Narrative:

Aircraft was taxied to runway 9L at taxiway B1 for departure. The aircraft passed taxiway B1 and entered the runway protection zone (rpz). This rpz was established because some of the taxiway is not visible to the tower. There are hold short lines and a sign for the 'runway 9L approach.' there is not a sign for taxiway B1 visible from taxiway B. The lack of a sign for taxiway B1 contributes to a safety hazard. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: apparently the tower, with support from the airport, established a non-standard hold short procedure. This in-house 'order' established what they refer to as an 'rpz,' or runway protection zone. When the controller taxies aircraft to runway 9L at sfb, he tells them to hold short at 'runway 9L approach.' the reporter cited many instances in which the pilots acknowledged 'runway 9L approach,' but continued to taxi to the 'runway 9L' sign. The tower has visual contact with aircraft at the 'runway 9L approach' sign, but not at the 'runway 9L' sign, which is located in the rpz. The in-house order specifies that no aircraft shall land when an aircraft is taxiing or holding in the rpz because the controller cannot visually confirm the position of the aircraft. The reporter is concerned that the FSDO is not acknowledging the existence of an rpz and has long been ignoring the tower's reports of violations. For the last 9 months, according to the reporter, 'there is no such thing as an rpz.' the reporter is particularly concerned about night operations as well as aircraft on the NDB which terminates at a low altitude over the hold short area. In his words, 'I'm afraid that a 767's tail will be clipped by an aircraft on the NDB.' at this time, the controller stated that the atlanta FSDO just approved a waiver which will allow controllers to taxi aircraft to the area they cannot see from the tower while other aircraft are landing. This controller is extremely alarmed by this and thinks it is 'incredibly dangerous.' the waiver states that there is no such thing as an rpz and will remove the signage from 'runway 9L approach' and move the 'runway 9L' signage back by 300 ft. Placing the 'runway 9L' sign back 300 ft puts the hold short line where the ground controllers cannot see. The reporter stated that a major airline has a training facility there where students shoot the NDB, under the hood, to minimums several times per day. There is a british charter company that also operates heavy jets out of this airport on a daily basis. Further, a third medium-sized carrier just established a base at sfb and began regular flts last week. It appears that the FSDO is attempting to establish signage that complies with the industry standard. The reporter may have to use the phrase, 'not in sight,' when clearing aircraft to taxi in areas that are blocked from view. The other option for this controller might be to taxi aircraft to a point on the field from which he can visually ascertain their position.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GND CTLR EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT TXWY SIGNAGE IS CONFUSING FOR PLTS.

Narrative: ACFT WAS TAXIED TO RWY 9L AT TXWY B1 FOR DEP. THE ACFT PASSED TXWY B1 AND ENTERED THE RWY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ). THIS RPZ WAS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE SOME OF THE TXWY IS NOT VISIBLE TO THE TWR. THERE ARE HOLD SHORT LINES AND A SIGN FOR THE 'RWY 9L APCH.' THERE IS NOT A SIGN FOR TXWY B1 VISIBLE FROM TXWY B. THE LACK OF A SIGN FOR TXWY B1 CONTRIBUTES TO A SAFETY HAZARD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: APPARENTLY THE TWR, WITH SUPPORT FROM THE ARPT, ESTABLISHED A NON-STANDARD HOLD SHORT PROC. THIS IN-HOUSE 'ORDER' ESTABLISHED WHAT THEY REFER TO AS AN 'RPZ,' OR RWY PROTECTION ZONE. WHEN THE CTLR TAXIES ACFT TO RWY 9L AT SFB, HE TELLS THEM TO HOLD SHORT AT 'RWY 9L APCH.' THE RPTR CITED MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH THE PLTS ACKNOWLEDGED 'RWY 9L APCH,' BUT CONTINUED TO TAXI TO THE 'RWY 9L' SIGN. THE TWR HAS VISUAL CONTACT WITH ACFT AT THE 'RWY 9L APCH' SIGN, BUT NOT AT THE 'RWY 9L' SIGN, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE RPZ. THE IN-HOUSE ORDER SPECIFIES THAT NO ACFT SHALL LAND WHEN AN ACFT IS TAXIING OR HOLDING IN THE RPZ BECAUSE THE CTLR CANNOT VISUALLY CONFIRM THE POS OF THE ACFT. THE RPTR IS CONCERNED THAT THE FSDO IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTENCE OF AN RPZ AND HAS LONG BEEN IGNORING THE TWR'S RPTS OF VIOLATIONS. FOR THE LAST 9 MONTHS, ACCORDING TO THE RPTR, 'THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN RPZ.' THE RPTR IS PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT NIGHT OPS AS WELL AS ACFT ON THE NDB WHICH TERMINATES AT A LOW ALT OVER THE HOLD SHORT AREA. IN HIS WORDS, 'I'M AFRAID THAT A 767'S TAIL WILL BE CLIPPED BY AN ACFT ON THE NDB.' AT THIS TIME, THE CTLR STATED THAT THE ATLANTA FSDO JUST APPROVED A WAIVER WHICH WILL ALLOW CTLRS TO TAXI ACFT TO THE AREA THEY CANNOT SEE FROM THE TWR WHILE OTHER ACFT ARE LNDG. THIS CTLR IS EXTREMELY ALARMED BY THIS AND THINKS IT IS 'INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS.' THE WAIVER STATES THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN RPZ AND WILL REMOVE THE SIGNAGE FROM 'RWY 9L APCH' AND MOVE THE 'RWY 9L' SIGNAGE BACK BY 300 FT. PLACING THE 'RWY 9L' SIGN BACK 300 FT PUTS THE HOLD SHORT LINE WHERE THE GND CTLRS CANNOT SEE. THE RPTR STATED THAT A MAJOR AIRLINE HAS A TRAINING FACILITY THERE WHERE STUDENTS SHOOT THE NDB, UNDER THE HOOD, TO MINIMUMS SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY. THERE IS A BRITISH CHARTER COMPANY THAT ALSO OPERATES HVY JETS OUT OF THIS ARPT ON A DAILY BASIS. FURTHER, A THIRD MEDIUM-SIZED CARRIER JUST ESTABLISHED A BASE AT SFB AND BEGAN REGULAR FLTS LAST WK. IT APPEARS THAT THE FSDO IS ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH SIGNAGE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE INDUSTRY STANDARD. THE RPTR MAY HAVE TO USE THE PHRASE, 'NOT IN SIGHT,' WHEN CLRING ACFT TO TAXI IN AREAS THAT ARE BLOCKED FROM VIEW. THE OTHER OPTION FOR THIS CTLR MIGHT BE TO TAXI ACFT TO A POINT ON THE FIELD FROM WHICH HE CAN VISUALLY ASCERTAIN THEIR POS.

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.