PA46; MALIBU; PLT REQUESTS PROGRESSIVE TAXI INSTRUCTIONS; IS TOLD TO FOLLOW A JET AND IN THE PROCESS CROSSES RWY 23L.

Narrative

THIS LETTER CONCERNS MY INADVERTENT PLTDEV AT CLE ON NOV/SAT/96 AT AROUND XA00 AM. AFTER AN INITIAL TAXI TO RWY 23L IN MALIBU; I RETURNED TO FBO DUE TO A MECHANICAL PROB. MR X CALLED FROM THE CLE TWR TO INFORM ME TO MY SURPRISE THAT I HAD CROSSED RWY 23L WITHOUT CLRNC AND THAT HE WAS FILING A PLTDEV RPT. AS I WAS A TRANSIENT PLT UNFAMILIAR WITH THE CLEVELAND ARPT; I HAD REQUESTED GND CTL TO PROVIDE PROGRESSIVE ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE ANY POTENTIAL CONFUSION. WHEN APCHING THE E END OF THE FIELD; I CONTINUED TO FOLLOW AN ACR JET AS PREVIOUSLY DIRECTED ENDING UP AT THE END OF RWY 23R. AT THAT POINT; I WAS UNAWARE THAT I HAD CROSSED RWY 23L. CONTINUING TO FOLLOW THE JET SEEMED LOGICAL ALTHOUGH A PROGRESSIVE UPDATE REQUEST AT THIS JUNCTURE WAS NOT GIVEN AS MR X LATER TOLD ME THE GND CTLR WAS BUSY DOING SOMETHING ELSE. I SUGGEST THAT CLE GND SHOULD RETHINK THEIR PROGRESSIVE TAXI PROCS AND PROVIDE MORE ATTN TO THOSE REQUESTING SUCH ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. MR X TOLD ME THAT THE E END OF THE ARPT HAS BEEN AN AREA OF CONFUSION IN THE PAST; FURTHER EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR ATTN IN A LOCATION WITH NOT UNCOMMON GND CTL PROBS. I REALIZE THAT MY SIT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ATTENDING GND CTLR BEING IN A DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS AS THE GND CTLR WHO HANDLED ME WHEN LEAVING WAS VERY CLR AND RESPONSIVE EVEN WITHOUT A REQUEST FOR PROGRESSIVE ASSISTANCE. NEVERTHELESS; ANY REQUEST FOR PROGRESSIVE ASSISTANCE SHOULD BE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY WHICH DID NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CASE WITH ME. HOPEFULLY; THIS LETTER WILL PROMPT SUFFICIENT ATTN TO EFFECTIVELY ASSIST FUTURE TRANSIENT PLTS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE CLE ARPT. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT MR X WAS VERY POLITE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE IN EXPLAINING THIS SIT. FOR YOUR REVIEW I HAVE ATTACHED COPIES OF A LETTER TO THE CLE TWR AND MY COMPLETED NASA FORM WHICH EXPLAIN MY SIDE OF THE PROB AND HOPEFULLY HELP TO MORE EFFECTIVELY ASSIST FUTURE TRANSIENT PLTS AT CLE. AS FOR MY BACKGROUND; I HAVE ALWAYS STRIVED TO BE A CONSCIENTIOUS PLT CONDUCTING EXTENSIVE ANNUAL RECURRENT TRAINING (COMPLETED IN SPRING 96); ATTEND FREQUENT FAA SAFETY MEETINGS; HAVE PERSONALLY KNOWN THE BALTIMORE FSDO SAFETY PREVENTION PROGRAM MGR FOR 10 YRS; AND HAVE NEVER HAD AN ACFT RELATED INFRACTION. ALSO; AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT; I WAS MAKING PERIODIC VISUAL CHKS FOR ANY POTENTIAL LNDG TFC AS AN INDEPENDENT SAFETY CHK. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE WAS CLOSE BEHIND THE JET AND THERE IS LITTLE TAXI AREA BTWN RWY 28 AND RWY 23L THAT HE WAS TOTALLY UNAWARE OF HAVING CROSSED THE RWY. HE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT AND THAT IS WHY HE REQUESTED PROGRESSIVE TAXI INSTRUCTIONS. HIS FEELING IS THAT IF ONE REQUESTS ASSISTANCE THAT SHOULD BE A RED LIGHT TO A GND CTLR TO MONITOR THE ACFT MORE CAREFULLY THAN USUAL. THAT IS WHY THE REQUEST IS MADE. ON RECEIVING SUCH EXCELLENT GUIDANCE WHEN HE WAS FINALLY ABLE TO DEPART HE HAS A SENSE THAT THE ORIGINAL CTLR MAY HAVE BEEN A DEVELOPMENTAL. HIS SUGGESTION FOR AVOIDANCE IN THE FUTURE IS MORE ATTN TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS PROGRESSIVE ASSISTANCE.