Narrative:

After engine start we called for taxi clearance and were directed by 'ground metering' to contact 'ground control'. Ground control directed us to taxi to runway 27L. (This was also the takeoff runway advertised on the ATIS). Several seconds later ground advised us to 'change runway to runway 9L via the inner, C-12, jog.' we studied our taxi/airport 20-9 chart and ascertained the correct route and began in that direction. Ground then advised 'change runway to runway 32L take the inner to T-1.' we again studied the 20-9 and continued taxi. When we turned left off the inner taxiway at T-1 the ground controller said switch to 126.9 and monitor. We did so and turned left on the runway 14R-32L parallel taxiway. We were then advised 'taxi up and hold short of the next intersection' (9R-27L parallel taxiway). We did so. We were then told to 'position and hold runway 32L from the e-w intersection.' we took this to mean from the intersection of runway 9R-27L and runway 32L since there was no taxiway labeled 'east-west'. As we passed the runway 9R-27L parallel tower said stop. We did so and never came even close to encroaching runway 9R-27L (closed to moving vehs apparently). We were then told to continue for full length takeoff on runway 32L. There were no further problems. I think multiple taxi clearance changes, plus non standard terminology caused the misunderstanding. There was never a safety hazard. I'm trying to improve the system, prevent future safety problems.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING TAXI FLT CREW HAD THEIR TKOF RWY CHANGED TWICE WITH CIRCUITOUS ROUTING BUT CLTR MONITORING THEIR PROGRESS STOPPED THEM SHORT OF AN ACTIVE RWY. NON EVENT REPORT.

Narrative: AFTER ENG START WE CALLED FOR TAXI CLRNC AND WERE DIRECTED BY 'GND METERING' TO CONTACT 'GND CTL'. GND CTL DIRECTED US TO TAXI TO RWY 27L. (THIS WAS ALSO THE TKOF RWY ADVERTISED ON THE ATIS). SEVERAL SECS LATER GND ADVISED US TO 'CHANGE RWY TO RWY 9L VIA THE INNER, C-12, JOG.' WE STUDIED OUR TAXI/ARPT 20-9 CHART AND ASCERTAINED THE CORRECT RTE AND BEGAN IN THAT DIRECTION. GND THEN ADVISED 'CHANGE RWY TO RWY 32L TAKE THE INNER TO T-1.' WE AGAIN STUDIED THE 20-9 AND CONTINUED TAXI. WHEN WE TURNED L OFF THE INNER TXWY AT T-1 THE GND CTLR SAID SWITCH TO 126.9 AND MONITOR. WE DID SO AND TURNED L ON THE RWY 14R-32L PARALLEL TXWY. WE WERE THEN ADVISED 'TAXI UP AND HOLD SHORT OF THE NEXT INTXN' (9R-27L PARALLEL TXWY). WE DID SO. WE WERE THEN TOLD TO 'POS AND HOLD RWY 32L FROM THE E-W INTXN.' WE TOOK THIS TO MEAN FROM THE INTXN OF RWY 9R-27L AND RWY 32L SINCE THERE WAS NO TXWY LABELED 'E-W'. AS WE PASSED THE RWY 9R-27L PARALLEL TWR SAID STOP. WE DID SO AND NEVER CAME EVEN CLOSE TO ENCROACHING RWY 9R-27L (CLOSED TO MOVING VEHS APPARENTLY). WE WERE THEN TOLD TO CONTINUE FOR FULL LENGTH TKOF ON RWY 32L. THERE WERE NO FURTHER PROBS. I THINK MULTIPLE TAXI CLRNC CHANGES, PLUS NON STANDARD TERMINOLOGY CAUSED THE MISUNDERSTANDING. THERE WAS NEVER A SAFETY HAZARD. I'M TRYING TO IMPROVE THE SYS, PREVENT FUTURE SAFETY PROBS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.