37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 666402 |
Time | |
Date | 200507 |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : abq.airport |
State Reference | NM |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | Travelair 95 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Plan | VFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Flight Phase | ground : taxi |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | other |
Function | flight crew : single pilot |
Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial |
Experience | flight time total : 12500 |
ASRS Report | 666402 |
Person 2 | |
Function | observation : observer |
Events | |
Anomaly | incursion : runway non adherence : clearance |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Airport Flight Crew Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Situations | |
Airport | markings : abq.airport signage : abq.airport |
Narrative:
After landing on runway 8 at abq we were instructed to exit at E6 for our taxi back for departure on runway 8. After contacting ground on 121.9 we were told 'taxiway east hold short runway 3.' the PNF was operating the radio and did not confirm with PF the hold short instructions. PNF had his head inside. PF taxied west on taxiway east and when the aircraft got to the hold line for runway 21 queried the PNF as to the hold short instructions; PNF stated we are to hold short of runway 3. The runway sign at the intersection of taxiway east and the hold short line does not indicate runway 3-21; it only has '21' on the sign. When given a hold short of runway 3 we were looking for a runway sign that has a 3 on it. There is no runway 3 sign anywhere on taxiway east! I taxied past the hold short lines and then realized that the reciprocal of 21 is 3. If the runway signage would have said 3-21 I would have held short. If the ground controller would have stated hold short of 21 I would have held short. The ground controller should have stated hold short of runway 3-21 or runway 21 because runway 21 is the only runway marked on the sign. I have no excuse for the incident. I called the supervisor and talked to him about the problem; he said that the controller should have given the hold short and stated runway 21 not runway 3. Ground control was aware of the signage problem as they stated they have had numerous occurrences. The supervisor stated he has issued instructions to the controllers not to use hold short of runway 3 because there is no runway 3 sign but to use hold short of runway 21. Runway 3 and runway 8 were the active runways that day; ATIS only stated runway 8 was the active. In this case there was no incursion or loss of separation. The tower controller had just issued the clearance to ground to allow me to cross when I taxied across. Thank goodness this was considered a non-occurrence. There was no pilot deviation or controller deviation filed. The airport authority needs to fix the lack of markings on the sign and fix the hold short line as it is obliterated and hard to see when it is combined with taxiway hotel and looking directly into the setting sun. This occurrence was a combination of several breakdowns in good procedure from the pilots right on up thru the controllers and airport management. Everyone involved in this incident except the pilots were well aware of the sign and misidentification of the runway problem. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter commented that while the ATC representative to whom he talked was sympathetic to the situation and advised that this is a recurring problem; there is no intention at this time to spend money on replacing the sign with a properly descriptive one. ATCT ground controllers have been asked to refer to runway 21 vice runway 03 for such crossing restrs but; when runway 03 is an active runway they are inclined to use the runway 03 descriptor for all comments relative to the runway. He further stressed that the ATIS said nothing about runway 03 being an 'active' runway. He learned this only as a result of subsequent conversations with the tower.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AFTER LNDG RWY 08 AT ABQ; PLT OF BE90 FAILS TO 'HOLD SHORT OF RWY 03' AT TXWY E AS CLRED. ADVISES RWY SIGN AT THAT POINT INDICATES RWY 21 ONLY AND NOT THE RECIPROCAL; I.E. RWY 03.
Narrative: AFTER LNDG ON RWY 8 AT ABQ WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO EXIT AT E6 FOR OUR TAXI BACK FOR DEP ON RWY 8. AFTER CONTACTING GND ON 121.9 WE WERE TOLD 'TXWY E HOLD SHORT RWY 3.' THE PNF WAS OPERATING THE RADIO AND DID NOT CONFIRM WITH PF THE HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS. PNF HAD HIS HEAD INSIDE. PF TAXIED W ON TXWY E AND WHEN THE ACFT GOT TO THE HOLD LINE FOR RWY 21 QUERIED THE PNF AS TO THE HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS; PNF STATED WE ARE TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 3. THE RWY SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF TXWY E AND THE HOLD SHORT LINE DOES NOT INDICATE RWY 3-21; IT ONLY HAS '21' ON THE SIGN. WHEN GIVEN A HOLD SHORT OF RWY 3 WE WERE LOOKING FOR A RWY SIGN THAT HAS A 3 ON IT. THERE IS NO RWY 3 SIGN ANYWHERE ON TXWY E! I TAXIED PAST THE HOLD SHORT LINES AND THEN REALIZED THAT THE RECIPROCAL OF 21 IS 3. IF THE RWY SIGNAGE WOULD HAVE SAID 3-21 I WOULD HAVE HELD SHORT. IF THE GND CTLR WOULD HAVE STATED HOLD SHORT OF 21 I WOULD HAVE HELD SHORT. THE GND CTLR SHOULD HAVE STATED HOLD SHORT OF RWY 3-21 OR RWY 21 BECAUSE RWY 21 IS THE ONLY RWY MARKED ON THE SIGN. I HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR THE INCIDENT. I CALLED THE SUPVR AND TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE PROB; HE SAID THAT THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE HOLD SHORT AND STATED RWY 21 NOT RWY 3. GND CTL WAS AWARE OF THE SIGNAGE PROB AS THEY STATED THEY HAVE HAD NUMEROUS OCCURRENCES. THE SUPVR STATED HE HAS ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CTLRS NOT TO USE HOLD SHORT OF RWY 3 BECAUSE THERE IS NO RWY 3 SIGN BUT TO USE HOLD SHORT OF RWY 21. RWY 3 AND RWY 8 WERE THE ACTIVE RWYS THAT DAY; ATIS ONLY STATED RWY 8 WAS THE ACTIVE. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO INCURSION OR LOSS OF SEPARATION. THE TWR CTLR HAD JUST ISSUED THE CLRNC TO GND TO ALLOW ME TO CROSS WHEN I TAXIED ACROSS. THANK GOODNESS THIS WAS CONSIDERED A NON-OCCURRENCE. THERE WAS NO PLT DEVIATION OR CTLR DEVIATION FILED. THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY NEEDS TO FIX THE LACK OF MARKINGS ON THE SIGN AND FIX THE HOLD SHORT LINE AS IT IS OBLITERATED AND HARD TO SEE WHEN IT IS COMBINED WITH TXWY HOTEL AND LOOKING DIRECTLY INTO THE SETTING SUN. THIS OCCURRENCE WAS A COMBINATION OF SEVERAL BREAKDOWNS IN GOOD PROC FROM THE PLTS RIGHT ON UP THRU THE CTLRS AND ARPT MGMNT. EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT EXCEPT THE PLTS WERE WELL AWARE OF THE SIGN AND MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE RWY PROB. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR COMMENTED THAT WHILE THE ATC REPRESENTATIVE TO WHOM HE TALKED WAS SYMPATHETIC TO THE SIT AND ADVISED THAT THIS IS A RECURRING PROB; THERE IS NO INTENTION AT THIS TIME TO SPEND MONEY ON REPLACING THE SIGN WITH A PROPERLY DESCRIPTIVE ONE. ATCT GND CTLRS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO REFER TO RWY 21 VICE RWY 03 FOR SUCH CROSSING RESTRS BUT; WHEN RWY 03 IS AN ACTIVE RWY THEY ARE INCLINED TO USE THE RWY 03 DESCRIPTOR FOR ALL COMMENTS RELATIVE TO THE RWY. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT THE ATIS SAID NOTHING ABOUT RWY 03 BEING AN 'ACTIVE' RWY. HE LEARNED THIS ONLY AS A RESULT OF SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE TOWER.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.