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.