Narrative:

I prepared to depart hut on an IFR flight plan during clear VMC conditions. I obtained my IFR clearance, which was to my destination via runway heading, radar vectors and 'as filed.' when I called ground and indicated I was ready to taxi, the clearance was to taxi to runway 35. This surprised me as I was expecting 4, but fully recognized the difference. I proceeded to the south from parking in front of the tower to the south boundary of the airport via taxiway D, and held short of runway 4 to do a run-up. See the attached airport diagram. Upon completion of the runup, I informed the controller that I was crossing runway 4 and he confirmed taxi to runway 35. I made an editorial comment that I wished that the FAA would require clearance to cross each runway, and the controller responded that he was glad that the FAA does not. I expected to cross the hold short line on the other side of runway 4 to exit it and then to stop in the middle area holding short of runway 35. I crossed the first hold short marking to the east of runway 4 and stopped before the next hold short line. It was then that I realized that the hold short line for runway 35 is before the exit hold short line of runway 4! Thus, to hold short of runway 35 one must stop on the runway 4 area. There was no actual safety issue as there was no other traffic at or approaching the airport. The controller and I discussed runway markings and he indicated that I did not need to move from my present location. I confirmed that I did know which side of the hold short markings was the 'safe' side and which was the runway side. I contacted tower (the same controller) and indicated that I was ready for takeoff, and was cleared and then departed the airport. Upon departure, the controller indicated to me that the markings are the way that they are because of the close distance between runway 4 and runway 35. The runway incursion could have been prevented by a number of improvements. First, the controller might have cleared me to taxi to runway 4 that had been indicated as active, or I might have asked for this runway. Second, the controller might have cautioned me about the short distance between the runways and the unusual placement of hold short markings. In my view, the markings at hut are invitation for runway incursion incidents. Third, I might have been more attentive to the markings and correctly stopped on runway 4 before reaching runway 35. However, it was hot and I was tired after two previous legs of almost 6 hours during the day, and was not alert for something different than what I was expecting. Suggested corrective action would be to improve the markings at hut and/or to require holding short of runway 4 when runway 35 will be in use. More obvious hold short markings that clearly indicate the overlap of these runways might also help. A standard caution by the controller to visiting pilots about the markings would be helpful. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter repeated concern for runway 35 signage only for runway 35 associated with runway 4 signage. The reporter alleges there is no runway 35 holdshort taxiway marking to support the intent that aircraft should be holding on taxiway D, short of runway 4, as the common hold short point also for runway 35. It was suggested that the a/FD publication for hut be amended to alert pilots to this unusual condition. Supplemental information: an airport spokesman advised that there could be the potential for confusion due to the intersecting runways so close to the approach end of both runways 4 and 35. Both runways have a displaced threshold. Marking designation for the first 800 ft of runway 35 is planned to be changed from a runway to a taxiway. The first four hundred ft of runway is displaced 400 ft. The spokesman advised that airport officials have had discussions with the FAA to add common holdshort markings for runway 35 at the runway 4 holdshort point, but no decision has been made.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA24 PLT REALIZED AFTER-THE-FACT THAT HE HAS CROSSED THE RWY HOLDSHORT LINE FOR RWY 35 AT HUT ARPT.

Narrative: I PREPARED TO DEPART HUT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN DURING CLR VMC CONDITIONS. I OBTAINED MY IFR CLRNC, WHICH WAS TO MY DESTINATION VIA RWY HEADING, RADAR VECTORS AND 'AS FILED.' WHEN I CALLED GND AND INDICATED I WAS READY TO TAXI, THE CLRNC WAS TO TAXI TO RWY 35. THIS SURPRISED ME AS I WAS EXPECTING 4, BUT FULLY RECOGNIZED THE DIFFERENCE. I PROCEEDED TO THE S FROM PARKING IN FRONT OF THE TWR TO THE S BOUNDARY OF THE ARPT VIA TXWY D, AND HELD SHORT OF RWY 4 TO DO A RUN-UP. SEE THE ATTACHED ARPT DIAGRAM. UPON COMPLETION OF THE RUNUP, I INFORMED THE CTLR THAT I WAS XING RWY 4 AND HE CONFIRMED TAXI TO RWY 35. I MADE AN EDITORIAL COMMENT THAT I WISHED THAT THE FAA WOULD REQUIRE CLRNC TO CROSS EACH RWY, AND THE CTLR RESPONDED THAT HE WAS GLAD THAT THE FAA DOES NOT. I EXPECTED TO CROSS THE HOLD SHORT LINE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RWY 4 TO EXIT IT AND THEN TO STOP IN THE MIDDLE AREA HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 35. I CROSSED THE FIRST HOLD SHORT MARKING TO THE E OF RWY 4 AND STOPPED BEFORE THE NEXT HOLD SHORT LINE. IT WAS THEN THAT I REALIZED THAT THE HOLD SHORT LINE FOR RWY 35 IS BEFORE THE EXIT HOLD SHORT LINE OF RWY 4! THUS, TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 35 ONE MUST STOP ON THE RWY 4 AREA. THERE WAS NO ACTUAL SAFETY ISSUE AS THERE WAS NO OTHER TFC AT OR APCHING THE ARPT. THE CTLR AND I DISCUSSED RWY MARKINGS AND HE INDICATED THAT I DID NOT NEED TO MOVE FROM MY PRESENT LOCATION. I CONFIRMED THAT I DID KNOW WHICH SIDE OF THE HOLD SHORT MARKINGS WAS THE 'SAFE' SIDE AND WHICH WAS THE RWY SIDE. I CONTACTED TWR (THE SAME CTLR) AND INDICATED THAT I WAS READY FOR TKOF, AND WAS CLRED AND THEN DEPARTED THE ARPT. UPON DEPARTURE, THE CTLR INDICATED TO ME THAT THE MARKINGS ARE THE WAY THAT THEY ARE BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE DISTANCE BTWN RWY 4 AND RWY 35. THE RWY INCURSION COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS. FIRST, THE CTLR MIGHT HAVE CLRED ME TO TAXI TO RWY 4 THAT HAD BEEN INDICATED AS ACTIVE, OR I MIGHT HAVE ASKED FOR THIS RWY. SECOND, THE CTLR MIGHT HAVE CAUTIONED ME ABOUT THE SHORT DISTANCE BTWN THE RWYS AND THE UNUSUAL PLACEMENT OF HOLD SHORT MARKINGS. IN MY VIEW, THE MARKINGS AT HUT ARE INVITATION FOR RWY INCURSION INCIDENTS. THIRD, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE ATTENTIVE TO THE MARKINGS AND CORRECTLY STOPPED ON RWY 4 BEFORE REACHING RWY 35. HOWEVER, IT WAS HOT AND I WAS TIRED AFTER TWO PREVIOUS LEGS OF ALMOST 6 HRS DURING THE DAY, AND WAS NOT ALERT FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I WAS EXPECTING. SUGGESTED CORRECTIVE ACTION WOULD BE TO IMPROVE THE MARKINGS AT HUT AND/OR TO REQUIRE HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 4 WHEN RWY 35 WILL BE IN USE. MORE OBVIOUS HOLD SHORT MARKINGS THAT CLEARLY INDICATE THE OVERLAP OF THESE RWYS MIGHT ALSO HELP. A STANDARD CAUTION BY THE CTLR TO VISITING PLTS ABOUT THE MARKINGS WOULD BE HELPFUL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR REPEATED CONCERN FOR RWY 35 SIGNAGE ONLY FOR RWY 35 ASSOCIATED WITH RWY 4 SIGNAGE. THE RPTR ALLEGES THERE IS NO RWY 35 HOLDSHORT TXWY MARKING TO SUPPORT THE INTENT THAT ACFT SHOULD BE HOLDING ON TXWY D, SHORT OF RWY 4, AS THE COMMON HOLD SHORT POINT ALSO FOR RWY 35. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE A/FD PUBLICATION FOR HUT BE AMENDED TO ALERT PLTS TO THIS UNUSUAL CONDITION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO: AN ARPT SPOKESMAN ADVISED THAT THERE COULD BE THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFUSION DUE TO THE INTERSECTING RWYS SO CLOSE TO THE APCH END OF BOTH RWYS 4 AND 35. BOTH RWYS HAVE A DISPLACED THRESHOLD. MARKING DESIGNATION FOR THE FIRST 800 FT OF RWY 35 IS PLANNED TO BE CHANGED FROM A RWY TO A TXWY. THE FIRST FOUR HUNDRED FT OF RWY IS DISPLACED 400 FT. THE SPOKESMAN ADVISED THAT ARPT OFFICIALS HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FAA TO ADD COMMON HOLDSHORT MARKINGS FOR RWY 35 AT THE RWY 4 HOLDSHORT POINT, BUT NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.

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.