Narrative:

Incomplete NOTAM. A note in the flight plan said to hold short of runway 23 at intersection of taxiway Q and taxiway H, which we did. We were cleared into position and hold by tower, so we used taxiway Q for full length. While taking runway, we noticed an airplane on short and final we asked tower to confirmed position and hold runway 23. After some hesitation, they confirmed our clearance and then decided to have airplane on short final go around. They then said that there is a NOTAM not to use taxiway Q unless approved by ATC and cleared us for takeoff. I wish to make the following points: 1) the note in the flight plan just says to hold short at the intersection of taxiway Q and taxiway H. It doesn't say not to use taxiway Q to approach the runway. I could not find any other NOTAM about this anywhere. 2) there were 2 different voices on the tower frequency. Suggesting either shift change or training. After clearing us into position, we were given no further clearance until we asked about it approximately 2 mins later. 3) even if we had used taxiway H to approach the runway, the airplane on final would have had to go around anyway because we still had not received takeoff clearance at the time we questioned ATC about it. Our using taxiway Q had nothing to do with the go around. In fact, if we had used taxiway H, we would already have lined up with runway 23 and would never have seen the airplane approaching us from behind. 4) I suggest adding a statement about not using taxiway Q without ATC approval to the flight plan since that is apparently the procedure they wish us to use.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 CREW ENTERED TXWY Q AT CYYZ WITHOUT SPECIFIC CLRNC. COMPANY DID NOT PROVIDE NOTAM OF THIS TO THE CREW.

Narrative: INCOMPLETE NOTAM. A NOTE IN THE FLT PLAN SAID TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 23 AT INTXN OF TXWY Q AND TXWY H, WHICH WE DID. WE WERE CLRED INTO POS AND HOLD BY TWR, SO WE USED TXWY Q FOR FULL LENGTH. WHILE TAKING RWY, WE NOTICED AN AIRPLANE ON SHORT AND FINAL WE ASKED TWR TO CONFIRMED POS AND HOLD RWY 23. AFTER SOME HESITATION, THEY CONFIRMED OUR CLRNC AND THEN DECIDED TO HAVE AIRPLANE ON SHORT FINAL GO AROUND. THEY THEN SAID THAT THERE IS A NOTAM NOT TO USE TXWY Q UNLESS APPROVED BY ATC AND CLRED US FOR TKOF. I WISH TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING POINTS: 1) THE NOTE IN THE FLT PLAN JUST SAYS TO HOLD SHORT AT THE INTXN OF TXWY Q AND TXWY H. IT DOESN'T SAY NOT TO USE TXWY Q TO APCH THE RWY. I COULD NOT FIND ANY OTHER NOTAM ABOUT THIS ANYWHERE. 2) THERE WERE 2 DIFFERENT VOICES ON THE TWR FREQ. SUGGESTING EITHER SHIFT CHANGE OR TRAINING. AFTER CLRING US INTO POS, WE WERE GIVEN NO FURTHER CLRNC UNTIL WE ASKED ABOUT IT APPROX 2 MINS LATER. 3) EVEN IF WE HAD USED TXWY H TO APCH THE RWY, THE AIRPLANE ON FINAL WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO AROUND ANYWAY BECAUSE WE STILL HAD NOT RECEIVED TKOF CLRNC AT THE TIME WE QUESTIONED ATC ABOUT IT. OUR USING TXWY Q HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GAR. IN FACT, IF WE HAD USED TXWY H, WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE LINED UP WITH RWY 23 AND WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN THE AIRPLANE APCHING US FROM BEHIND. 4) I SUGGEST ADDING A STATEMENT ABOUT NOT USING TXWY Q WITHOUT ATC APPROVAL TO THE FLT PLAN SINCE THAT IS APPARENTLY THE PROC THEY WISH US TO USE.

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.