Narrative:

Landed runway 26; instructed to taxi back via taxiway C and the 'south route.' we turned south on taxiway T and held short of taxiway D waiting south ground instructions to continue to gate X. South ground controller was not happy when we checked in and instructed us that 'south route' as published used taxiway 'south' not taxiway 'T;' which we were on. Controller gave us further clearance to the gate and mentioned that what we had just done is 'happening way too much with you guys' and that violations were pending if it continues. No conflicts with other traffic occurred -- taxi in was normal -- although we were a bit frazzled; etc. Contributing factors: 1) current airport page shows a dashed line around the entire length of taxiway south indicating construction as we were used to seeing in the past. This leads one to question the status of that taxiway even though the str's indicate its use making taxiway T a logical choice. 2) numerous str's published on phx str pages X and Y are displayed in a somewhat confusing manner making it hard to digest efficiently. 3) rather than rely on familiarity; I should have stopped the aircraft and verified the taxi route with the first officer as soon as the controller used coded route phraseology instead of specific txwys as in the past. Lessons learned: 1) the dashed lines on taxiway south on the airport page need to be removed if that taxiway is fully operational. 2) the str's published for lax and cle are easy to locate; read; and understand; for example. I believe this incident highlights why the phx str's should be arranged similarly. 3) next time I will expect the unexpected even in familiar circumstances and verify items such as this; avoiding complacency.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the first officer; while initially assuming responsibility for erring; quickly addressed the confusion of the presentation as a contributing factor. Although he had reviewed the str's conscientiously before the arrival; when he was given a different route than anticipated immediately after landing; the flight crew was unable to make an appropriate alteration in their planned taxi route. Reporter also noted the existence of multiple str's labeled 'north' or 'south;' or 'east' and the resulting difficulty in determining which would apply when given no more instruction than simply 'taxi via south route.' the reporter cited str formats at lax and cle as representative of a superior presentation. These utilize graphics -- boxes and shading -- to separate textual descriptions of specific operations. Reporter also expressed concern regarding the failure to keep the airport chart presentation consistent with the state of construction at phx. Specifically the dashed line around taxiway south indicating it was closed for construction.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 FLT CREW PERFORMS INCORRECT STANDARD TAXI RTE (STR) AFTER LNDG AT PHX. FLT CREW CITES CONFUSING PRESENTATION OF THE STR PUBLICATION FORMAT.

Narrative: LANDED RWY 26; INSTRUCTED TO TAXI BACK VIA TXWY C AND THE 'SOUTH RTE.' WE TURNED SOUTH ON TXWY T AND HELD SHORT OF TXWY D WAITING SOUTH GND INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTINUE TO GATE X. SOUTH GND CTLR WAS NOT HAPPY WHEN WE CHKED IN AND INSTRUCTED US THAT 'SOUTH RTE' AS PUBLISHED USED TXWY 'S' NOT TXWY 'T;' WHICH WE WERE ON. CTLR GAVE US FURTHER CLRNC TO THE GATE AND MENTIONED THAT WHAT WE HAD JUST DONE IS 'HAPPENING WAY TOO MUCH WITH YOU GUYS' AND THAT VIOLATIONS WERE PENDING IF IT CONTINUES. NO CONFLICTS WITH OTHER TFC OCCURRED -- TAXI IN WAS NORMAL -- ALTHOUGH WE WERE A BIT FRAZZLED; ETC. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) CURRENT ARPT PAGE SHOWS A DASHED LINE AROUND THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF TXWY S INDICATING CONSTRUCTION AS WE WERE USED TO SEEING IN THE PAST. THIS LEADS ONE TO QUESTION THE STATUS OF THAT TXWY EVEN THOUGH THE STR'S INDICATE ITS USE MAKING TXWY T A LOGICAL CHOICE. 2) NUMEROUS STR'S PUBLISHED ON PHX STR PAGES X AND Y ARE DISPLAYED IN A SOMEWHAT CONFUSING MANNER MAKING IT HARD TO DIGEST EFFICIENTLY. 3) RATHER THAN RELY ON FAMILIARITY; I SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THE ACFT AND VERIFIED THE TAXI RTE WITH THE FO AS SOON AS THE CTLR USED CODED RTE PHRASEOLOGY INSTEAD OF SPECIFIC TXWYS AS IN THE PAST. LESSONS LEARNED: 1) THE DASHED LINES ON TXWY S ON THE ARPT PAGE NEED TO BE REMOVED IF THAT TXWY IS FULLY OPERATIONAL. 2) THE STR'S PUBLISHED FOR LAX AND CLE ARE EASY TO LOCATE; READ; AND UNDERSTAND; FOR EXAMPLE. I BELIEVE THIS INCIDENT HIGHLIGHTS WHY THE PHX STR'S SHOULD BE ARRANGED SIMILARLY. 3) NEXT TIME I WILL EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED EVEN IN FAMILIAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND VERIFY ITEMS SUCH AS THIS; AVOIDING COMPLACENCY.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE FO; WHILE INITIALLY ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRING; QUICKLY ADDRESSED THE CONFUSION OF THE PRESENTATION AS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. ALTHOUGH HE HAD REVIEWED THE STR'S CONSCIENTIOUSLY BEFORE THE ARR; WHEN HE WAS GIVEN A DIFFERENT RTE THAN ANTICIPATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER LNDG; THE FLT CREW WAS UNABLE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE ALTERATION IN THEIR PLANNED TAXI RTE. RPTR ALSO NOTED THE EXISTENCE OF MULTIPLE STR'S LABELED 'NORTH' OR 'SOUTH;' OR 'EAST' AND THE RESULTING DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING WHICH WOULD APPLY WHEN GIVEN NO MORE INSTRUCTION THAN SIMPLY 'TAXI VIA SOUTH RTE.' THE RPTR CITED STR FORMATS AT LAX AND CLE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A SUPERIOR PRESENTATION. THESE UTILIZE GRAPHICS -- BOXES AND SHADING -- TO SEPARATE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTIONS OF SPECIFIC OPERATIONS. RPTR ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING THE FAILURE TO KEEP THE ARPT CHART PRESENTATION CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF CONSTRUCTION AT PHX. SPECIFICALLY THE DASHED LINE AROUND TXWY S INDICATING IT WAS CLOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.