Narrative:

Cga X, an light transport, landed tyr and requested runway 22 for departure. The aircraft fueled for using a 7200 ft runway. While taxiing to runway 22, the ATC supervisor, who was not in the control room, accepted a phone call from the airport manager's office asking if they can close runway 22 for daily maintenance. The supervisor did not ask the tower cabin attendant prior to saying ok. I was working local and ground combined when cga X was 1000 ft from the runway, when the supervisor came up and said runway 22 was closed. This is not the first time this has been done by ATC management. I told the supervisor the aircraft had taken on extra fuel for a departure to mke. (From the time cga X checked in on frequency, he asked if he could have runway 22 for departure. He was assured 22 would be available.) when does the runway close? What if I had an aircraft on short final or rolling? The airport manager will only open the runway for emergencys. Cga X was told to cross runway 22 and taxi to runway 31 (a runway with 5200 ft) available. Nxxxx exclaimed, 'this is why I asked you so many times, so I could get more fuel.' I had the supervisor on the phone and asked if we could use 22. He said not unless it was an emergency (no maintenance equipment was present). The cga X said he could not declare an emergency for a departure. As cga X rolled down runway 31, the nosewheel seemed to shudder back to the earth as if stalling. The aircraft got airborne with an estimated 400 ft to spare. This could have all been avoided if the airport management would coordinate and not dictate. Also, if management would stand up for safety here at tyler with the construction. One day the ATC manager was in the tower, I explained how construction vehicles just drive across txwys without calling/without flags. He said, 'oh, just let them go so we can get it done.' is safety being compromised at the risk of the public?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CGA JET TAKES ON MORE FUEL AND REQUESTS A LONG RWY FOR TKOF. REQUEST APPROVED BY TWR, BUT RWY IS CLOSED FOR ROUTINE CHK, RESULTING IN CGA USING SHORTER RWY.

Narrative: CGA X, AN LTT, LANDED TYR AND REQUESTED RWY 22 FOR DEP. THE ACFT FUELED FOR USING A 7200 FT RWY. WHILE TAXIING TO RWY 22, THE ATC SUPVR, WHO WAS NOT IN THE CTL ROOM, ACCEPTED A PHONE CALL FROM THE ARPT MGR'S OFFICE ASKING IF THEY CAN CLOSE RWY 22 FOR DAILY MAINT. THE SUPVR DID NOT ASK THE TWR CAB PRIOR TO SAYING OK. I WAS WORKING LCL AND GND COMBINED WHEN CGA X WAS 1000 FT FROM THE RWY, WHEN THE SUPVR CAME UP AND SAID RWY 22 WAS CLOSED. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY ATC MGMNT. I TOLD THE SUPVR THE ACFT HAD TAKEN ON EXTRA FUEL FOR A DEP TO MKE. (FROM THE TIME CGA X CHKED IN ON FREQ, HE ASKED IF HE COULD HAVE RWY 22 FOR DEP. HE WAS ASSURED 22 WOULD BE AVAILABLE.) WHEN DOES THE RWY CLOSE? WHAT IF I HAD AN ACFT ON SHORT FINAL OR ROLLING? THE ARPT MGR WILL ONLY OPEN THE RWY FOR EMERS. CGA X WAS TOLD TO CROSS RWY 22 AND TAXI TO RWY 31 (A RWY WITH 5200 FT) AVAILABLE. NXXXX EXCLAIMED, 'THIS IS WHY I ASKED YOU SO MANY TIMES, SO I COULD GET MORE FUEL.' I HAD THE SUPVR ON THE PHONE AND ASKED IF WE COULD USE 22. HE SAID NOT UNLESS IT WAS AN EMER (NO MAINT EQUIP WAS PRESENT). THE CGA X SAID HE COULD NOT DECLARE AN EMER FOR A DEP. AS CGA X ROLLED DOWN RWY 31, THE NOSEWHEEL SEEMED TO SHUDDER BACK TO THE EARTH AS IF STALLING. THE ACFT GOT AIRBORNE WITH AN ESTIMATED 400 FT TO SPARE. THIS COULD HAVE ALL BEEN AVOIDED IF THE ARPT MGMNT WOULD COORDINATE AND NOT DICTATE. ALSO, IF MGMNT WOULD STAND UP FOR SAFETY HERE AT TYLER WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. ONE DAY THE ATC MGR WAS IN THE TWR, I EXPLAINED HOW CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES JUST DRIVE ACROSS TXWYS WITHOUT CALLING/WITHOUT FLAGS. HE SAID, 'OH, JUST LET THEM GO SO WE CAN GET IT DONE.' IS SAFETY BEING COMPROMISED AT THE RISK OF THE PUBLIC?

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.