|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : phl.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||A319|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : taxi|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 200|
flight time total : 23000
flight time type : 1400
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Anomaly||ground encounters other|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Problem Areas||ATC Human Performance|
|Airport||design : phl.airport|
markings : phl.airport
signage : phl.airport
Need to clarify confusion of taxiway Y at phl. 'Y' does not intersect or join runway 9L-27R. 'Y' has no hold short markings, signs or lights to reference runway 27R. The airport diagram shows 'Y,' west of runway 27R. 'Y' only has a 'runway 9L approach' sign for runway 9L lndgs. Depending on runway, takeoff and landing flow, ATC may or may not request a hold short of runway 9L, even though they don't intersect. Therefore, the airport diagram page, remarks and the taxiway 'Y' marking signs should be upgraded to the new standards to eliminate taxiway Y procedures that ATC admits are very confusing when the airport is using runway 27L and 27R for takeoff and lndgs. This would have prevented our confusion. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter indicated that his main concern was that only runway 9L was identified on taxiway Y and suggested that identifying both runway 9L and 27R would be helpful. He claimed that during most taxiway Y operations, ATC was continually referring to runway 27R in their instructions. The reporter also relayed that ATC's technique, of only sometimes requiring aircraft to hold short of runway 27R/9L, added to the confusion. He expressed that the new prm approach might only add to the existing confusion because of the anticipated increase use of runways 27L/27R for both arrivals and departures.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A319 FLC IS FRUSTRATED BY TXWY MARKINGS AND ATC RWY XING PROCS.
Narrative: NEED TO CLARIFY CONFUSION OF TXWY Y AT PHL. 'Y' DOES NOT INTERSECT OR JOIN RWY 9L-27R. 'Y' HAS NO HOLD SHORT MARKINGS, SIGNS OR LIGHTS TO REFERENCE RWY 27R. THE ARPT DIAGRAM SHOWS 'Y,' W OF RWY 27R. 'Y' ONLY HAS A 'RWY 9L APCH' SIGN FOR RWY 9L LNDGS. DEPENDING ON RWY, TKOF AND LNDG FLOW, ATC MAY OR MAY NOT REQUEST A HOLD SHORT OF RWY 9L, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T INTERSECT. THEREFORE, THE ARPT DIAGRAM PAGE, REMARKS AND THE TXWY 'Y' MARKING SIGNS SHOULD BE UPGRADED TO THE NEW STANDARDS TO ELIMINATE TXWY Y PROCS THAT ATC ADMITS ARE VERY CONFUSING WHEN THE ARPT IS USING RWY 27L AND 27R FOR TKOF AND LNDGS. THIS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED OUR CONFUSION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR INDICATED THAT HIS MAIN CONCERN WAS THAT ONLY RWY 9L WAS IDENTIFIED ON TXWY Y AND SUGGESTED THAT IDENTIFYING BOTH RWY 9L AND 27R WOULD BE HELPFUL. HE CLAIMED THAT DURING MOST TXWY Y OPS, ATC WAS CONTINUALLY REFERRING TO RWY 27R IN THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. THE RPTR ALSO RELAYED THAT ATC'S TECHNIQUE, OF ONLY SOMETIMES REQUIRING ACFT TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 27R/9L, ADDED TO THE CONFUSION. HE EXPRESSED THAT THE NEW PRM APCH MIGHT ONLY ADD TO THE EXISTING CONFUSION BECAUSE OF THE ANTICIPATED INCREASE USE OF RWYS 27L/27R FOR BOTH ARRIVALS AND DEPS.
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.