Narrative:

Upon landing at cos runway 17R, we exited the runway onto highspd taxiway C3. We turned left onto taxiway H. I continued on taxiway H toward the gate. As the plane came to the end of taxiway H, the first officer shouted for me to stop. I applied the brakes and the plane came to a stop on the concrete apron of the taxiway (intersection of taxiway P). I contacted the tower and requested assistance prior to attempting to move the aircraft. Airport personnel arrived on the scene and we were informed via radio that the nose gear of the aircraft had knocked over a taxi light on taxiway H. We were advised to remain in place, and make no attempt to taxi the aircraft from our current position. I contacted our operations for a tug. The tug crew arrived and inspected the aircraft. The crew informed us that they did not observe any damage to the ship. The tug pushed the plane back far enough so that the plane could make a right turn onto taxiway P. We continued to the gate. After the passenger deplaned (no reported injuries, passenger or crew), the first officer and I inspected the aircraft with no damage visible. We made a logbook entry and contract maintenance confirmed no damage to nose gear. Contributing factors: while I had the airport taxi chart (back of 11-1) out, it was dark and difficult to read. Txwys H & G parallel each other with taxiway G going all the way from runway 17L to runway 17R and taxiway H being interrupted by grass between taxiway P and taxiway M. Taxiing up a hill on our route, there is a visual illusion that taxiway H is continuous almost until reaching taxiway P, as you can see the taxiway lights on the far side, with no apparent gap, until only a couple of hundred ft from the intersection of taxiway P. We flew into cos 2 days later in day VMC and took the same route in and confirmed this illusion, even in daylight conditions. I believe I was looking up (in the distance) at the continuation of the taxiway, expecting to continue to taxiway north to turn in to the ramp. The tower, as I recall, only gave us instructions to taxi to the ramp, as opposed to more specific instructions (2 days later) of 'taxi to the ramp via taxiway H and taxiway P.' there were no green taxi centerline lights (only yellow painted stripes). I would recommend adding yellow or red stop lights at the end of taxiway H where it had ends into taxiway P (and also at taxiway H and taxiway M) if not the addition of green centerline taxi lights. While we were able to stop straight ahead on the pavement, if an airplane were taxiing faster than normal (we weren't) they might easily end up off the pavement with aircraft damage and possible injury. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: both rptrs stated in effect that there was no difference during daylight hours with regard to the visual illusion created by the uphill rise of the taxiway to its end upon intercepting the cross-tie in taxiway. They both, therefore, believe that there should be some type of caution lighting even for the daytime that would prevent this type of incident. Captain stated that the ground controller during a daylight operation did provide specific instructions regarding turning to the intercepting taxiway during taxi to the ramp which was not provided the night of the incident by the combined controller working both local and ground control. He also stated that the frequent snow in the winter may cover up taxiway lighting and markings limiting their effectiveness. The first officer stated that he was including this incident in the ground school training regarding special conditions at the airline's scheduled airports.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF AN MD88 INADVERTENTLY RAN OFF THE END OF A TXWY DURING TAXI IN RESULTING IN BECOMING STRANDED AND REQUIRING A TUG TO PUSH BACK THE ACFT ONTO THE TXWY WHERE IT COULD TURN AND CONTINUE TO PARKING.

Narrative: UPON LNDG AT COS RWY 17R, WE EXITED THE RWY ONTO HIGHSPD TXWY C3. WE TURNED L ONTO TXWY H. I CONTINUED ON TXWY H TOWARD THE GATE. AS THE PLANE CAME TO THE END OF TXWY H, THE FO SHOUTED FOR ME TO STOP. I APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THE PLANE CAME TO A STOP ON THE CONCRETE APRON OF THE TXWY (INTXN OF TXWY P). I CONTACTED THE TWR AND REQUESTED ASSISTANCE PRIOR TO ATTEMPTING TO MOVE THE ACFT. ARPT PERSONNEL ARRIVED ON THE SCENE AND WE WERE INFORMED VIA RADIO THAT THE NOSE GEAR OF THE ACFT HAD KNOCKED OVER A TAXI LIGHT ON TXWY H. WE WERE ADVISED TO REMAIN IN PLACE, AND MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO TAXI THE ACFT FROM OUR CURRENT POS. I CONTACTED OUR OPS FOR A TUG. THE TUG CREW ARRIVED AND INSPECTED THE ACFT. THE CREW INFORMED US THAT THEY DID NOT OBSERVE ANY DAMAGE TO THE SHIP. THE TUG PUSHED THE PLANE BACK FAR ENOUGH SO THAT THE PLANE COULD MAKE A R TURN ONTO TXWY P. WE CONTINUED TO THE GATE. AFTER THE PAX DEPLANED (NO RPTED INJURIES, PAX OR CREW), THE FO AND I INSPECTED THE ACFT WITH NO DAMAGE VISIBLE. WE MADE A LOGBOOK ENTRY AND CONTRACT MAINT CONFIRMED NO DAMAGE TO NOSE GEAR. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: WHILE I HAD THE ARPT TAXI CHART (BACK OF 11-1) OUT, IT WAS DARK AND DIFFICULT TO READ. TXWYS H & G PARALLEL EACH OTHER WITH TXWY G GOING ALL THE WAY FROM RWY 17L TO RWY 17R AND TXWY H BEING INTERRUPTED BY GRASS BTWN TXWY P AND TXWY M. TAXIING UP A HILL ON OUR RTE, THERE IS A VISUAL ILLUSION THAT TXWY H IS CONTINUOUS ALMOST UNTIL REACHING TXWY P, AS YOU CAN SEE THE TXWY LIGHTS ON THE FAR SIDE, WITH NO APPARENT GAP, UNTIL ONLY A COUPLE OF HUNDRED FT FROM THE INTXN OF TXWY P. WE FLEW INTO COS 2 DAYS LATER IN DAY VMC AND TOOK THE SAME RTE IN AND CONFIRMED THIS ILLUSION, EVEN IN DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS. I BELIEVE I WAS LOOKING UP (IN THE DISTANCE) AT THE CONTINUATION OF THE TXWY, EXPECTING TO CONTINUE TO TXWY N TO TURN IN TO THE RAMP. THE TWR, AS I RECALL, ONLY GAVE US INSTRUCTIONS TO TAXI TO THE RAMP, AS OPPOSED TO MORE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS (2 DAYS LATER) OF 'TAXI TO THE RAMP VIA TXWY H AND TXWY P.' THERE WERE NO GREEN TAXI CTRLINE LIGHTS (ONLY YELLOW PAINTED STRIPES). I WOULD RECOMMEND ADDING YELLOW OR RED STOP LIGHTS AT THE END OF TXWY H WHERE IT HAD ENDS INTO TXWY P (AND ALSO AT TXWY H AND TXWY M) IF NOT THE ADDITION OF GREEN CTRLINE TAXI LIGHTS. WHILE WE WERE ABLE TO STOP STRAIGHT AHEAD ON THE PAVEMENT, IF AN AIRPLANE WERE TAXIING FASTER THAN NORMAL (WE WEREN'T) THEY MIGHT EASILY END UP OFF THE PAVEMENT WITH ACFT DAMAGE AND POSSIBLE INJURY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: BOTH RPTRS STATED IN EFFECT THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE DURING DAYLIGHT HRS WITH REGARD TO THE VISUAL ILLUSION CREATED BY THE UPHILL RISE OF THE TXWY TO ITS END UPON INTERCEPTING THE CROSS-TIE IN TXWY. THEY BOTH, THEREFORE, BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME TYPE OF CAUTION LIGHTING EVEN FOR THE DAYTIME THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS TYPE OF INCIDENT. CAPT STATED THAT THE GND CTLR DURING A DAYLIGHT OP DID PROVIDE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING TURNING TO THE INTERCEPTING TXWY DURING TAXI TO THE RAMP WHICH WAS NOT PROVIDED THE NIGHT OF THE INCIDENT BY THE COMBINED CTLR WORKING BOTH LCL AND GND CTL. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE FREQUENT SNOW IN THE WINTER MAY COVER UP TXWY LIGHTING AND MARKINGS LIMITING THEIR EFFECTIVENESS. THE FO STATED THAT HE WAS INCLUDING THIS INCIDENT IN THE GND SCHOOL TRAINING REGARDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AT THE AIRLINE'S SCHEDULED ARPTS.

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.