Taxi Instructions

astrocreep Rookie Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

Ref 3-7-2 (bold areas noted by me)

3-7-2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT
OPERATIONS
Issue the route for the aircraft/vehicle to follow on the
movement area in concise and easy to understand
terms. The taxi clearance shall include the specific
route to follow. When a taxi clearance to a runway is
issued to an aircraft, confirm the aircraft has the
correct runway assignment.

So we have all seen and used the rules about issuing the route when assigning a runway... but when you taxi an aircraft to park, do you have to issue a route? Reference phraseology from 3-7-2 is not consistent with the above reference: (bold example made by me for clarity)

PHRASEOLOGY
HOLD POSITION.
HOLD FOR (reason)
CROSS (runway/taxiway)
or
TAXI/CONTINUE TAXIING/PROCEED/VIA (route),
or
ON (runway number or taxiways, etc.),
or
TO (location),
or
(direction),
or
ACROSS RUNWAY (number).
or
VIA (route), HOLD SHORT OF (location)
or
FOLLOW (traffic) (restrictions as necessary)
or
BEHIND (traffic).


EXAMPLE-
?Cross Runway Two Eight Left.?
?Taxi/continue taxiing/proceed to the hangar.?
?Taxi/continue taxiing/proceed straight ahead then via
ramp to the hangar.?
?Taxi/continue taxiing/proceed on Taxiway Charlie, hold
short of Runway Two Seven.?
or
?Taxi/continue taxiing/proceed on Charlie, hold short of
Runway Two Seven.?


Anyone up for interpretation?

atcguruaf Rico Suave AZ

I say yes. There are times when I don't issue a route though, but that's because either there is no other way to get to the location, or because the aircraft has sort of been issued the route already.

For example, one of our parallel taxiways leads into a non-movement area. LC might tell an aircraft to exit the runway, on to hotel, contact ground.

When the aircraft establishes contact with me and is already taxiing on the taxiway, since there is no other way to enter the ramp area, I will just say taxi to the ramp.

QA has never said anything about it, so I'm guessing it's okay to say it this way. If there is any way that a pilot may make a turn, or be confused as to how I want him/her to get to a certain point, I specify the route. For example, whenever I taxi an aircraft to a runway, I don't say the intersection that leads to the runway.

If Alpha 1 is the approach end of the runway, and I want an aircraft to taxi to full length, I don't say "Taxi to runway 30L via Alpha, Alpha 1" I just say "Taxi to Runway 30L via Alpha" and leave it at that (since Alpha leads the aircraft to the approach end). Given that nothing has ever risen doing it this way, I'm guessing it's fine and approved.

No one has ever complained, nor have any questions risen. So that's the long of it, if it makes any sense. The short:

If the aircraft is already moving, and there is only 1 way for the aircraft to taxi to a specific point, I simply say "taxi to the ramp".

If there is ANY chance of confusion, a turn onto a different taxiway, or there is more than 1 possible route for the aircraft to take, I specify the route.


This is my interpretation only, of course, but I have yet to encounter any problems with it. However, if in doubt, issue the route and you cannot be wrong.

whegner Junior Member

That's basically it if there is no other route or if the common procedure is understood by locally based aircraft you really don't have to issue a detailed route. Detailed route instructions is a fairly recent procedure from when I originally started working.

And, as Guru said you'll never go wrong issuing the route or adding additional detail/reasons that involve safety or positive control for any instructions you issue.

GLF5 Senior Member

Two things to add and hopefully not hijack.

1. What if the aircraft is only required to cross a taxiway to get to parking. They don't really taxi along it, just across it.

2. If aircraft 1 has been given "Taxi to runway 30 via A." Aircraft 2 is instructed to follow Aircraft 1. Do we need to issue a route? I say "Follow, Aircraft 1, taxi to runway 30". I got nitpicked by our nitpick management saying I needed to issue a route as well. WTF is the point? I called BS. Unfortunately there is no documentation to back it up.

Wponcho Junior Member Orlando

As long as the a/c knows who to follow I do it all the time. For me as long as the a/c knows the way to go then you don't need to hold their hand. If they need it, then I give it to them.

GLF5 Senior Member

I was under the impression that we have to give the route to all aircraft all the time regardless if they know the way or not. What you described is how it used to be.

We get smacked on the hand if we don't.

atcguruaf Rico Suave AZ

well, we have yet to be smacked on it. If a/c 1 has a detailed route, and a/c 2 is instructed to follow him and given a runway assignment, then that's legal in my eyes, and QA has yet to say anything about it.

If you're "following the leader" can that not be considered a "detailed route"? Define detailed... if a/c 1 was given the route and you're to follow, it's detailed enough for me.

Wponcho Junior Member Orlando

We all probably know the reason for this... in atc there is no room for common sense. ;-)

astrocreep Rookie Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

This thread was clearly for taxi instructions NOT including a runway assignment. The "detailed route" (or whatever you want to call it now) is clearly defined in the phraseology 3-7-2b:

PHRASEOLOGY
TAXI TO RUNWAY (number) VIA (route).
EXAMPLE-
“Taxi to Runway Three Six via Taxiway Echo.”
or
“Taxi to Runway Three Six via Echo.”

So there's no interpretation there. Your management is only nitpicking because it's a brand new rule that you must follow. You shall issue the route in conjunction with the word VIA. Even if you utilize the phraseology FOLLOW (traffic), you still need to state on your initial taxi instruction the phraseology TAXI TO RUNWAY (number) VIA (route) or that other phraseology when holding instructions are given.

When explaining procedure, get the whole idea out of your mind that involves 'locally based' aircraft and just state rules in general. I know that airports may have the parking immediately adjacent to turnoff taxiway. So in a case like that, would you state "Taxi to the ramp" or "Taxi to the ramp via Alpha"? I'm thinking that whatever follows the word TAXI is an instruction or route which would be in compliance of "The taxi clearance shall include the specific route to follow." However, the example of "Taxi to the ramp" doesn't necessarily include a 'specific route to follow.'

Wponcho Junior Member Orlando

We can all thank the Lexington accident for this.