Narrative:

Taxiing for takeoff at pdx we were given taxi instructions to taxi via T and hold short of B at B3. Before arriving at the intersection of E3 B3 and T we were instructed to proceed via T to join B and 28L; and not given the clearance I was expecting which was to proceed via B3 and B to 28L. This clearance put us behind a B737NG (wingspan 118 ft) that was also taxiing to 28L via T (eastbound) and then joining taxiway B for runway 28L. As we followed the B737 to 28L on taxiway T (eastbound now) I noticed a note on the jepp 10-9 referencing a 118 ft wingspan limitation on taxiway T; but failed initially to notice that it stated ' closed to wingspans 118 ft and greater' (a very subtle distinction ) versus most if not all of the other wingspan related notes on the pdx 10-9 and other airport 10-9 pages which usually reference only closed to 'greater than' a certain wingspan in the taxi notes. Added to this scenario was the fact that it was a direct ATC taxi instruction/clearance (which probably shouldn't have been given based on this wingspan restriction) and not a taxi error (I think) onto a wrong taxiway; and the additional fact that we were following another B737. Unless ATC meant for us to enter taxiway B at the corner where taxiway T turns left (east) at E3 and B3 but the clearance to taxi via tango 'to join bravo' for runway 28L and the fact that the preceding B737 was already doing so led me to believe that this was the correct way to proceed to 28L. Pdx ground never commented on or further queried either preceding B737 or us as to following this route further cementing my assumption that this way was in fact correct. I still think I followed the taxi clearance correctly based on all of this information; but am now thinking I should have noticed this subtle restriction earlier and stopped and requested a different routing to the runway. By the time I realized the actual verbiage on the 10-9 page (118 ft and greater) was not what I initially first thought (greater than 118 ft) we were already joining taxiway B and proceeding towards runway 28L for takeoff behind a B737. To my knowledge no wingtip clearance/separation issues occurred during the taxi out with either our aircraft or the B737 in front of us as I watched it taxi in front of us out to 28L.I am only left to wonder whether this taxi routing is routinely used by the many B737's that taxi out daily to runway 28L at pdx (regardless of the 10-9 page note) or whether a miscommunication led to the preceding B737 and ourselves proceeding in error down taxiway tango eastbound instead of eastbound on taxiway bravo to 28L where there is no wingspan restrictions.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737NG flight crew reported being cleared to taxi on PDX Taxiway T to Runway 28L and thought ATC mistakenly cleared aircraft with wingspans at 118 ft and wider onto Taxiway T which is restricted to aircraft with wingspans less than 118 ft.

Narrative: Taxiing for takeoff at PDX we were given taxi instructions to taxi via T and hold short of B at B3. Before arriving at the intersection of E3 B3 and T we were instructed to proceed via T to join B and 28L; and not given the clearance I was expecting which was to proceed via B3 and B to 28L. This clearance put us behind a B737NG (wingspan 118 ft) that was also taxiing to 28L via T (eastbound) and then joining taxiway B for Runway 28L. As we followed the B737 to 28L on Taxiway T (eastbound now) I noticed a note on the Jepp 10-9 referencing a 118 ft wingspan limitation on Taxiway T; but failed initially to notice that it stated ' closed to wingspans 118 ft and greater' (a very subtle distinction ) versus most IF NOT ALL of the other wingspan related notes on the PDX 10-9 and other airport 10-9 pages which usually reference only closed to 'greater than' a certain wingspan in the taxi notes. Added to this scenario was the fact that it was a direct ATC taxi instruction/clearance (which probably shouldn't have been given based on this wingspan restriction) and not a taxi error (I think) onto a wrong taxiway; and the additional fact that we were following another B737. Unless ATC meant for us to enter Taxiway B at the corner where Taxiway T turns left (east) at E3 and B3 but the clearance to taxi via Tango 'to join Bravo' for Runway 28L and the fact that the preceding B737 was already doing so led me to believe that this was the correct way to proceed to 28L. PDX ground never commented on or further queried either preceding B737 or us as to following this route further cementing my assumption that this way was in fact correct. I still think I followed the taxi clearance correctly based on all of this information; but am now thinking I should have noticed this subtle restriction earlier and stopped and requested a different routing to the runway. By the time I realized the actual verbiage on the 10-9 page (118 ft and greater) was not what I initially first thought (greater than 118 ft) we were already joining taxiway B and proceeding towards Runway 28L for takeoff behind a B737. To my knowledge no wingtip clearance/separation issues occurred during the taxi out with either our aircraft or the B737 in front of us as I watched it taxi in front of us out to 28L.I am only left to wonder whether this taxi routing is routinely used by the many B737's that taxi out daily to Runway 28L at PDX (regardless of the 10-9 page note) or whether a miscommunication led to the preceding B737 and ourselves proceeding in error down taxiway Tango Eastbound instead of eastbound on taxiway Bravo to 28L where there is no wingspan restrictions.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.