Narrative:

Flight was pushed back from gate. Engines started normally. Pushback release is at the intersection of ramp on taxiway T, which is part of the ramp and taxiway C. WX was low overcast with several mi visibility under the clouds. We were cleared to 'taxi to runway 5R, cross runway 5L.' no route was specified. First officer read back the clearance. I acknowledged it to first officer. Neither first officer nor myself had been to pvd recently. Runway 5L is a short, narrow runway and is immediately adjacent to and parallels the ramp. Taxiway C crosses runway 5L and taxiway T is apparently part of the ramp. Because we did not see any signage from where we had been pushed and ground had not specified a taxi route to runway 5R, I started a left turn from where the tug released us. I began a turn onto taxiway C as it entered runway 5L. Ground immediately, without prompting or a query from us, cleared us to taxi down runway 5L to runway 5R. We proceeded to taxi to runway 5R via runway 5L. They did not indicate that there was any runway incursion or any other concern. Both of us were concerned that we may have accidentally incurred runway 5L. As the first officer and I discussed this afterwards, neither of us could recall seeing any normal runway signs to alert us that runway 5L was right there. Because taxiway T is part of the ramp and we are actually pushed back onto taxiway T for engine start -- it was confusing. Recommend that a note be placed in operations page reminding crews that they will be pushed onto taxiway T for engine start and that runway 5L is immediately adjacent to ramp with an entrance to it where they are released. We were both looking at the airport page and still didn't catch the possible problem until I started the turn. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter indicated during callback that he/she recalled no taxiway edge markings that separated the taxiway T from the main terminal ramp. Prtr also indicated no standard runway signs indicating runway 5L/23R. He and crew determined that this is probably not an unusual occurrence because the ground controller was so quick to catch the error with the correcting taxi clearance. Reporter indicated that company has since issued a bulletin listing runway and taxiway incursion hazards that include providence on the list.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CAPT RPTED CONFUSING SURFACE MARKINGS, OR LACK THEREOF, AT PVD, RI. COUPLED WITH A NON SPECIFIC TAXI CLRNC, A RWY INCURSION MAY HAVE OCCURRED.

Narrative: FLT WAS PUSHED BACK FROM GATE. ENGS STARTED NORMALLY. PUSHBACK RELEASE IS AT THE INTXN OF RAMP ON TXWY T, WHICH IS PART OF THE RAMP AND TXWY C. WX WAS LOW OVCST WITH SEVERAL MI VISIBILITY UNDER THE CLOUDS. WE WERE CLRED TO 'TAXI TO RWY 5R, CROSS RWY 5L.' NO RTE WAS SPECIFIED. FO READ BACK THE CLRNC. I ACKNOWLEDGED IT TO FO. NEITHER FO NOR MYSELF HAD BEEN TO PVD RECENTLY. RWY 5L IS A SHORT, NARROW RWY AND IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AND PARALLELS THE RAMP. TXWY C CROSSES RWY 5L AND TXWY T IS APPARENTLY PART OF THE RAMP. BECAUSE WE DID NOT SEE ANY SIGNAGE FROM WHERE WE HAD BEEN PUSHED AND GND HAD NOT SPECIFIED A TAXI RTE TO RWY 5R, I STARTED A L TURN FROM WHERE THE TUG RELEASED US. I BEGAN A TURN ONTO TXWY C AS IT ENTERED RWY 5L. GND IMMEDIATELY, WITHOUT PROMPTING OR A QUERY FROM US, CLRED US TO TAXI DOWN RWY 5L TO RWY 5R. WE PROCEEDED TO TAXI TO RWY 5R VIA RWY 5L. THEY DID NOT INDICATE THAT THERE WAS ANY RWY INCURSION OR ANY OTHER CONCERN. BOTH OF US WERE CONCERNED THAT WE MAY HAVE ACCIDENTALLY INCURRED RWY 5L. AS THE FO AND I DISCUSSED THIS AFTERWARDS, NEITHER OF US COULD RECALL SEEING ANY NORMAL RWY SIGNS TO ALERT US THAT RWY 5L WAS RIGHT THERE. BECAUSE TXWY T IS PART OF THE RAMP AND WE ARE ACTUALLY PUSHED BACK ONTO TXWY T FOR ENG START -- IT WAS CONFUSING. RECOMMEND THAT A NOTE BE PLACED IN OPS PAGE REMINDING CREWS THAT THEY WILL BE PUSHED ONTO TXWY T FOR ENG START AND THAT RWY 5L IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RAMP WITH AN ENTRANCE TO IT WHERE THEY ARE RELEASED. WE WERE BOTH LOOKING AT THE ARPT PAGE AND STILL DIDN'T CATCH THE POSSIBLE PROB UNTIL I STARTED THE TURN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR INDICATED DURING CALLBACK THAT HE/SHE RECALLED NO TXWY EDGE MARKINGS THAT SEPARATED THE TXWY T FROM THE MAIN TERMINAL RAMP. PRTR ALSO INDICATED NO STANDARD RWY SIGNS INDICATING RWY 5L/23R. HE AND CREW DETERMINED THAT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE BECAUSE THE GND CTLR WAS SO QUICK TO CATCH THE ERROR WITH THE CORRECTING TAXI CLRNC. RPTR INDICATED THAT COMPANY HAS SINCE ISSUED A BULLETIN LISTING RWY AND TXWY INCURSION HAZARDS THAT INCLUDE PROVIDENCE ON THE LIST.

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.