A PLT RPTS TAXIING ONTO SJC RWY 11/29 AT TXWY F AFTER LEAVING THE FBO RAMP IMMEDIATELY SE OF THE SJC TWR.

Narrative

I HAD COMPLETED THE 'COCKPIT INSPECTION' ITEMS ON OUR CHKLIST AND OBTAINED ATIS AND OUR CLRNC FROM SJC CLRNC DELIVERY AND ENTERED IN THE CLRNC DATA IN OUR FLT MGMNT SYSTEM. AFTER BRIEFING OUR PAX; MY FO JOINED ME IN THE COCKPIT AND OCCUPIED THE R SEAT. I PROVIDED HIM WITH ATIS AND THE CLRNC INFO. WE THEN WENT THROUGH OUR 'BEFORE STARTING' CHKLIST ITEMS; STARTED THE ENGINES AND THEN COMPLETED OUR 'BEFORE TAXIING' CHKLIST ITEMS. AT THAT POINT; MY FO CALLED SJC GND CTL AND INFORMED THEM WE HAD ATIS AND THAT WE WERE READY TO TAXI FROM THE FBO. THE GND CTLR CLRED US TO TAXI TO RWY 30L AND DIRECTED US TO OBTAIN NEW ATIS AND ADVISE HIM WHEN WE HAD IT. THE FO STATED THAT WE SHOULD TURN L OFF THE RAMP TO TAXI TO RWY 30L AND I CONCURRED. I THEN THROTTLED UP OUR ENGINES TO BEGIN TAXIING AND THE FBO MARSHALER VIGOROUSLY DIRECTED US TO TURN TO OUR R TO EXIT THEIR RAMP. THE FO COMMENTED THAT HE HAD HOPED THE MARSHALER WOULD DIRECT US TO TURN TO OUR L; WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A MORE DIRECT TAXI TO RWY 30L. AS WE STARTED TO TAXI THE FO SWITCHED TO THE ATIS FREQ TO OBTAIN THE NEW ATIS. UNFORTUNATELY; HE DID NOT HAVE GND CTL FREQ PROGRAMMED INTO OUR OTHER RADIO AND NEITHER OF US WAS MONITORING GND CTL. AT THE TIME; I WAS NOT AWARE THAT NEITHER OF US WERE MONITORING GND CTL AND THIS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED BETWEEN US; WHICH WAS A FLAW IN OUR CRM PROC. WHILE WE WERE TAXIING; MY FO WAS OBTAINING NEW ATIS AND I WAS GOING THROUGH THE 'TAXIING' CHKLIST ITEMS. WHEN WE CAME TO THE ENTRANCE TO WHAT I THOUGHT TO BE TXWY V (BUT IN FACT IT WAS THE ENTRANCE TO RWY 11/29); I ASKED THE FO (WHO HAD THE ARPT DIAGRAM) IF THIS WAS WHERE WE TURNED R (TO TAXI TO RWY 30L) AND HE RESPONDED 'YES.' AS WE TAXIED UP TO THE ENTRANCE TO WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS TXWY V (NEITHER OF US NOTICED ANY RUNWAY SIGNS OR DISTINCT MARKINGS); I LOOKED L AND VISUALLY CLRED THE INTXN AND AIRSPACE ABOVE IT AND STATED 'CLR L' AND THE FO LOOKED TO THE R AND VISUALLY CLRED THE INTXN AND AIRSPACE ABOVE IT AND STATED 'CLR R.' AFTER CONFIRMING THAT THERE WERE NO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS TO THE L AND R; WE ENTERED THE INTXN AND TURNED R ONTO WHAT WE THOUGH WAS TXWY V (HEADING SE); BUT UNFORTUNATELY; WE HAD MISTAKENLY ENTERED ONTO RWY 11/29. AT THAT TIME THE FO SWITCHED FROM THE ATIS FREQ BACK TO GND CTL FREQ TO ADVISE HIM WE HAD THE NEW ATIS; AND THE CTLR IMMEDIATELY ADVISED THAT WE HAD TURNED ONTO RWY 29 AND HAD COMMITTED A 'PLT DEV.' AS I RECALL THE FO IMMEDIATELY APOLOGIZED TO THE GND CTLR AND ASKED FOR INSTRUCTIONS; TO WHICH THE CTLR ADVISED US TO CONTINUE TAXIING (SE) DOWN RWY 11/29 AND EXIT AT THE END AND THEN CONTINUE OUR TAXI TO RWY 30L. WE TAXIED TO RWY 30L AND UPON ARRIVING AND SWITCHING TO THE TWR FREQ; WE WERE ADVISED TO CALL THE SJC TWR MGR UPON OUR ARRIVAL. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR TKOF FROM RWY 30L AND FLEW FROM SJC TO ZZZ WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. SHORTLY AFTER ARRIVING AT ZZZ WE CALLED THE SAN JOSE TWR MGR (WHILE IN MY PRESENCE; BUT I COULD ONLY HEAR MY FO'S SIDE THE CONVERSATION). THE TWR MGR ADVISED OF THE DEV RPT. THE FO TOLD ME THAT DURING HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR MGR; HE WAS TOLD THAT THERE HAD BEEN 5 TO 6 SIMILAR 'PLT DEVS' ON THIS RWY IN RECENT MONTHS AND THAT THERE HAD BEEN PROBS WITH THE FBO MARSHALERS AND RAMP PERSONNEL IN OTHER INCIDENTS; AS WELL. I SPOKE WITH A SAN JOSE FSDO OPS INSPECTOR WHO CONFIRMED THAT THERE HAD BEEN MANY SIMILAR INCIDENTS IN THE LAST YEAR ON RWY 29 FROM ACFT DEPARTING THE FBO. THIS WAS ONLY THE SECOND TIME THAT EITHER OF US HAS FLOWN INTO OR OUT OF SJC AND WE WERE NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT ENVIRONMENT. FINALLY; THE TWR MGR ADVISED THAT 1) THERE WAS NO CONFLICTING TFC DURING THE 'PLT DEV;' 2) WE DID NOT PLACE ANY OTHER ACFT IN DANGER; 3) NO INBOUND ACFT WAS REQUIRED TO EXECUTE A 'GAR;' AND 4) THE INCIDENT DID NOT COST ANYONE ANY MONEY. IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE FAA TO LOOK AT WHAT MAY BE POSSIBLE SHORTCOMINGS IN THE ARPT INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE RAMP AREA NEAR THE FBO AND THE ADJACENT TXWY AREA. BETTER SIGNAGE AND MARKINGS COULD REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF NEW 'PLT DEVS.' FURTHERMORE; THE COMMERCIAL ARPT DIAGRAM IS NOT VERY CLR IN DEPICTING THIS AREA OF THE ARPT; THE FBO RAMP AND HOW IT INTEGRATES WITH TXWY V. ALSO; PROVIDING PLTS WHO ARE DEPARTING FROM THE FBO RAMP A HANDOUT BRINGING ATTENTION TO THIS PROB AND BETTER TRAINING OF MARSHALERS WITH EMPHASIS ON WHICH DIRECTION THEY DIRECT ACFT TO TURN OUT OF THE RAMP COULD REDUCE CONFUSION AND INCREASE SAFETY WHEN TAXIING AWAY FROM THE FBO.SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 744538: C560 REQUESTED TAXI CLRNC FROM FBO FOR IFR DEP AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO TAXI TO RWY 30L; WHICH ACFT ACKNOWLEDGED. CTLR NOTICED ACFT TURN WRONG DIRECTION ON TXWY V; WHICH IS ADJACENT TO FBO. CTLR ATTEMPTED BUT WAS UNABLE TO RAISE PLT ON FREQUENCY AFTER INITIAL CONTACT. CTLR THEN NOTICED ACFT TURN TOWARDS RWY 29 AT TXWY G; STILL UNABLE TO RAISE PLT ON FREQUENCY. CTLR OBSERVED ACFT TURN ONTO RWY 29; AND ALERTED THE TOWER CTLR. EVENTUALLY ABLE TO RAISE PLT WHO STATED HE WAS GETTING THE CURRENT ATIS. THE INTXN OF RWY 29 TXWY G IS CLRLY MARKED WITH SIGNS AND GROUND MARKINGS IN RED DENOTING A RWY. THERE ARE NO RWY GUARD LIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RWY AS IT IS PRIMARILY USED FOR LIGHT GA ACFT. SJC HAS HAD SEVERAL PLT DEVS OF A SIMILAR NATURE IN THE SAME EXACT MANNER; WHEREAS CORPORATE TYPE ACFT TURN THE WRONG WAY OUT OF THE FBO AND TURN ONTO RWY 29 AT TXWY G. IT SEEMS INEXPLICABLE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO PREVENT THIS TYPE OF ERROR; EXCEPT TO SAY IT PROBABLY HAS TO DO WITH SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ON BEHALF OF THE FLT CREWS.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT IN RETROSPECT THE VIGOROUS MARSHALER TAXI SIGNALS WERE INTENDED TO KEEP THE ACFT TURNING R ONTO TXWY V. THE RAMP WAS NOT WELL MARKED IN THE AREA THE ACFT WAS EXITING AND SO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TXWY (V) AND RWY WAS NOT CLEAR. THE AREA THE ACFT WAS EXITING APPEARED TO BE RAMP AND BECAUSE A MORE NARROW TXWY (F) WAS IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THEM LEADING ONTO WHAT APPEARED TO BE A LONG WIDE TXWY (IN FACT RWY 11/29) THAT PATH APPEARED THE MORE OBVIOUS TAXI DIRECTION. COMPOUNDING THE PROBLEM WAS THE FACT THAT THE FO WAS GETTING ATIS LEAVING THE CAPT SOLO DURING THE INITIAL CRITICAL TAXI EVOLUTION. THE RPTR SUGGESTS MORE SIGNAGE TO IDENTIFY THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FBO RAMP AND THE TXWY AND ADDITIONALLY UPRIGHT SIGNS FOR RWY 11/29 AT TXWY F. THE RPTR DOES NOT REMEMBER SEEING ANY SIGNS.