGRESSIVE UPDATE REQUEST AT THIS JUNCTURE WAS NOT GIVEN AS MR X LATER TOLD ME THE GND CTLR WAS BUSY DOING SOMETHING ELSE. I SUGGEST THAT CLE GND SHOULD RETHINK THEIR PROGRESSIVE TAXI PROCS AND PROVIDE MORE ATTN TO THOSE REQUESTING SUCH ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. MR X TOLD ME THAT THE E END OF THE ARPT HAS BEEN AN AREA OF CONFUSION IN THE PAST, FURTHER EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR ATTN IN A LOCATION WITH NOT UNCOMMON GND CTL PROBS. I REALIZE THAT MY SIT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ATTENDING GND CTLR BEING IN A DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS AS THE GND CTLR WHO HANDLED ME WHEN LEAVING WAS VERY CLR AND RESPONSIVE EVEN WITHOUT A REQUEST FOR PROGRESSIVE ASSISTANCE. NEVERTHELESS, ANY REQUEST FOR PROGRESSIVE ASSISTANCE SHOULD BE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY WHICH DID NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CASE WITH ME. HOPEFULLY, THIS LETTER WILL PROMPT SUFFICIENT ATTN TO EFFECTIVELY ASSIST FUTURE TRANSIENT PLTS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE CLE ARPT. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT MR X WAS VERY POLITE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE IN EXPLAINING THIS SIT. FOR YOUR REVIEW I HAVE ATTACHED COPIES OF A LETTER TO THE CLE TWR AND MY COMPLETED NASA FORM WHICH EXPLAIN MY SIDE OF THE PROB AND HOPEFULLY HELP TO MORE EFFECTIVELY ASSIST FUTURE TRANSIENT PLTS AT CLE. AS FOR MY BACKGROUND, I HAVE ALWAYS STRIVED TO BE A CONSCIENTIOUS PLT CONDUCTING EXTENSIVE ANNUAL RECURRENT TRAINING (COMPLETED IN SPRING 96), ATTEND FREQUENT FAA SAFETY MEETINGS, HAVE PERSONALLY KNOWN THE BALTIMORE FSDO SAFETY PREVENTION PROGRAM MGR FOR 10 YRS, AND HAVE NEVER HAD AN ACFT RELATED INFRACTION. ALSO, AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT, I WAS MAKING PERIODIC VISUAL CHKS FOR ANY POTENTIAL LNDG TFC AS AN INDEPENDENT SAFETY CHK. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE WAS CLOSE BEHIND THE JET AND THERE IS LITTLE TAXI AREA BTWN RWY 28 AND RWY 23L THAT HE WAS TOTALLY UNAWARE OF HAVING CROSSED THE RWY. HE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT AND THAT IS WHY HE REQUESTED PROGRESSIVE TAXI INSTRUCTIONS. HIS FEELING IS THAT IF ONE REQUESTS ASSISTANCE THAT SHOULD BE A RED LIGHT TO A GND CTLR TO MONITOR THE ACFT MORE CAREFULLY THAN USUAL. THAT IS WHY THE REQUEST IS MADE. ON RECEIVING SUCH EXCELLENT GUIDANCE WHEN HE WAS FINALLY ABLE TO DEPART HE HAS A SENSE THAT THE ORIGINAL CTLR MAY HAVE BEEN A DEVELOPMENTAL. HIS SUGGESTION FOR AVOIDANCE IN THE FUTURE IS MORE ATTN TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS PROGRESSIVE ASSISTANCE.

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.