Narrative:

Event occurred at buchanan field (ccr) in concord, ca, in VFR conditions. I had just landed on runway 32R. During rollout, the controller on tower frequency asked me for my destination. I told him I wanted to go to the avionics shop, which is on the south end of the field. Controller instructed me to turn left onto twy bravo. I turned onto 19R and tried to minimize time on that runway by keeping up forward motion, while looking for a sign indicating twy bravo. During this time I inadvertently crossed taxiway bravo and entered runway 32L, which had landing traffic on short final. I immediately increased power to clear the runway and called the tower for assistance. He instructed me to take the next left and switch to ground. The controller on ground requested that I call the tower after I parked, which I did. I spoke to a controller and later to a tower official, who informed me that there are, in fact, no signs for twy bravo and that there was to be a meeting concerning airport signage the very next day. There is furthermore no red sign indicating a runway crossing (in this case, 32L), nor are there hold short lines. There are no lahso at buchanan field. For a pilot taxiing from a runway in use onto another runway (which could in theory be active, but in this case wasn't), while looking for signs that do not exist, this presents a potentially dangerous situation. In this zone, if the pilot misses his taxiway, he finds himself on the approach end of an active runway. There are no markings or signs to assist the pilot with orientation. The tower controller gives taxi instructions based on the assumption that the pilot is familiar with the airport layout. If the pilot is unfamiliar, he should request progressive taxi instructions. Unfortunately, there is little time or opportunity when exiting 32R onto 19R for cleaning up the aircraft, rechking the airport diagram to understand taxi instructions, or to switch to ground for progressive taxiing. I have a feeling that safety issues regarding ground operations at buchanan field have arisen before and I believe this situation might have been prevented if there had been a) better signage and or markings, B) clearer instructions given by the tower controller (e.g. 'Take immediate left onto taxiway bravo') and/or C) an opportunity to clean up aircraft, orientate, and go to ground. The tower frequency at the time was quite busy (many aircraft in pattern, an aircraft entering with radio problems, etc.) and handing me off to ground would have decreased his workload. I assume his instructions are commonplace to buchanan's operations and that he was trying to get me out of the 'zone' as quickly as possible. However, I see the need for some kind of orientation assistance (signs, markings, etc.) in that region, especially for the new-to-field pilot. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter provided no additional information. Tower specialist advised that taxiway and runway signage has been a problem at the airport for years. Airport operations representative advised that the a.I.P. 10 project has been in limbo since 1996. An FAA runway incursion team has reviewed the a. I. P. Signage recently and recommends plan implementation be expedited. The plan is believed to be in review at the sfo ado office. The representative acknowledged that ccr runway/taxiway confign is complex, which is also adding to the review delay. Runway hold bars and runway signage has been updated to current standards, but directional and taxiway signs are either missing or at old standards. The representative is concerned that existing electrical availability will not meet plan needs, much less planned tower equipment upgrades. The improvement plan identifies an additional 100 electrical signs. A. I. P. Funding was submitted for 1996 dollars.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA32 PLT LNDG RWY 32R EXITS RWY, OVERSHOOTS TXWY B AND INCURS RWY 32L. PLTS STATES THERE IS NO SIGNAGE IDENTIFYING TXWY B.

Narrative: EVENT OCCURRED AT BUCHANAN FIELD (CCR) IN CONCORD, CA, IN VFR CONDITIONS. I HAD JUST LANDED ON RWY 32R. DURING ROLLOUT, THE CTLR ON TWR FREQ ASKED ME FOR MY DESTINATION. I TOLD HIM I WANTED TO GO TO THE AVIONICS SHOP, WHICH IS ON THE S END OF THE FIELD. CTLR INSTRUCTED ME TO TURN LEFT ONTO TWY BRAVO. I TURNED ONTO 19R AND TRIED TO MINIMIZE TIME ON THAT RWY BY KEEPING UP FORWARD MOTION, WHILE LOOKING FOR A SIGN INDICATING TWY BRAVO. DURING THIS TIME I INADVERTENTLY CROSSED TXWY BRAVO AND ENTERED RWY 32L, WHICH HAD LNDG TFC ON SHORT FINAL. I IMMEDIATELY INCREASED POWER TO CLEAR THE RWY AND CALLED THE TWR FOR ASSISTANCE. HE INSTRUCTED ME TO TAKE THE NEXT LEFT AND SWITCH TO GROUND. THE CTLR ON GROUND REQUESTED THAT I CALL THE TWR AFTER I PARKED, WHICH I DID. I SPOKE TO A CTLR AND LATER TO A TWR OFFICIAL, WHO INFORMED ME THAT THERE ARE, IN FACT, NO SIGNS FOR TWY BRAVO AND THAT THERE WAS TO BE A MEETING CONCERNING ARPT SIGNAGE THE VERY NEXT DAY. THERE IS FURTHERMORE NO RED SIGN INDICATING A RWY XING (IN THIS CASE, 32L), NOR ARE THERE HOLD SHORT LINES. THERE ARE NO LAHSO AT BUCHANAN FIELD. FOR A PLT TAXIING FROM A RWY IN USE ONTO ANOTHER RWY (WHICH COULD IN THEORY BE ACTIVE, BUT IN THIS CASE WASN'T), WHILE LOOKING FOR SIGNS THAT DO NOT EXIST, THIS PRESENTS A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SIT. IN THIS ZONE, IF THE PLT MISSES HIS TXWY, HE FINDS HIMSELF ON THE APCH END OF AN ACTIVE RWY. THERE ARE NO MARKINGS OR SIGNS TO ASSIST THE PLT WITH ORIENTATION. THE TWR CTLR GIVES TAXI INSTRUCTIONS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PLT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT LAYOUT. IF THE PLT IS UNFAMILIAR, HE SHOULD REQUEST PROGRESSIVE TAXI INSTRUCTIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS LITTLE TIME OR OPPORTUNITY WHEN EXITING 32R ONTO 19R FOR CLEANING UP THE ACFT, RECHKING THE ARPT DIAGRAM TO UNDERSTAND TAXI INSTRUCTIONS, OR TO SWITCH TO GROUND FOR PROGRESSIVE TAXIING. I HAVE A FEELING THAT SAFETY ISSUES REGARDING GROUND OPS AT BUCHANAN FIELD HAVE ARISEN BEFORE AND I BELIEVE THIS SIT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF THERE HAD BEEN A) BETTER SIGNAGE AND OR MARKINGS, B) CLEARER INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE TOWER CTLR (E.G. 'TAKE IMMEDIATE LEFT ONTO TXWY BRAVO') AND/OR C) AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN UP ACFT, ORIENTATE, AND GO TO GROUND. THE TWR FREQ AT THE TIME WAS QUITE BUSY (MANY ACFT IN PATTERN, AN ACFT ENTERING WITH RADIO PROBS, ETC.) AND HANDING ME OFF TO GROUND WOULD HAVE DECREASED HIS WORKLOAD. I ASSUME HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE COMMONPLACE TO BUCHANAN'S OPS AND THAT HE WAS TRYING TO GET ME OUT OF THE 'ZONE' AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, I SEE THE NEED FOR SOME KIND OF ORIENTATION ASSISTANCE (SIGNS, MARKINGS, ETC.) IN THAT REGION, ESPECIALLY FOR THE NEW-TO-FIELD PLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR PROVIDED NO ADDITIONAL INFO. TWR SPECIALIST ADVISED THAT TXWY AND RWY SIGNAGE HAS BEEN A PROB AT THE ARPT FOR YEARS. ARPT OPS REPRESENTATIVE ADVISED THAT THE A.I.P. 10 PROJECT HAS BEEN IN LIMBO SINCE 1996. AN FAA RWY INCURSION TEAM HAS REVIEWED THE A. I. P. SIGNAGE RECENTLY AND RECOMMENDS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION BE EXPEDITED. THE PLAN IS BELIEVED TO BE IN REVIEW AT THE SFO ADO OFFICE. THE REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CCR RWY/TXWY CONFIGN IS COMPLEX, WHICH IS ALSO ADDING TO THE REVIEW DELAY. RWY HOLD BARS AND RWY SIGNAGE HAS BEEN UPDATED TO CURRENT STANDARDS, BUT DIRECTIONAL AND TXWY SIGNS ARE EITHER MISSING OR AT OLD STANDARDS. THE REPRESENTATIVE IS CONCERNED THAT EXISTING ELECTRICAL AVAILABILITY WILL NOT MEET PLAN NEEDS, MUCH LESS PLANNED TWR EQUIP UPGRADES. THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN IDENTIFIES AN ADDITIONAL 100 ELECTRICAL SIGNS. A. I. P. FUNDING WAS SUBMITTED FOR 1996 DOLLARS.

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.