Narrative:

This report notes 3 documents: 1) lgb commercial airport diagram. 2) lgb commercial airport diagram construction notice. 3) and a company tailored page. I am filing this report in order to prevent another crew from falling into a potential trap. This trap will cause a runway incursion. On this flight; the above 3 documents as well as regular NOTAMS were reviewed per sops; for lgb. On departure; aircraft was pushed back facing south. According to docs 1); 2); and 3); one would expect to be on the ramp facing south. Taxi instructions were; 'charlie; lima; hold short of runway 25L.' by looking at doc 1) and 3) one would have to take taxiway golf to get to taxiway charlie. Problem is looking at doc 2); in reality there really is no C1 or C2. The aircraft was pushed back on taxiway charlie. According to docs 1) and 3); having expected to be on the ramp area; taxiway charlie would be; immediate right turn followed by immediate left turn. In reality the above would put you on runway 16L instead of taxiway charlie. Our aircraft was not equipped with raas system. Fortunately; both crewmembers caught and mitigated the error in time and there was no incursion on runway 16L. Ground control also brought the error to our attention. New taxi instructions were issued with no incident or discussion of an incident with ground control. The heading of doc 2); txwys C/K rehabilitation (making reference to 'restore or reinstate') is very misleading. The written explanations also do not make any reference to this change. Realistically a microscopic examination of doc 2) would bring this change to light. I would consider this to be a major change and therefore a heading of 'changes' along with an explanation would have prevented the confusion. In reference to above issue; the next question is how were the taxiway markings? I have not been to lgb again since; and therefore cannot make any comments as to whether the markings would have prevented the confusion or not. 1) make crew aware of this change. 2) ATC pushback instruction should have been; 'pushback on charlie.'callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter restated points that were brought up in the original report; and would like to see the airport diagram revised to reflect the current layout at lgb. Although runway 16L/34R is currently closed for the taxiway K rehabilitation; it will open eventually and the airport diagram needs to accurately reflect the layout to prevent a runway incursion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT RPTS CHANGES TO RAMP AT LGB ARE NOT REFLECTED ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM AND CAUSE CONFUSION DURING INITIAL TAXI AFTER PUSH BACK.

Narrative: THIS RPT NOTES 3 DOCUMENTS: 1) LGB COMMERCIAL ARPT DIAGRAM. 2) LGB COMMERCIAL ARPT DIAGRAM CONSTRUCTION NOTICE. 3) AND A COMPANY TAILORED PAGE. I AM FILING THIS RPT IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANOTHER CREW FROM FALLING INTO A POTENTIAL TRAP. THIS TRAP WILL CAUSE A RWY INCURSION. ON THIS FLT; THE ABOVE 3 DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS REGULAR NOTAMS WERE REVIEWED PER SOPS; FOR LGB. ON DEP; ACFT WAS PUSHED BACK FACING SOUTH. ACCORDING TO DOCS 1); 2); AND 3); ONE WOULD EXPECT TO BE ON THE RAMP FACING SOUTH. TAXI INSTRUCTIONS WERE; 'CHARLIE; LIMA; HOLD SHORT OF RWY 25L.' BY LOOKING AT DOC 1) AND 3) ONE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE TXWY GOLF TO GET TO TXWY CHARLIE. PROBLEM IS LOOKING AT DOC 2); IN REALITY THERE REALLY IS NO C1 OR C2. THE ACFT WAS PUSHED BACK ON TXWY CHARLIE. ACCORDING TO DOCS 1) AND 3); HAVING EXPECTED TO BE ON THE RAMP AREA; TXWY CHARLIE WOULD BE; IMMEDIATE RIGHT TURN FOLLOWED BY IMMEDIATE LEFT TURN. IN REALITY THE ABOVE WOULD PUT YOU ON RWY 16L INSTEAD OF TXWY CHARLIE. OUR ACFT WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH RAAS SYSTEM. FORTUNATELY; BOTH CREWMEMBERS CAUGHT AND MITIGATED THE ERROR IN TIME AND THERE WAS NO INCURSION ON RWY 16L. GND CTL ALSO BROUGHT THE ERROR TO OUR ATTENTION. NEW TAXI INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED WITH NO INCIDENT OR DISCUSSION OF AN INCIDENT WITH GND CTL. THE HEADING OF DOC 2); TXWYS C/K REHABILITATION (MAKING REFERENCE TO 'RESTORE OR REINSTATE') IS VERY MISLEADING. THE WRITTEN EXPLANATIONS ALSO DO NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO THIS CHANGE. REALISTICALLY A MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF DOC 2) WOULD BRING THIS CHANGE TO LIGHT. I WOULD CONSIDER THIS TO BE A MAJOR CHANGE AND THEREFORE A HEADING OF 'CHANGES' ALONG WITH AN EXPLANATION WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE CONFUSION. IN REFERENCE TO ABOVE ISSUE; THE NEXT QUESTION IS HOW WERE THE TXWY MARKINGS? I HAVE NOT BEEN TO LGB AGAIN SINCE; AND THEREFORE CANNOT MAKE ANY COMMENTS AS TO WHETHER THE MARKINGS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE CONFUSION OR NOT. 1) MAKE CREW AWARE OF THIS CHANGE. 2) ATC PUSHBACK INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN; 'PUSHBACK ON CHARLIE.'CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR RESTATED POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE ORIGINAL RPT; AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ARPT DIAGRAM REVISED TO REFLECT THE CURRENT LAYOUT AT LGB. ALTHOUGH RWY 16L/34R IS CURRENTLY CLOSED FOR THE TXWY K REHABILITATION; IT WILL OPEN EVENTUALLY AND THE ARPT DIAGRAM NEEDS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LAYOUT TO PREVENT A RWY INCURSION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.