Air carrier taxiing for departure at cle to runway 24R was given multiple taxi instructions; confusi...

Narrative:

Aircraft was issued taxi instructions which contribute to runway incursion potential. Upon leaving the ramp area in cleveland; we were instructed to 'taxi to 24R for departure; hold short taxiway romeo'. That instruction was clear and we held short of romeo. The next taxi instruction was to taxi to runway 24R via right;B;G;south hold short runway 24L. We were not sure if we were cleared to cross runway 24L but because we were given taxi instructions to runway 24R we thought we might have been cleared to cross. We asked the controller if we were instructed to hold short runway 24L and he said we were. We held short. When we asked the controller why he issued the instructions this way; he responded 'that is the policy; we are required to do it that way'. This 'procedure' is not a good one and could lead pilots down the path of a runway incursion. All that should have been said in the second clearance is 'taxi up to and hold short of runway 24L at romeo'. When given clearance to cross; then issue the full route clearance to runway 24R. Cle has had some issues with runway incursions recently and I suspect that this 'procedure' could have contributed to the problem.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier taxiing for departure at CLE to Runway 24R was given multiple taxi instructions; confusing the flight crew as to Runway 24L crossing clearance; reporter indicating new required ATC taxi phraseology is confusing.

Narrative: Aircraft was issued taxi instructions which contribute to runway incursion potential. Upon leaving the ramp area in Cleveland; we were instructed to 'taxi to 24R for departure; hold short taxiway Romeo'. That instruction was clear and we held short of Romeo. The next taxi instruction was to taxi to runway 24R via R;B;G;S hold short Runway 24L. We were not sure if we were cleared to cross runway 24L but because we were given taxi instructions to runway 24R we THOUGHT we might have been cleared to cross. We asked the controller if we were instructed to hold short runway 24L and he said we were. We held short. When we asked the controller why he issued the instructions this way; he responded 'that is the policy; we are required to do it that way'. This 'procedure' is not a good one and could lead pilots down the path of a runway incursion. All that should have been said in the second clearance is 'Taxi up to and hold short of runway 24L at Romeo'. When given clearance to cross; THEN issue the full route clearance to runway 24R. CLE has had some issues with runway incursions recently and I suspect that this 'procedure' could have contributed to the problem.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	845220
Time
Date	200907
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	CLE.Airport
State Reference	OH
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Light Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Taxi
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 220 Flight Crew Total 14000 Flight Crew Type 3000
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance

Air carrier taxiing for departure at cle to runway 24R was given multiple taxi instructions; confusing the flight crew as to runway 24L crossing clearance; reporter indicating new required ATC taxi phraseology is confusing.