Narrative:

AC 150/5340-18D; standards for airport sign systems; has examples of a taxiway that extends from one end of a runway to the other. Figures 1; 5; and A2 in this aircraft are good examples of having the same taxiway designation at two different locations along a runway. This duplication of a taxiway's name at multiple intersections with a runway substantially increases the risk for a miscommunication between ATC; pilot; and/or ground vehicle operator when entering or crossing a runway. Case in point: in figure A2 of the advisory circular; runway 9/27 is shown along with parallel taxiway alpha. If this fictitious airport were in an east flow; runway 9 would be in use. Then say that a ground vehicle arrives at runway 9 on alpha to inspect the runway and calls local control; 'tower; port 5 is holding short of runway 9 on taxiway alpha requesting to inspect the runway.' where would the tower presume the port vehicle is holding? FAA orders jo 7110 do not address terminology requirements where an airport has this sort of situation. Dfw airport is a good example of preventing duplicate taxiway names at taxiway/runway intersections. This airport's taxiways were re-designated to avoid duplicate taxiway designations at runways; the sole purpose being to lessen the risk of a miscommunication between ATC; pilot; or ground vehicle driver. This design flaw has been brought to the attention of the FAA's office of runway safety and safety and standards with little response. My recommendation is for the FAA to issue a cert-alert to airports where a taxiway crosses a runway in more than one location to ensure that the proper operational protocols and procedures are in place to avoid miscommunications between ATCT; pilots; and ground vehicle operators.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SAFETY CONSULTANT SUGGESTS THAT FAA AC150/5340-18D SET A STANDARD FOR SAME NAME TXWYS; EG; A; INTERSECTING A RWY ALSO HAVE NUMBERS; EG; A1; A2; TO PREVENT CONFUSION.

Narrative: AC 150/5340-18D; STANDARDS FOR AIRPORT SIGN SYSTEMS; HAS EXAMPLES OF A TAXIWAY THAT EXTENDS FROM ONE END OF A RUNWAY TO THE OTHER. FIGURES 1; 5; AND A2 IN THIS ACFT ARE GOOD EXAMPLES OF HAVING THE SAME TAXIWAY DESIGNATION AT TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ALONG A RUNWAY. THIS DUPLICATION OF A TAXIWAY'S NAME AT MULTIPLE INTERSECTIONS WITH A RUNWAY SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASES THE RISK FOR A MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATC; PILOT; AND/OR GROUND VEHICLE OPERATOR WHEN ENTERING OR CROSSING A RUNWAY. CASE IN POINT: IN FIGURE A2 OF THE ADVISORY CIRCULAR; RUNWAY 9/27 IS SHOWN ALONG WITH PARALLEL TAXIWAY ALPHA. IF THIS FICTITIOUS AIRPORT WERE IN AN EAST FLOW; RUNWAY 9 WOULD BE IN USE. THEN SAY THAT A GROUND VEHICLE ARRIVES AT RUNWAY 9 ON ALPHA TO INSPECT THE RUNWAY AND CALLS LOCAL CONTROL; 'TOWER; PORT 5 IS HOLDING SHORT OF RUNWAY 9 ON TXWY ALPHA REQUESTING TO INSPECT THE RUNWAY.' WHERE WOULD THE TOWER PRESUME THE PORT VEHICLE IS HOLDING? FAA ORDERS JO 7110 DO NOT ADDRESS TERMINOLOGY REQUIREMENTS WHERE AN AIRPORT HAS THIS SORT OF SITUATION. DFW AIRPORT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF PREVENTING DUPLICATE TAXIWAY NAMES AT TAXIWAY/RUNWAY INTERSECTIONS. THIS AIRPORT'S TAXIWAYS WERE RE-DESIGNATED TO AVOID DUPLICATE TAXIWAY DESIGNATIONS AT RUNWAYS; THE SOLE PURPOSE BEING TO LESSEN THE RISK OF A MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATC; PILOT; OR GROUND VEHICLE DRIVER. THIS DESIGN FLAW HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE FAA'S OFFICE OF RUNWAY SAFETY AND SAFETY AND STANDARDS WITH LITTLE RESPONSE. MY RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE FAA TO ISSUE A CERT-ALERT TO AIRPORTS WHERE A TAXIWAY CROSSES A RUNWAY IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPER OPERATIONAL PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE TO AVOID MISCOMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATCT; PILOTS; AND GROUND VEHICLE OPERATORS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.