Narrative:

Overnight; runway 6/24 was closed to re-stripe after having been extended. Numerous vehicles on frequency and taxiway closures were also a factor. Because of weight requirements; the taxiing air carrier's wanted to depart runway 18; however with taxiway B closed the only way to get to the runway was to back taxi. Since we weren't advised that taxiway B would be closed at taxiway a; I queried airport 4 (normally an operations manager vehicle) when it would be open and why it was closed. Several vehicles responded. I again asked airport 4 for the opening of the taxiway; and again several people responded; causing a loud squeal in my headset. At least 1 aircraft also called; adding to the confusion. I then transmitted that everyone was to be quiet except for airport 4 and asked again about the taxiway. This created an unsafe situation; in that we were improperly briefed about taxiway closures and there was a good bit of frequency confusion and congestion. Additionally; our manager instructed the controllers that because none of the distances on the intxns were verified on the newly lengthened runway; we could only assign runway 24 at A7 as an intersection departure. Much of the confusion could have been alleviated and things would have gone more smoothly if the controllers that actually work the traffic had been consulted during the planning and execution of the runway/taxiway work.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BHM CTLR VOICED CONCERN REGARDING AN UNEXPECTED TXWY CLOSURE CLAIMING POOR BRIEFINGS BY MGMNT.

Narrative: OVERNIGHT; RWY 6/24 WAS CLOSED TO RE-STRIPE AFTER HAVING BEEN EXTENDED. NUMEROUS VEHICLES ON FREQ AND TXWY CLOSURES WERE ALSO A FACTOR. BECAUSE OF WT REQUIREMENTS; THE TAXIING ACR'S WANTED TO DEPART RWY 18; HOWEVER WITH TXWY B CLOSED THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO THE RWY WAS TO BACK TAXI. SINCE WE WEREN'T ADVISED THAT TXWY B WOULD BE CLOSED AT TXWY A; I QUERIED ARPT 4 (NORMALLY AN OPS MGR VEHICLE) WHEN IT WOULD BE OPEN AND WHY IT WAS CLOSED. SEVERAL VEHICLES RESPONDED. I AGAIN ASKED ARPT 4 FOR THE OPENING OF THE TXWY; AND AGAIN SEVERAL PEOPLE RESPONDED; CAUSING A LOUD SQUEAL IN MY HEADSET. AT LEAST 1 ACFT ALSO CALLED; ADDING TO THE CONFUSION. I THEN XMITTED THAT EVERYONE WAS TO BE QUIET EXCEPT FOR ARPT 4 AND ASKED AGAIN ABOUT THE TXWY. THIS CREATED AN UNSAFE SITUATION; IN THAT WE WERE IMPROPERLY BRIEFED ABOUT TXWY CLOSURES AND THERE WAS A GOOD BIT OF FREQ CONFUSION AND CONGESTION. ADDITIONALLY; OUR MGR INSTRUCTED THE CTLRS THAT BECAUSE NONE OF THE DISTANCES ON THE INTXNS WERE VERIFIED ON THE NEWLY LENGTHENED RWY; WE COULD ONLY ASSIGN RWY 24 AT A7 AS AN INTXN DEP. MUCH OF THE CONFUSION COULD HAVE BEEN ALLEVIATED AND THINGS WOULD HAVE GONE MORE SMOOTHLY IF THE CTLRS THAT ACTUALLY WORK THE TFC HAD BEEN CONSULTED DURING THE PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF THE RWY/TXWY WORK.

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.