Narrative:

After landing on runway 24R at cle, we exited at romeo. We were instructed to make a left turn on taxiway golf, then right on sierra, to cross runway 24C and hold short of runway 24L. Upon reaching the gate, we realized that we may have held short of the wrong hold short line for runway 24L. After crossing runway 24C, I was expecting to see two dash lines and two solid lines. There was no red sign by the first hold short line to indicate that it was for runway 24C. If I had stopped short of the first hold short line, two-thirds of the aircraft would have been left across runway 24C. While holding short of the second hold short line, we were clear of both runway 24C and 24R. It is impossible to clear runway 24C without entering the runway 24L zone, and it is impossible to clear 24L without entering the runway 24C zone. Our error came from an unusual sequence of hold short lines, a lack of lighted signs and a poorly presented chart. This situation could lead to a serious problem. Crews could enter runway zones without knowing it. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter was not aware of the distance between runway 24L and 24C. He indicated the airport was under heavy construction and recalled no hold short signage and/or hold lights. Reporter added incident occurred a night, in a very confusing and confined area, trying to clear runway 24C and still remain short of runway 24L. Reporter indicated that ATC would hold all types of aircraft in the subject area, regardless of size/type. He also volunteered that contact with local ATC, (tower), indicated runway 24L was scheduled for closure as an active runway and would be converted to a taxiway resolving the reporter problem area/situation. The reporter recalled at least two other know occurrences in the same area from other crews. Reporter was very familiar with the airport and surface areas. Reporter suggested that the depiction of the area be published as a separate blown-up picture outlining the problem area. He also suggested the area be depicted as a problem incursion area.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IN AN EFFORT TO CLR RWY 24C THE CREW DIDN'T RECOGNIZE OR TAKE TIME TO FULLY IDENTIFY THE HOLD SHORT LINES FOR RWY 24L. NO ISSUES WERE RAISED BY ATC WHICH MAY INDICATE THAT RWY 24C WAS NOT BEING UTILIZED. IF ACCURATE, THIS TYPE OF INFO SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PLTS TO ELIMINATE A HURRIED AND/OR INACCURATE RESPONSE BY AIR CREWS WHICH MAY RESULT IN A RWY INCURSION.

Narrative: AFTER LNDG ON RWY 24R AT CLE, WE EXITED AT ROMEO. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO MAKE A L TURN ON TXWY GOLF, THEN R ON SIERRA, TO CROSS RWY 24C AND HOLD SHORT OF RWY 24L. UPON REACHING THE GATE, WE REALIZED THAT WE MAY HAVE HELD SHORT OF THE WRONG HOLD SHORT LINE FOR RWY 24L. AFTER CROSSING RWY 24C, I WAS EXPECTING TO SEE TWO DASH LINES AND TWO SOLID LINES. THERE WAS NO RED SIGN BY THE FIRST HOLD SHORT LINE TO INDICATE THAT IT WAS FOR RWY 24C. IF I HAD STOPPED SHORT OF THE FIRST HOLD SHORT LINE, TWO-THIRDS OF THE ACFT WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT ACROSS RWY 24C. WHILE HOLDING SHORT OF THE SECOND HOLD SHORT LINE, WE WERE CLR OF BOTH RWY 24C AND 24R. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CLR RWY 24C WITHOUT ENTERING THE RWY 24L ZONE, AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CLR 24L WITHOUT ENTERING THE RWY 24C ZONE. OUR ERROR CAME FROM AN UNUSUAL SEQUENCE OF HOLD SHORT LINES, A LACK OF LIGHTED SIGNS AND A POORLY PRESENTED CHART. THIS SIT COULD LEAD TO A SERIOUS PROB. CREWS COULD ENTER RWY ZONES WITHOUT KNOWING IT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN RWY 24L AND 24C. HE INDICATED THE ARPT WAS UNDER HEAVY CONSTRUCTION AND RECALLED NO HOLD SHORT SIGNAGE AND/OR HOLD LIGHTS. RPTR ADDED INCIDENT OCCURRED A NIGHT, IN A VERY CONFUSING AND CONFINED AREA, TRYING TO CLR RWY 24C AND STILL REMAIN SHORT OF RWY 24L. RPTR INDICATED THAT ATC WOULD HOLD ALL TYPES OF ACFT IN THE SUBJECT AREA, REGARDLESS OF SIZE/TYPE. HE ALSO VOLUNTEERED THAT CONTACT WITH LCL ATC, (TWR), INDICATED RWY 24L WAS SCHEDULED FOR CLOSURE AS AN ACTIVE RWY AND WOULD BE CONVERTED TO A TXWY RESOLVING THE RPTR PROB AREA/SIT. THE RPTR RECALLED AT LEAST TWO OTHER KNOW OCCURRENCES IN THE SAME AREA FROM OTHER CREWS. RPTR WAS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT AND SURFACE AREAS. RPTR SUGGESTED THAT THE DEPICTION OF THE AREA BE PUBLISHED AS A SEPARATE BLOWN-UP PICTURE OUTLINING THE PROB AREA. HE ALSO SUGGESTED THE AREA BE DEPICTED AS A PROB INCURSION AREA.

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.