Narrative:

Half of our aprt (st. Louis downtown 'cps') has correct and required aprt signage. Half of the aprt does not. Not only is this confusing for the pilots and frustrating for the controllers, but it's encouraging and promoting runway incursions (which the FAA is currently committed to reducing), and I'd personally really like to know how a public aprt is getting away with it. Signage ceases to exist east of taxiway G. Signage west of taxiway G is perfect. Runway 12L/30R has absolutely no signs at the runway indicating txwys to exit. No handmade signs, no official signs, no signs of any kind. Signs exiting runway 30L/12R are correct until reaching the parallel taxiway B. The few signs indicating the threshold of runway 30R and signs along taxiway B are black on white, hand painted signs. Along taxiway B they merely say 'ramps.' this is a terrible and ongoing problem at our aprt. No matter how vigilant ground control is, it's impossible to catch everyone in time. Usually by the time it's obvious a jet or twin, in particular, is not going to make the turn onto taxiway B, there's no room for the pilot to turn around and taxiing on 30R is the only option. This is unacceptable when we run heavy college traffic in the pattern. The ground control position is often combined with flight data, and attention has to often be divided. Even when given specific progressive taxi instructions, a large percentage (probably not the majority) of pilots still do not make the turn onto taxiway B, especially if they have landed 12R/30L and exited at taxiway H. Taxiway H looks like it goes straight through to the ramp, but it does not. When pilots take the wrong turn onto taxiway H, it is rare that they stop and ask if they can use the runway. They almost always just turn and taxi via runway 30R. The controllers have dubbed the black hole. Pilots often seem sucked into taxiway H despite ground control's best efforts. On 00/08/fri this happened repeatedly. Example: an aztec landed runway 12R, exiting at H and told to taxi to the ramp. Runway 12L and 12R were active and noted as such on the ATIS. There was touch and go traffic in the pattern on 12R. Local and ground control were combined due to controller lunch break (only two controllers on duty). Local control (me) told the aztec to taxi to the ramp. After checking for and responding to other traffic, I looked back to runway 12L to see the aztec taxiing on 30R. I asked if he realized he was taxiing on an active runway and he said he did. I pointed out that there was traffic in the pattern for that runway and he said he'd been cleared all the way to the ramp. I told him to call the tower so I could tell him the aim paragraph stating that's a clearance to cross runways, but never on runways. We both subsequently thoroughly read the aim, and it doesn't really address taxiing on any runway other than the assigned departure runway. Maybe this is a flaw, too. I find it ironic to note, too, that last month's issue of a pilot magazine (which I believe most pilots receive) highlighted an accident at st. Louis lambert, due to aircraft being on an active runway at the wrong time. This happens at least once a day, usually more. It's not a surprise that pilots can't find their way. It's a surprise that the airport is allowed to continue with this poor signage. It would even be helpful for yet another hand painted sign at taxiway H that says 'don't turn here' or 'this is not gulf' or 'this taxiway does not go thru' or even 'dead end. This signage problem is a dangerous situation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that there has been some new hand painted signs installed in the areas of question just recently after this reporting. However, there was another runway incursion last week that caused reporter to send an aircraft around due to an unfamiliar pilot taxiing right past the taxiway between the parallel runways on to the other parallel runway. Reporter further stated that this has been a problem for several years with very little done by the airport. The airport officials have continually stated that thereare no funds available for more signage and that the FAA ATCT, FSDO, and airport representatives have, and are, looking into this matter.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CPS TOWER CONTROLLER COMPLAINT WITH THE LACK OF ADEQUATE ARPT SIGNAGE TO IDENTIFY TXWY AND RWYS EAST OF CROSS TXWY G RESULTING IN MANY INCIDENTS WHEN PILOTS/FLC USE A PORTION OF AN ACTIVE RWY TO JOIN ANOTHER TXWY TO THE RAMP WITHOUT TWR CTLR PERMISSION.

Narrative: HALF OF OUR APRT (ST. LOUIS DOWNTOWN 'CPS') HAS CORRECT AND REQUIRED APRT SIGNAGE. HALF OF THE APRT DOES NOT. NOT ONLY IS THIS CONFUSING FOR THE PLTS AND FRUSTRATING FOR THE CONTROLLERS, BUT IT'S ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING RWY INCURSIONS (WHICH THE FAA IS CURRENTLY COMMITTED TO REDUCING), AND I'D PERSONALLY REALLY LIKE TO KNOW HOW A PUBLIC APRT IS GETTING AWAY WITH IT. SIGNAGE CEASES TO EXIST EAST OF TXWY G. SIGNAGE WEST OF TXWY G IS PERFECT. RWY 12L/30R HAS ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNS AT THE RWY INDICATING TXWYS TO EXIT. NO HANDMADE SIGNS, NO OFFICIAL SIGNS, NO SIGNS OF ANY KIND. SIGNS EXITING RWY 30L/12R ARE CORRECT UNTIL REACHING THE PARALLEL TXWY B. THE FEW SIGNS INDICATING THE THRESHOLD OF RWY 30R AND SIGNS ALONG TXWY B ARE BLACK ON WHITE, HAND PAINTED SIGNS. ALONG TXWY B THEY MERELY SAY 'RAMPS.' THIS IS A TERRIBLE AND ONGOING PROBLEM AT OUR APRT. NO MATTER HOW VIGILANT GROUND CONTROL IS, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CATCH EVERYONE IN TIME. USUALLY BY THE TIME IT'S OBVIOUS A JET OR TWIN, IN PARTICULAR, IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THE TURN ONTO TXWY B, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THE PILOT TO TURN AROUND AND TAXIING ON 30R IS THE ONLY OPTION. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE WHEN WE RUN HEAVY COLLEGE TRAFFIC IN THE PATTERN. THE GROUND CONTROL POSITION IS OFTEN COMBINED WITH FLIGHT DATA, AND ATTENTION HAS TO OFTEN BE DIVIDED. EVEN WHEN GIVEN SPECIFIC PROGRESSIVE TAXI INSTRUCTIONS, A LARGE PERCENTAGE (PROBABLY NOT THE MAJORITY) OF PILOTS STILL DO NOT MAKE THE TURN ONTO TXWY B, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE LANDED 12R/30L AND EXITED AT TXWY H. TXWY H LOOKS LIKE IT GOES STRAIGHT THROUGH TO THE RAMP, BUT IT DOES NOT. WHEN PILOTS TAKE THE WRONG TURN ONTO TXWY H, IT IS RARE THAT THEY STOP AND ASK IF THEY CAN USE THE RWY. THEY ALMOST ALWAYS JUST TURN AND TAXI VIA RWY 30R. THE CONTROLLERS HAVE DUBBED THE BLACK HOLE. PILOTS OFTEN SEEM SUCKED INTO TXWY H DESPITE GROUND CONTROL'S BEST EFFORTS. ON 00/08/FRI THIS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY. EXAMPLE: AN AZTEC LANDED RUNWAY 12R, EXITING AT H AND TOLD TO TAXI TO THE RAMP. RWY 12L AND 12R WERE ACTIVE AND NOTED AS SUCH ON THE ATIS. THERE WAS TOUCH AND GO TRAFFIC IN THE PATTERN ON 12R. LOCAL AND GROUND CONTROL WERE COMBINED DUE TO CONTROLLER LUNCH BREAK (ONLY TWO CONTROLLERS ON DUTY). LOCAL CONTROL (ME) TOLD THE AZTEC TO TAXI TO THE RAMP. AFTER CHECKING FOR AND RESPONDING TO OTHER TFC, I LOOKED BACK TO RWY 12L TO SEE THE AZTEC TAXIING ON 30R. I ASKED IF HE REALIZED HE WAS TAXIING ON AN ACTIVE RWY AND HE SAID HE DID. I POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS TFC IN THE PATTERN FOR THAT RWY AND HE SAID HE'D BEEN CLEARED ALL THE WAY TO THE RAMP. I TOLD HIM TO CALL THE TOWER SO I COULD TELL HIM THE AIM PARAGRAPH STATING THAT'S A CLEARANCE TO CROSS RWYS, BUT NEVER ON RWYS. WE BOTH SUBSEQUENTLY THOROUGHLY READ THE AIM, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS TAXIING ON ANY RWY OTHER THAN THE ASSIGNED DEPARTURE RWY. MAYBE THIS IS A FLAW, TOO. I FIND IT IRONIC TO NOTE, TOO, THAT LAST MONTH'S ISSUE OF A PILOT MAGAZINE (WHICH I BELIEVE MOST PILOTS RECEIVE) HIGHLIGHTED AN ACCIDENT AT ST. LOUIS LAMBERT, DUE TO ACFT BEING ON AN ACTIVE RWY AT THE WRONG TIME. THIS HAPPENS AT LEAST ONCE A DAY, USUALLY MORE. IT'S NOT A SURPRISE THAT PILOTS CAN'T FIND THEIR WAY. IT'S A SURPRISE THAT THE ARPT IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE WITH THIS POOR SIGNAGE. IT WOULD EVEN BE HELPFUL FOR YET ANOTHER HAND PAINTED SIGN AT TXWY H THAT SAYS 'DON'T TURN HERE' OR 'THIS IS NOT GULF' OR 'THIS TXWY DOES NOT GO THRU' OR EVEN 'DEAD END. THIS SIGNAGE PROBLEM IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME NEW HAND PAINTED SIGNS INSTALLED IN THE AREAS OF QUESTION JUST RECENTLY AFTER THIS REPORTING. HOWEVER, THERE WAS ANOTHER RWY INCURSION LAST WEEK THAT CAUSED RPTR TO SEND AN ACFT AROUND DUE TO AN UNFAMILIAR PILOT TAXIING RIGHT PAST THE TXWY BETWEEN THE PARALLEL RWYS ON TO THE OTHER PARALLEL RWY. RPTR FURTHER STATED THAT THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITH VERY LITTLE DONE BY THE ARPT. THE ARPT OFFICIALS HAVE CONTINUALLY STATED THAT THEREARE NO FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR MORE SIGNAGE AND THAT THE FAA ATCT, FSDO, AND ARPT REPRESENTATIVES HAVE, AND ARE, LOOKING INTO THIS MATTER.

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.